This page includes a summary of comments filed by various entities in the 4th LPFM NPRM and can be used as guidance for the writing of reply comments which are due on May 21, 2012.   This time, we will divide the document by subject matter.  Numbers in parenthesis indicate the paragraph or page numbers where this information is found.

DISCLAIMER: While you may use this as a guide, please actually read the comments of the organization we are paraphrasing as we may not catch everything they had to say or have taken something out of context and reading the full comments may give you some additional insight on their position.  We are not responsible for any omissions or errors in this summary.  This working document is used by REC to develop reply comments, but we read the comments before we reply. The comments reviewed are linked at the bottom so you can do your own review.  If you wish for us to reword our paraphrase of your organization's comments, please contact Michi Eyre at REC through the "Contact REC Networks" link above.

This is a living document that will be updated through the reply comment period.  Please check it often.

A. Third Adjacent Channel

REC: Supports a heavy schedule of announcements for the first 15-days of LPFM operation, a reduced schedule for days 16 through 30 and once per day from days 31 through 365. (6) LPFM should be allowed to co-locate with third adjacent channel stations even if the move would normally require a major change. (9)  The "New Jersey Rule" should not apply to Puerto Rico. (10) Supports the 2/10km Potential Interference Area (PIA) for translator inputs with the ability for LPFM applicants to otherwise show that the translator input will not receive interference. (14)
Amherst: "New Jersey Rule" only applies to NJ and not to PR. (17)
Arso: "New Jersey Rule" also applies to PR (3).
CF: FCC should require FX stations to upgrade their primary station information. (12)
Friend: Allow LPFM to get waiver from 3rd-adjacent station from announcement obligations. (3)
Monster: Use existing translator processes for remediation. (3)
PRP: 7(1) and 7(3) are distinct interference protection and remediation regimes.  (23) For translator inputs, information in CDBS is not complete and there should be alternative methods. (25)
Sibert: Announcements no more than once a day in the first 3 months and once per week for the last 9 months. Translators in the PIA should be allowed but have a condition they must mitigate interference in the first year of operation. LPFM over 10km from the transmitter should submit an exhibit stating compliance with the MITRE report or "that proposed in the FNPRM". (3)
Turner: Announcement and complaint process is "Russian roulette" for LPFM stations. (1)
WIBI: Proposed translator input protections are acceptable and should also include daisy-chained translators. (1) Supports alternate delivery of primary station. (1)
WSWO-LP: LCRA 7(1) and 7(3) contain conflicting direction. Prefers a single standard for all stations. (1) If the FCC adheres strictly to 74.1203, then announcements are not required. (2.1.2.2)  "New Jersey Rule" does not apply to PR. (2.1.2.4)

B. Second Adjacent Channel

REC: Congress has delegated to the FCC the authority to define "interference". (18) Since LPFM originates programming, the Living Way policy of no interference in an overlap area should not apply to LPFM but instead, the minimal population overlap in Education Information Corporation should be used. (19) Expresses concerns about the welfare of current LP100 stations on waivers in light of a statuatory examination of the definition of interference. (22) Applicants should be able to request second-adjacent waiver channel even if fully spaced channels are available. (16)
CF: Living Way should apply to LPFM. (2) Showing that there are no fully spaced channels should not be required. (3)
CMAP: Supports second adjacnet channel waivers. Directional antennas should be allowed. Allows more proposals to be approved without interference. (1)
dLR: LPFM should not be allowed to operate directional antennas. (4)
EMF: Expresses concern that many LPFM stations on 2nd-waivers may be forced to go off the air in the future and the investment made in those stations will go out the door.  EMF suggests the Commission take a "slow" approach to 2nd-waivers and to have LPFMs service the full power stations they plan to waiver on. 
Friend: Use NCE to Channel 6 standards for overlap that allows population. (1)
NAB: LCRA generally prohibits LPFM operations on second adjacent channels and they should only be available on a limited basis. (5) Degrades audio quality. (7)
NLG: Process should be similar to translator proecess. (5)
NPR: Waivers should only be considered if there are no fully spaced channels. (9)
PRP: Need a simple but flexible standard. (17) LPFM 2nd Waiver standard should be substantially identifical to translators. (17) LCRA allows contours for second adjacent in waiver cases. (18) Waiver applicants should not be required to make any showings other than 2nd adjacent channel non-interference. (19) LPFM should have flexibility to use directional antennas a variable power for addressing interference. (20)
Sibert: LPFM applicants should be allowed to demonstrate no actual interference will result to second-adjacent channel stations such as translators do today. (1) Interference does not discriminate based on licensed service or programming. (1) Directional antennas should be allowed with provisions similar to §74.1235. (1) Cost of directional antennas may limit those with the resources to use them. (1) Applicants should be able to request second-adjacent waiver channel even if fully spaced channels are available. (2)
Turner: Supports waivers. LPFM is disadvantaged. (2)
WNKR: 74.1204(d) does not comply with the LCRA as it does not take into consideration that population may eventually move into the area (1).
WSWO-LP: Standard should still account for balancing interference with loss of community service. (2.1.1)

C. Interference Mitigation

REC: LPFM should not be dumbed down because of inferior receivers and antennas in radios. (24)
Alpine: Limit interference complaints to the 60dBu service contour of the primary station. (2)
Monster: Use existing translator processes for remediation. (4)
PRP: Second adjacent channel waiver complaints should be handled similar to translators. (22)
Sibert: The FCC should set a heavy burden for those complaining of interference.  Too low of a bar would financially ruin LPFM stations. (2)
WNKR: Because of identity theft, listeners may be unwilling to give information necessary to facilitate an interference complaint. (1)

D. LP-10 and below...

REC: LP10 is spectrally inefficient.  (26) Proposed to replace with LP50. (29)
Amherst: Opposes only licensing LP100 in urban core areas. (10)
Braulick: LP10 is less restrictive than LP100. (3)
CF: LP10 is viable and may be only option for places like NYC, but it should be modified. (13)
CMAP: LP10 should be replaced and replaced with a flexible power (1 watt or more) service. (5)
CRA: Supports elimination of LP10.
dLR: LP10 is spectrally inefficent. (4)
Friend: Establish a 10 watt minimum. There is not enough power density for a 2 watt station. (2)
IBS: Supports retention of LP10.
JCPES: Supports retaining LP10 or other flexible "sub-watt" service. (4)
Leggett: Eliminating LP10 may be seen as discrimination against minority neighborhoods and could be litigated (2).
Monster: Simplify by allowing LPFM to use contour methodology from 1 to 250 watts. (2)
Nexus: LP10 has not received a fair chance but REC's LP50 is a better solution. (2)
NJBA: LP10 interference area almost 2000% larger with respect to Class B. Supports the elimination of LP10. (2)
NLG: Opposes elimination of LP10. (6)
Sibert: Supports keeping LP10. (4)
WNKR: Supports keeping LP10. (2)
WSWO-LP: Eliminate LP10, replace with "hobby broadcasting" service. (2.2.1) 

E. LP-50

REC: Proposed new LP50 service to replace LP10. (29) LP50 would be available nationwide and will not have the "subsecondary" restrictions that LP10 currently has such as being able to be "bumped" by LP100 and translators. (32)
Amherst: Supports LP50 or LP10 in urban core areas with a 1 watt minimum. If the FCC only wants to authorize one class within urban core, it should be LP50 or less. (10)
CF: Supports REC proposed LP50. (15)
NLG: Supports LP50 or flexible power levels. (6)
PRP: Supports REC proposed LP50. (26)  1 watt minimum.  (28) LPFM in urban areas can reach audiences larger than today's LP100 stations. (29)

F. LP-250

REC: LP250 should be available to new entrants, not just upgrades of existing stations. (35) Power upgrades from LP100 to LP250 should be considered a minor change as long as all other requirements of minor changes are met.  With this, LP100 stations should be permitted to upgrade to 250 before the filing winodw. (36) Opposes complete market restriction of LP250 (39).  LP250 should not be initally allowed in metro cores (30km of markets 1~20, 20km of SL mkts 21~50, REC does NOT support the restrictions on SL markets 51-100 (40)) but once applications have been filed, if a LP50/100 applicant can upgrade to 250 without creating new MX situations and other LPFM stations can also upgrade. (41)
Amherst: Supports LP250 except in urban core. Upgrading LP100s should be given a bonus point. (12)
Braulick: Supports LP250. (2)  Should not be limited to just existing stations. (2)
Brown: Supports LP250 but at 52m HAAT. (1)  LP250 should be available everywhere. (5)
CF: LP250 should be available everywhere but only after initial licensing at LP100. (16)  No applicant should be permitted to file LP250 in the window. (18)  Class changes should be minor changes. (18)
CRA: Supports LP250 outside urban core (7).
Dymoke: Exsting LP100 should be able to upgrade to 250 if spectrum available. New stations will be licensed as 100 but protected to 250.  After a 2-year "shakedown cruise", the station can then upgrade to 250. (2)
Friend: Supports LP250 in urban core. "Build and operate" statements are a regulatory departure. (1)
JCPES: Supports LP250 in urban and rural. (4)
KWMV-LP: Supports LP250. (1)
LPFMhelp: Supports 250 to 500 watts. (2)
Monster: Supports LP250. (1)
Nexus: Supports LP250 at 100m HAAT.  Supports contour spacing between LPFMs with a single class of service between 1 to 250 watts. (2)
NLG: Supports rural LP250 service. LP250 should not "crowd out" LP100. Supports FCC's market-wide proposal. (7)
NPR: Opposes LP250, claims violates LCRA legislative history. (7)  Class-A already allows 250 watt stations. (7)
PRP: Supports LP250. (30) Upgrades of existing stations should not take place until after the filing window. (30)  During window, applicants in urban core should file for 100 and then upgrade to 250 as minor mod. (32) Upgrades limited to where both LPFM stations could potentially upgrade. (32)  Does not support restricting upgrades to existing LP100 stations. (33)  Stations on second adjacent channel waivers should be allowed to upgrade. (34)
Sibert: Supports LP250 including urban core. LP250 should be allowed at 100m HAAT. It will not undermine LCRA section 3.
Turner: Supports LP250. Should equate to translator standards. (1)  Supports 250 ERP and any power and antenna height "up to the maximum that covers the 'hole' for LPFM". (3)
WNKR: Opposes LP250. "At what point does this service cease to be 'low power'?" (2). 
WQIN-LP: Supports LP250.
WSWO-LP: Supports LP250 but urban core restriction may prevent them from upgrading. (2.2.1)

G. Intermediate Frequency (IF)

REC: Supports changing the rules for LPFM and translators to define the waiver for IF to change from "less than 100 watts" to "100 watts or less". (42)
Braulick: "LPFM stations are no less needy of maximizing their coverage and should no be straddled by restrictions that do not apply to like kind services." (3)
CF: Supports removal of IF (19)
CRA: Supports the removal of IF (10).
dLR: It may be possible that IF protections are no longer required for up to 250 watts. Additional research should be done. (5)
Monster: Supports removal of IF restrictions. (2)
Nexus: IF should have been "removed from the rules long ago." (2)
NLG: Supports changing the rules for LPFM to define the waiver for IF to change from "less than 100 watts" to "100 watts or less" otherwise, only LP10 would benefit. (9)
NPR: Opposes removal of IF restrictions.  Further studies on the impacts of translators operating with the exemption should be done first. (8)
PRP: Supports changing the rules for LPFM to define the waiver for IF to change from "less than 100 watts" to "100 watts or less". (34)
Sibert: Supports removing IF for LP10 and LP100.  IF should be extended to stations operating "up to" 100 watts. (5)
WSWO-LP: Supports removal of IF protections. (2.2.2)
 

H. Native Nations (Cross-ownership & multiple ownership)

REC: Supports cross-ownership (44) and multiple-ownership(47)  when the proposed station has at least 50% of the land area of the service contour within tribal land consistent with FCC Tribal Priority policy.  Supports a selection point for Native Nations that are using LPFM as their introduction to broadcasting. (78)
Amherst: Suports multiple-ownership and cross-ownership of translators. (15)
CF: Supports tribal ownership of LPFM and Tribal Priority. (20) Cross-ownership should prove that LPFM station will serve a majority tribal (assuming vs.non-tribal) population. (20)  Supports multiple ownership. (20)  Points should be limited to proposals in tribal areas. (21)
CRA: Supports cross-ownership for not just Native Nations but all organizations. (12)  Supports multiple-ownership for Native Nations. (13)
Monster: Native Nations should be afforded every right to LPFM allocations. (3)
NLG: Supports multiple-ownership on Native Lands. (9)
NPM: Amend §73.853 to "recognize the intrinsitically 'local' nature of a Tribal applicant throughout its Tribal Lands."  Concerned about "local ownership" requirements for Tribal applicants since it is more likely they will be 20 miles away from the transmitter. (5) Supports tribal priority (points) based on "Tribal Coverage" and not service to a Native Nation "Community" and not require transmitter to be on Tribal Lands. (6) Supports relaxing multiple and cross ownership. (7)
PRP: Supports tribal priority in LPFM. (47)
Sibert: Opposes Tribal Priority.  Keeps the playing field level.  Tribal applicants should be able to place a major change application to resolve MX. (5)
Turner: Opposes multiple-ownership, "why create discrimination for the sake of giving one racial entity an upper hand over the other[?]" (2)

I. LPFM Cross-ownership of Translators

REC: Supports limited availability of cross-owned translators. (48)  Translators must relay the LPFM's primary analog signal. (50) Service contour of LPFM and translator must overlap. (51) Alternate forms of transmision (except satellite) should be permitted. (52) Cross-owned translators limited to a 7.3km service contour nationwide. (51)
Amherst: Supports cross-ownership "in general". (15)
Braulick: Supports cross-ownership.
CF: No preference but does not want promote the building of LPFM-centered translator networks. (20)
Friend: Supports cross-ownership. Should be limited to same SMSA or within 50 km of primary station. Translators may be hard to obtain and may need a "protected" window. (2)
LPFMhelp: Supports cross-ownership. (1)
Monster: Supports cross-ownership. (3)
Nexus: Supports cross-ownership. (2)
NLG: Supports cross-ownership, translator must carry LPFM signal, contours must overlap with LPFM, limited to one translator and no satellite fed. (9)
NPR: Cross-ownership undermines the local nature of LPFM. (15)
PRP: Supports limited cross-ownership. (48) Limited to one or two stations. (48)  Service contour overlap. (48)  Primary station must be LPFM. (48)  Opposes alternative delivery due to potential for abuse. (48)
Sibert: Opposes translators but would support the use of (same frequency) boosters. (5)
Turner: Supports cross-ownerhip. (2)
WNKR: Opposes. Translators not required to provide city grade service, no requirement that a translator applicant document there is an area that actually needs filling in, no interference documentation other than contour overlap needed for a CP, translators allowed to operate with power exceeding LPFM. (2)  Concerned about leap-frogging, making the LPFM the weakest link, carrying HD-2 and the local nature of LPFM replaced by a mini-network of translators (2).
WSWO-LP: Supports but translators should be allowed to originate at times. Alternative delivery should be allwoed. (2.2.2.3)

J. Consortia, Point Aggregation, Successive Licensing

REC: Does not support.  Will lead to speculation and fraud as in the previous window. (56) Also, it can be used as a discriminatory method to silence already-oppressed voices by majority applicants with more influence and resources. (57) Supports the elimination of point aggregation, partial settlements and successive licensing. (113)
Amherst: Opposes consortia. (13)
Braulick: Consortia should not receive additional points, it's still one station. (4)
Brown: Partial settlements should be allowed. (7)
BSR: Supports elimination of point aggregation (1).
CF: Opposes consortia. (22)  Has discrimination concerns. (23)
CMAP: Opposes successive licensing. (6)
NLG: Supports consortia and point aggregation. (8)
PRP: Opposes consortia. (53)  Consortium shuts out non-particpating applicants and applicants competing against a consortium will likely lose out. (54)
Sibert: Opposes consortia. Prone to abuse. (6)

K. Point System, Local Programming, Community Presence, Local Ownership

REC: Recommends a 9-point comparative system which includes local community presence (20 miles urban/rural) (59), local programming (20 hours per week) (61), public safety (with new requirements certifying government part 90 eligible or endorsement from a government part 90 eligible) (63), radio training programs (student stations) (66), children's radio programming (68), main studio staff presence (71), voluntary public file (74), Native Nation introduction into broadcasting (78) and public access broadcasting (like public access TV) (80). A "trigger point" will be used if the applicant is willing to accept an involuntary time share agreement. (84) If tied in points, longest community presence dates will prevail. (94)
Amherst: Oppose raising community presence to 4 years. (12) Feels LPFM (and translators) can ramp up local programming from 2 hours to 8 hours a day over a two year preriod. (3) Rural areas should not be exempt from any local programming requirements. (3) LPFM (and translators) carrying local programming should be able to "bump" LPFM (and translators) that are not. (3) Supports extending board member residency from 10 to 20 miles in rural areas. (4)
Braulick: LPFM applicants should be local but an exception should be made "where the applicant certifies to the FCC under oath that it is their intention to move to the community and become a permanent resident of the community." (3)
CF: 2 year community presence. (21)  Do not award extra points for longer presence. (22)  Extend boards to 20 miles in all areas. (22)  Point for local programming. (23)  Points for main studio and public access. (26)
CMAP: Local DJs between songs constitutes local programming.  Stations should publish lists of their local programs. (5)
CRA: Should be community based after licensing. (11)  Does not appear to support more points for longer community presence. (14)   Community presence is more dubious than local programming. (16)
Friend: FCC should discourage applicants who don't broadcast local programming or timeshift programming. (2)
JCPES: Retain two year established community presence and award additional points to those who surpass that requirement. (5)  More points for local programming. (6)
LPFMhelp: Organizations should be formed just for broadcasting. (2) LPFMs should file reports with the FCC to show they are in compliance with each pledge they make. (2)
Monster: Supports extending to 20 miles for applicant to be based. (2)  Keep point system as is. (3)
Nexus: Supports extending board members to 20 miles. (2)
NLG: Community presence should be kept at 2 years or reduced to 1 year. (7) Adopt a local programming requirement. (8)
PRP: Local programming should be required. (35) Supports 20 hours a week of local programming. (44) LCRA 5(2) should be read as a localism mandate. (36) Without an obligation, many will fail to conform to the FCC's expectation that they will offer local programming. (41) Eliminate the 12-hour a day point. (55) FCC should prioritize some points over others. (43) FCC needs to tightly define "local programming". (45) LPFM stations websites should have schedules that denote local programming. (46) "One person operation" stations should be discouraged. (46)  LPFM stations have 6-months of ramp-up to comply with local programming. (46)  Stations must remain local. (47)  Points for local news and staff presence and offers a "tiered" evalulation alternate proposal. (50) Retain community presence and local origination point if no requirement is adopted. (50)  Retain 2-year community presence and extend board members to 20 miles in urban and rural areas. (51)  A multi-stage "waterfall" criteria-evaluation system should be implemented. (61)
Sibert: Local origination is poorly defined and points should not be awarded.
Turner: Local is local. (2)
WNKR: LPFM stations could be easily programmed out of an Ipod. Would that be local programming? (3)
WSWO-LP: Must remain a local owner after receiving the license (2.2.3.1, also 2.2.4.1.1)  Local programming should be a "bulk" of the day (2.2.4.1.2)

L. Time Sharing, Operation Schedule

REC: Developed an involuntary time share system where if no full settlement can be reached, the top 2 or 3 applicants (based on establish dates) will share a channel for an equal number of hours. (90)  Processes are in place if a time share station "drops out".  (101) Process varies based on if the stations claimed the involuntary time share "trigger point". (103-106)
CF: Online system to handle settlements. (27)
CMAP: Supports involuntary time share where each proponent would be assigned an equal amount of hours per week. (*6)
CRA: Time sharing is not an attractive outcome and should be avoided. (17)
WSWO-LP: Eligibility should go first to unsuccessful MX members who express interest in remaining eligible if time share is required including going to lower scoring applicants. (2.2.4.2)  There should be no reason why an LPFM station can't broadcast 12 hours a day. (2.2.5)

M. Other Issues

Channel 200 (87.9) / "J-Band" (76~88 MHz)

Friend: Allow Channel 200 (2).

Filing Windows

CF: Initial short form (5).
CMAP: Supports REC's proposed 2-window process.  Applications should be kept private until after the second window has concluded in the event of MX between the two windows.  Filing freezes for LPFM and Translators should be extended to cover both windows.  Windows should be announced with 6-months advance notice. (2)
PRP: Short form/long form filing process with technical details deferred until tentative selectee chosen. (9) Give 6-9 months from final rules to window. (13) Supports REC's proposed 2-window process. (15)

Foreign Stations

CF: Stations near border should be able to use contours to comply with international agreement since foreign stations are not covered by LCRA. (19)

Ownership

LTR: Section 73.858(b) should be deleted pertaining to local chapters of a larger organization that may have attributable interests.  Citing Montmorenci United Methodist Church.

Student Operated LPFM Stations / Webcasting / Part 15

REC: Supports lifting the rule requiring student LPFM stations (where the university has a broadcast license for another AM or FM station) to be dismissed if there are competing applications. (53)
Amherst: Revisiting licensing eligbility criteria to make it easier for experienced Part 15 operators, internet radio and carrier current stations to compete with other LPFM applicants. (13)
CF: Supports lifting of student station restriction. (24)

Translators

Amherst: Translators should be permitted to provide local programming for 2 hours a day ramping up to 8 hours a day.  Translators should be capped in urban areas at the maximum allowed for LPFM. (3)
dLR: Advocates adding a new "tier" of translator protections (similar to REC's subclass) to cover translators with service contours that exceed 21km.  Also supports extending the "buffer zone" to translators. (2)

Transmission Systems

NLG: A seperate rulemaking should remove the transmitter certificaton requirement.

TV Channel 6 Protections

Friend: Protect "legit" TV 6 stations and not those that are "illegally operated FM stations". (3)

Key to Commenters:

REC: REC Networks
Alpine: Alpine Broadcast Corporation
Amherst: The Amherst Alliance
Arso: Arso Radio Corporation
Braulick: Justin M. Braulick
Brown: Brown Broadcast Services
BSR: Brown Student Radio
CF: Common Frequency
CMAP: Community Media Assistance Project
CRA: Catholic Radio Assocation.
dLR: du Treil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc. Consulting Engineers
Dymoke: Wesli Annemarie Dymoke and Don Schellhardt, Esquire
EMF: Educational Media Foundation
Friend: Mike Friend
IBS: Intercollegiate Broadcasting System
JCPES: Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.
KWMV-LP: Wet Mountain Broadcasting Corp.
Leggett: Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
LPFMhelp: LPFMhelp.com / E. Anderson
LTR: LifeTalk Radio (Seventh Day Adventist Church)
Monster: MonsterFM.com / LPFMradio.com / Broadcast Technical Services
Nexus: Nexus Broadacst (also Conexus.fm)
NJBA: New Jersey Broadcasters Association
NLG: National Lawyers Guild Committee on Democratic Communications and Media Alliance.
NPM: Native Public Media & National Congress of American Indians
NPR: National Public Radio
PRP: Prometheus Radio Project
Sibert: Jeff Sibert
Turner: Bill Turner
WIBI: Western Inpsirational Broadcasters, Inc.
WNKR: Grant County Broadcasters, Inc.
WQIN-LP: 3 Angels Broadcasting Messengers
WSWO-LP: Southwestern Ohio Public Radio