WPC- 2J BNLZTimes Roman3|f'#f\  PCx&P#"S^2CRddCCCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`lC2CC!CCCCCCCCCCd8YYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddodYYYYYYdzYzYzYzYdddddddCdCdCCCdNCdz8zCzCzCz8dddddCCCoNoNoNoNzCzCzCdddddzYzYNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<$YYdCCddooCYd<d<$YYdCCddooCYd<d<+oodCCddddCoa݅@  I.   X(# 2-"*#^,+$d+%+SubheadingSubheading"0\ E A.  FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance#PHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd$+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date% X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟ20&5-'X-(1%.)1V/DRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off&@@    HEADERHeader A - Appearance'LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5( 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5)f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   23*10+11,n3-X3LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11*L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14+ 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a Document,K\ * ăFOOTERFooter A - Appearanced-25.4/i40d41ja5BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented.N X HEADING 33rd Heading Level/| XHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large0B*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored1 V -q2;253E84-a958:LETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins2u H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice3 ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format4D.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice5:A ,p, $0$002?68;70=8X>9[)?INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro6z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice7+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle8SMALLSmall Typestyle92"A:[?;[@<[l@=[@FINEFine Typestyle:LARGELarge Typestyle;EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle<VERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle=2D>TA?B@VCACENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header>+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   footnote tex#?']#d6X@C@#a11I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')@8ij@   a21I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')AAkl@` `  ` ` ` 2{GBDCYEDFEFa31I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')BJmn` ` @  ` `  a41I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')CSop` `  @  a51I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')D\qr` `  @hh# hhh a61I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Eest` `  hh#@( hh# 2lJFGGuHHFIIqIa71I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Fnuv` `  hh#(@- ( a81I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Gwwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp Chapter?I@6HChapter Heading=(')8?I *')'0 ?I.EH9y z ` CHAPTER 3  Report Body@6HMain Text of Report8?I *')'0 ?I.EI{|  2yLJcJKdKLeKMm L1, 2, 3,teNumbersotation"H('0\F H rW?I J 1.A, B,3,teUppercase LettersH('0\F H rW?I K .TitleNotesTitle Page NotesH('0\F H rW?I L''#Z*f9 x$X# #Z*f9 x%X#NotesTrianglee NotesH('0\F H rW?I M2NNLOvMPpNQqxNWorks CitedWorks Cited PageH('0\F H rW?I N99         Page TitlePage Title PageH('0\F H rW?I O#  `  Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gP` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gQ  . 2PReOSeOTOUpxPDocument[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gR  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gS  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gT*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gU  ` ` ` 2SVQWQXGRYRRight Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gV8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gWA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gX0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gYJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` 2VZS[_T\U]URight Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gZS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g[\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g\e` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g]n` ` `  hhh@  2cY^V_W`YXaXRight Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g^w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g_F    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g`&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O ga&#$  . 2 \bYc1ZdZeZ[Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gb*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gc''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gd&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O ge4+$,     2Ojf<\g\hv F]iiTechnical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gf&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gg&/0  . MACNormalh;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#referencei;#FxX  Pg9CXP#26oj~jkikl hmmunitemizeX1j&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2kI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FilelW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentmiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2qnehooooplv\lҊ>toatoa~` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaption _Equation Caption1_Equation Caption1 a12:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O8mn@   2Aa22:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OAop@` `  ` ` ` a32:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OJqr` ` @  ` `  a42:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OSst` `  @  a52:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O\uv` `  @hh# hhh 2֎]b.a62:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Oewx` `  hh#@( hh# a72:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Onyz` `  hh#(@- ( a82:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Ow{|` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp  2l‘.(L$tSMALL s†NSMALL s†NORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC ӆNORMAL¤ TNORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmpЋ` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#bly remains several bly remains several years \softline \softlheight276 awa` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (# Technical 4¸ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2$ʘl jxTechnical 4Technical 4` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#T 2 Ҷ TechnicaT 2 Ҷ Technical 7Ҳ Right Par 7z INV` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#ОC:\mw3022.tmpC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\C :\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMP` hp x (#` hp x (## P7P# 2ڥlރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOCރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: ~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#: , : , ,0` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2Ҭ *Hlf ,  , ,0` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#:\mw3024.tmpt :\mw3024.tmpt C:\WINDOWS\MSAPPS\TEXTCONV\RTF_W` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#wwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbwwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbbbwwwwbwwwwbwwwwbwbwwwbwbb` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#,,0kjH 2B2ҭpҰDefault Para,6%Default Paragraph FontO7V -*g4çFM7VE;1;2#Xx6X@QX@##d6X@Q@#toa heading,6%toa heading4=(g4O7V 9*g4çFM7VEIJ!(# ` hp x (#_Equation Ca,6%_Equation Captiong4O7V ;*g4çFM7VE;M;N#Xx6X@QX@##d6X@Q@#2XwE~wKRn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@RH*G>FwE~wK\Emn` ` ` 2BqteeJ3XwE~wKSn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@SH*G>FwE~wK\Eo p . 4XwE~wKTn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@TH*G>FwE~wK\E qr 5XwE~wKUn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@UH*G>FwE~wK\E st 6XwE~wKVn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@VH*G>FwE~wK\E*uv   2ptv7XwE~wKWn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@WH*G>FwE~wK\Ewx` ` ` 8XwE~wKXn6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\E8yz@   9XwE~wKYn6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EA{|@` `  ` ` ` 10wE~wKZn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@ZH*G>FwE~wK\E0} ~    2ص|)߷11wE~wK[n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EJ` ` @  ` `  12wE~wK\n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\ES` `  @  13wE~wK]n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\E\` `  @hh# hhh 14wE~wK^n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2иi#15wE~wK_n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\En` `  hh#(@- ( 16wE~wK`n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 17wE~wKan6bDocument Style=(G>wK@aH*G>FwE~wK\EF D*  ׃  18wE~wKbn6bTechnical Document StylewK@bH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . 2$ڻ_19wE~wKcn6bTechnical Document StylewK@cH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . 20wE~wKdn6bTechnical Document StylewK@dH*G>FwE~wK\E*    21wE~wKen6bTechnical Document StylewK@eH*G>FwE~wK\E'   22wE~wKfn6bTechnical Document StylewK@fH*G>FwE~wK\E&   2V23wE~wKgn6bTechnical Document StylewK@gH*G>FwE~wK\E4$     24wE~wKhn6bTechnical Document StylewK@hH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . 25wE~wKin6bTechnical Document StylewK@iH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . Format Downln6bFormat Downloaded DocumentK@uH*G>FwE~wK\EU XX    X\ #d6X@7@#2ma127\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>F8@   a227\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FA@` `  ` ` ` a327\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FJ` ` @  ` `  a427\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FS` `  @  2Ua527\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>F\` `  @hh# hhh a627\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fe` `  hh#@( hh# a727\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fn` `  hh#(@- ( a827\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2rQrvUa2Agendaa1AgendaAgenda Items7D yP ) I. a3Agendaheading 4heading 4 2vvsvv_heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 heading 8heading 8 2v}}yendnote textendnote text head1 #'d#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf/` ` ` 23d a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfE` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfP  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf[   2p|a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrff  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfq 1t >.x(Dt—Document Style >f.RK+P—!t >f—+b56` ` ` Word222Null(Dt—Word222Null( >fWRK+P—!t >f—+b1{1|#/x PX##/x PX#2wrvNORMAL INDENDt—7!wB( >f`RK+P—!t >f—+b'4 <DL!T$#&n P&P##&n P&P#enumlev1x(Dt—7!wB( >faRK+P—!t >f—+b$p  N hp x (#aa#&n P&P#4` hp x (##&n P&P#footnote refDt—footnote reference >fbRK+P—!t >f—+b>#V\  P UP#page number(Dt—page number( >feRK+P—!t >f—+b2'K26 >fx(Dt—footnote text >ffRK+P—!t >f—+b* ??USlist>gx(Dt—list7!wB( >fgRK+P—!t >f—+b*??endnote refeDt—endnote reference >fhRK+P—!t >f—+b>>#XO\  P!UXP##c P"7P#line number(Dt—line number( >fjRK+P—!t >f—+b;;#XO\  P#UXP##c P$7P#2kHighlightx(Dt—Middle Article HighlightlRK+P—!t >f—+b''#G x}'Y##\9> (P(YP#Headlinex(Dt—Headline for newsletterfoRK+P—!t >f—+b''#> p})Y##\9> (P*YP#2nd line HeaDt—2nd line headline >fqRK+P—!t >f—+b''#b> p}+Y##\9> (P,YP#Graphics heaDt—Headlines for graphics>frRK+P—!t >f—+b** #o> P}-YP##\9> (P.YP# 2G=Graphics bodDt—chart data ( >ftRK+P—!t >f—+b** #Alo> P}/YXP##\9> (P0YP# Article headDt—Headline for new articlevRK+P—!t >f—+b*'#r"zp1C# #\9> (P2YP# 27 >x(Dt—Default Paragraph Font>fRK+P—!t >f—+bOO#X}xP97XP##&sxP:7&P#HEADING 9x(Dt— 7!wB( >fRK+P—!t >f—+b'34 <DL!T$#c P;7P##c P<7P#2!Pa129f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P8@   a229f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PA@` `  ` ` ` a329f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PJ` ` @  ` `  a429f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PS` `  @  2La529f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P\` `  @hh# hhh a629f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pe` `  hh#@( hh# a729f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pn` `  hh#(@- ( a829f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2SNORMAL INDENT ' 4 <DL!T$#&n P&P##&n P&P#Style 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2lp |Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5$ )^ `> XifQ 2-F&Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advanced U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2 _fkd Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediate )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Module )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Bld/UnderlieBold and Underline Text/  2  2 <N 5Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FP  SMALL:@6MSMALL;% =(%L:h *%o-.:.ENORMAL:@6MNORMAL;% =(%L:h *%o-.:.EX` P hp x (#` hp x (#bly remains @6Mbly remains several years \softline \softlheight276 awX` hp x (#` hp x (#28LL@L Technical@6M Technical 4% =(%L:h *%o-.:.EX` hp x (# ` hp x (#"S^.=K\\===\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc=.============\3QQQQQzzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\f\QQzQzQzQzQ\pQpQpQpQ\\\\\\\=\=\===\G=\p3p=p=p=p3\\\\\z=z=z=fGfGfGfGp=p=p=\\\\\pQpQN@.S\=Q\\\\\39\7\7!QQ\==\\ff=Q7tggeeggoo.Ig2[-Kye1pe~e\e~"S^.=f\\===\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=k\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_=.============f3\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\QQQQfzQzQzQzQ\\\\\ffGfGfG=Gf\=fz3z=z=z=z3fff\\QQQfGfGfGfGz=z=z=ffff\zQzQN@.c\=\\\\\\7=\7\73\\\==\\ff=\7tiieeiioo.Ii2[-Kye1pe~efe~"S^.=M\\===\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic=.============\3p\p\p\p\p\zzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQp\\\\fQ\p\p\p\zQzQzQzQ\pQpQpQpQ\\\\\\\=\=\===\Q=zQf3f=f=f=f3z\z\z\\\zpGpGpG\G\G\G\Gf=f=f=\\\\zfQfGfGN@.`\G\\\\\\39\7\7'ff\==\\\\=f7t||ee||oo.I|2[-Kye1pe~e\e~2:"L  LVLL"S^%-77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%n%%%%%%%%%%7O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O1O1I1I1I1I1O7C1C1C1C1O7O7O7O7O7O7O7%7%7%%%7+%O7CC%C%C%CO7O7O7O7O7bOI%I%I%=+=+=+=+C%C%C%O7O7O7O7hOO7C1C1N'27%177777"SS7!TT7S!117n%%77l==n%1n!t>><<>>mBBs,>[N6-msTN[TTTH_<1CPFuX  Pg9CXPy.a8* ta4  p(AC<I7!W 7*f9 xC,X"S^!*22SN!!!2D!2222222222!!DDD2\==CH==HH!,C8SCH=H=28H=S=88''*2!22,2,22,H2222''2,C,,'((6!!!Y!!!!!!!!!!2=2=2=2=2=2YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!C2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H28,=2H2H2H28,H2=2=2=2C,C,C,C,H2=,=,=,=,H2H2H2H2H2H2H2!2!2!!!2,!C,88!8!8!8C2C2C2H2H2^C='='='2'2'2'2'8!8!8!H2H2H2H2SC8,8'8'N#42'222222KK2LL2K882Y!!22b22Y!8dtDD77DDc<Washington, D.C. 20554 ă #&J\  P6Qx&P#) ) ) ) In the Matter of) )  S-1998 Biennial Regulatory Review hhC)MM Docket No. 9893  S-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in) Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules) ) ) ) ) )  S-   NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING  S-` AND ORDER  S-\  S8-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:ԍSee Review of Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast Service, Notice of Inquiry. 2 FCC Rcd 5014 (1987). Fourteen commenters addressed the question of negotiated interference  d(# rights. Of these, nine opposed the concept, expressing concern that such an approach would lead to  S<- d(#]further degradation of the AM service, contrary to the stated intent of the Notice of Inquiry. Five"< ,l(l(,,-"  d(#commenters favored permitting private interference negotiations, stating, among other reasons, that this  d(#policy: (1) would make it possible for some licensees to reduce interference received within their protected  d(#jservice contours; (2) would be particularly helpful where "grandfathered interference rights" have created  d(#a level of interference beyond that permitted by the agency's protection standards; and (3) could facilitate  d(#new service to underserved areas if the Commission would accept increased interference to other areas. Ultimately, the Commission declined to adopt policies to permit agreement to increase interference.  S- A 6.` ` This proceeding eventually led to the adoption of various policies to promote interference  Sh- d(#reduction strategies in the AM band.hp {O- v MԍPolicies to Encourage Interference Reduction Between AM Broadcast Stations, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 4492 (1990). The Commission modified the contingent application rule to permit  S5- d(#the processing of related applications filed pursuant to interference reduction agreements 5"p {O - v zԍSee 47 C.F.R.  73.3517(c). As explained in para. 11, infra, the contingent application rule prohibits the filing of an application that cannot be granted until a second, pending application is granted. and its AM  d(#processing rules to narrowly limit the filing of competing, mutually exclusive proposals. The Commission  d(#also endorsed procedures to permit the deletion of interfering AM facilities provided that an adequate service floor would be maintained in the community losing a local transmission service.  S6 - 7.` ` The Commission's treatment of interference agreements between FM stations is similar.  d(#.In 1991, the Commission again found that the "selection of interference standards is properly a function  d(#of the Commission" and that voluntary acceptance of interference could preclude future changes by the  S - d(#affected station(s).  |p {O- v ԍ See Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules to Permit ShortSpaced FM Station Assignments by  {O-Using Directional Antennas, 6 FCC Rcd 5356, 5362 (1991). In response to an application for a new NCE FM station in Chicago, Illinois, the  Sj- d(#Commission concluded that applicants should not be allowed to negotiate interference.k jp {O-ԍOpen Media Corporation, 8 FCC Rcd 4070, 4071 (1993).k Similarly, the  S7- d(#Commission reiterated in Board of Education of the City of Atlanta (WABEFM) its concern that  d(#negotiated interference agreements could undermine Section 307(b) of the Communications Act by  S-compromising service to rural areas and permitting the inefficient use of the spectrum.  j p {O- v ԍ11 FCC Rcd at 776667; see also Educational Information Corporation,WCPE (FM), 12 FCC Rcd at 6920 yO-#]\  PCP#21.#]\  PCP#      Sl- R8.` ` Nonetheless, the Commission has, in certain circumstances, recognized the value of  d(#kpermitting FM broadcasters to resolve interference issues among themselves and amended its rules to  S- d(#facilitate implementation of such agreements. Prior to the recent adoption of a Report and Order that  S- d(#eliminated the requirement to obtain the consent of the affected station,  p {O8"- v >ԍGrandfathered ShortSpaced FM Stations, 12 FCC Rcd 11840 (1997). Former Section 73.213(a) barred  d(#stations from extending their 1 mV/m contour toward any other pre1964 grandfathered shortspaced station. The  {O#- d(#xOrder amends Section 73.213(a) to eliminate the former Section 73.213(a) restriction on extending the 1 mV/m  d(#contour of pre1964 grandfathered shortspaced stations. It also eliminates the requirement that the affected stations agree to the extension of the other station's 1 mV/m contour toward it.  those pairs of stations that have  d(#remained shortspaced since 1964, when the Section 73.207 minimum separation requirements were  d(#jadopted, could seek service improvements provided that they entered into an agreement for this purpose"nx ,l(l(,,"  S- d(#and made a public interest showing.p {Oh- v ԍSee "Commission Reaffirms Policy With Respect to Agreements Between ShortSpaced FM Stations,"   {O2-Public Notice, 57 FCC 2d 1263 (1975).  The Commission stated with regard to such pre1964 shortspaced  d(#.stations that it would take into account: (1) the additional areas and populations that would receive new  d(#[primary service; (2) the extent of the resulting interference; and (3) the availability of other aural services  Sg- d(#in these areas.Fg$p {O+-ԍId. at 126364.F In adopting this policy, the Commission balanced improved service against the possibility  S4- d(#Lof increased interference given that interference already existed due to the grandfathered shortspacing.  d(#Applicants also were required to demonstrate that the public would not be deprived of broadcast service.  S- 9.` ` The Commission also addressed the concept of FM negotiated interference agreements in  d(#1989, when it decided that it would permit upgrades in the facilities of those Class A stations that became  d(#shortspaced on October 2, 1989. This class of grandfathered shortspaced stations was created pursuant  d(#[to the Commission's action increasing maximum authorized effective radiated power for Class A stations  S- d(#from 3 to 6 kilowatts ("kW") and Section 73.207 minimum spacing requirements.^p {O&- v ԍSee Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 88375, 3 FCC Rcd 5941 (1988);  First Report  {O- d(#and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 2792 (1989); Second Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 6375 (1989); recon. and clarification  {O-granted in part, 6 FCC Rcd 3417 (1991). Shortspaced Class  d(#A stations in this category were allowed to improve their facilities up to Class A maximums provided that  d(#\a suitable agreement was reached between the shortspaced stations and a copy of the agreement was  S7 -submitted to the Commission with the construction permit applications.7 p {O- v ԍSecond Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 6375, at para. 52; recon. denied in part and granted in part, 6 FCC Rcd 3417, at paras. 1420, 2324.  S - R10.` ` Several key points emerge from the Commission's prior consideration of negotiated  d(#.interference in the AM and FM services. First, it concluded that the public interest would be served by  d(#modifying the contingent application rule and AM cutoff procedures to facilitate coordinated technical  d(#changes between AM stations. Second, with the exception of certain grandfathered shortspaced stations,  d(#yno parallel changes have been adopted for FM applications. Thus, the Commission has condoned the use  d(#of agreements to promote service improvements in the technically more difficult AM service as well as  d(#-agreements between commercial FM stations that operate, axiomatically, at spacings substantially less than  d(#current new station requirements while consistently rejecting the use of these same agreements between  d(#fully spaced FM stations where interference concerns would generally be less. In short, current  d(#Commission policy provides the least flexibility for technical facility improvements in midsized major  d(#=markets where FM broadcasters face the greatest technical constraints to undertake such improvements.  d(#.Third, the Commission has drawn a sharp distinction between those proposals that would result in new or increased interference and those that would not. We consider each of these issues in turn.  S- C. Specific Proposals  S- 1. Agreements Involving Applications for Coordinated FM Station Changes   S;- 11.` ` Background. Section 73.3517 prohibits the filing of contingent applications in the FM";6 ,l(l(,,"  S- d(#broadcast services.Zp {Oh- v jԍ#]\  PCP##C\  P6QP#The rule does not differentiate between major and minor changes. Amendment of Sections 1.517 and 1.520,  d(#K61 FCC 2d 38 (1976). Moreover, it has been longstanding staff practice to apply 47 C.F.R.  73.3517 to minor  yO-change and major change applications for new stations. #K\  P@QP# An application is contingent when it cannot be granted until a second application  d(#also pending before the Commission is granted. When an FM technical proposal is contingent on a second  d(#technical proposal, the first application remains contingent until the second facility is constructed and a  Sg- d(#covering license issued.=gp {O- v ԍ#]\  PCP##C\  P6QP#See Contingent Applications in the Broadcast Services, 22 Rad. Reg. 299, 299 (1961); see also, Seattle  {O-Public Schools, 103 FCC 2d 862, 864 (1986).= For example, where Station A is granted a construction permit to relocate its  d(#licensed facilities to another site, any subsequently filed application must protect Station A's licensed and  S- d(#permitted facilities.Fp {O -ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  73.208, which requires applicants to protect all outstanding authorizations. In these circumstances, Section 73.3517 precludes the filing of a Station B  d(#[application that protects the Station A construction permit but not the Station A license. Only after the  d(#Commission grants a license to cover the Station A construction permit can Station B file its construction  d(#jpermit application. These procedures protect Station A's ability to continue operations with its initially  d(#licensed facilities in the event it did not, for any reason, complete the authorized facility modifications.  S- #12.` ` As noted above, the Commission permits the filing of contingent applications to facilitate  d(#[interference reduction and service improvements by either separately or commonly owned AM stations.  Si - d(#{In contrast, the Commission has rejected similar requests from FM stations that have entered into  d(#agreements that propose "coordinated" or "interrelated" facility relocations, modifications, and "onestep"  S - d(#upgrades and downgrades.5 p yO{- v \#]\  PCP#э#C\  P6QP#The commercial FM "onestep" processing rules were designed to facilitate improvements by eliminating  d(#the necessity for a petition for rulemaking in instances where licensees seek upgrades on adjacent and cochannels,  yO - d(#Ymodifications to adjacent channels of the same class, and downgrades to adjacent channel. Onestep applications are  {O- d(#processed as minor change applications. See Amendment to the Commission's Rules to Permit FM Channel and Class  {O-Modifications by Application, Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 4735 (1993).#K\  P@QP#5 The Commission has been generally unwilling to waive Section 73.3517 on  d(#[the basis of FM "service improvements." It has also been concerned with the preclusive impact of such  d(#proposals. The grant of a covering license for a station to operate on a lower class and/or from a different  Sj- d(#[site may create the opportunity to file a petition for rulemaking for a new station allotment._j p yO- v #]\  PCP#э#C\  P6QP#We take this opportunity to clarify the consequences of the grant of a onestep FM commercial station  d(#application to change channel or station class. Such a grant amends the table of allotments and modifies that station  {O&- d(#ylicense to operate on the new channel and/or class.  See Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Permit FM  {O- d(#Channel and Class Modifications by Application, Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 4735 (1993). During the  d(#construction permit period, the licensee may continue to operate the previously authorized facilities on an interim  d(#+ or "implied Special Temporary Authority" basis. However, in contrast to our treatment of routine minor modification  d(#Yapplications under Section 73.208, the formerly authorized facilities are no longer protected from subsequently filed  d(#;applications. If the permittee fails to timely construct and lets its permit lapse, the permittee is not relieved of the  d(#[obligation to change to the channel and class specified in the amended Table of Allotments. A new onestep  d(#,application revising the prior modification would be required in order to return to the former allotment. This filing  yOj$-would be subject to the firstcome, firstserved processing rule for minor modifications.#K\  P@QP#_ However,  d(#the acceptance of a contingent onestep upgrade application could effectively preclude the opportunity for  d(#a third party to file a rulemaking petition for a generally preferred new allotment tied to the coordinated  d(#downgrade. The onestep processing rules do not contemplate the filing of impermissible contingent onestep applications as a means of foreclosing other allotment proposals.",l(l(,,"Ԍ S- ԙ13.` ` Discussion. We propose to allow the filing of contingent minor change FM construction  d(#applications on a limited basis. We would require that such applications be filed on the same date, and  S- d(#=that each include a copy of the agreement covering all related applications.!Zp yO- v ԍ#]\  PCP##C\  P6QP#FM commercial minor change applications are "cut off" as of the date of filing, that is protected from later  {O- d(#filed conflicting construction permit applications. See discussion infra at para. 46 regarding our proposal to extend  yO-this process to minor change applications for NCE FM educational stations. #K\  P@QP#! These related minor change  d(#applications would be processed and if grantable, granted simultaneously. The construction permits would  d(#Nbe conditioned as necessary to allow an orderly implementation of noninterfering service. If any  d(#lapplication in the group could not be approved, we propose to dismiss all applications filed as an  d(#interrelated group. We would reject any coordinated agreement that, in our determination, would not serve the public interest. We seek comment on each aspect of this proposal.  S6- 14.` ` We also propose to permit the filing of contingent proposals that include onestep upgrade  d(#and downgrade applications. We seek comment on whether this change is consistent with the rationale  d(#<underlying the onestep policy. The "opportunity" for filing competing proposals in this context is wholly  d(#dependent on two stations reaching agreement on the coordinated facility changes. However, stations are  d(#Lreluctant to pursue coordinated facility changes where there is a possibility that a competing application  d(#ycould be filed. We tentatively conclude that in these circumstances the preclusion of competing allotment  d(#.and minor change proposals is consistent with the public interest. We seek comment on this conclusion and whether the proposed procedures are consistent with Section 307(b) of the Act.  S - (#(#  Sk- $15.` ` We tentatively conclude that contingent applications should be limited to four related,  d(#simultaneously filed applications. Permitting contingent proposals could result in an increase in the  d(#number and complexity of facility application filings. Limited staff resources and the need to continue  d(#to perform other equally important tasks in a timely manner support capping the number of related  d(#kcontingent proposals that could be filed. We seek comment on this limitation and whether a different policy should apply where some or all proposals involve stations under common ownership.  S- 16.` ` We propose additional requirements when the coordinated changes include cancelling an  d(#mNCE FM station license. In 1990, the Commission decided against establishing a specific local  d(#transmission service floor with respect to our public interest evaluation of contingent arrangements that  Sm- d(#jpropose to terminate AM facilities.mp {O- v ԍSee In the Matter of Policies to Encourage Interference Reduction Between AM Broadcast Stations, 5 FCC Rcd at 4494. Instead we adopted guidelines that permit casebycase evaluation  d(#[of such applications. Similar service improvement opportunities exist for NCE FM stations, but not for  d(#commercial FM stations because Section 73.208 requires commercial applications to protect vacant  d(#allotments. We tentatively conclude that the AM interference reduction principles should apply to NCE  d(#FM agreements proposing the cancellation of a NCE FM station license. Thus, proposals could not create  Sn- d(#Lwhite or gray areas.ZnDp yOR"- v ԍA "white" area receives no fulltime aural service, a "gray" area receives one fulltime aural service. We  d(#note that case law suggests that the Commission is precluded from allowing the creation of any white or gray areas.  {O#-See, e.g., West Michigan Television v. FCC, 460 F.2d 883 (D.C. Cir. 1971). In addition, agreements to terminate a community's only local transmission service  d(#would be considered on a casebycase basis and would take into account the availability of other services  d(#\and the possibility of restoring local service with either an AM or FM station. We seek comment on  d(#jwhether to establish a "local service floor" to ensure that the granting of contingent applications does not result in a loss of service that would be detrimental to the public interest. "f ,l(l(,, "Ԍ S- Ù 2. Agreements Involving Applications That Would Cause New or Increased Interference  S- P17.` ` Background. As explained above, the Commission has been extremely reluctant to permit  d(#the creation of interference within a station's protected service contour, particularly where none currently  d(#exists. We have been concerned that this policy would lead to further clustering of stations in urban areas  d(#in contravention of Section 307(b) of the Act. We also have opposed such proposals on spectrum  d(#efficiency grounds and because grant of interferencecreating applications could effectively foreclose  d(#facility improvements by stations receiving new interference. Moreover, creating areas of cochannel and  d(#first adjacent channel interference could result in an overall loss of available signals to affected listeners.  d(#Thus, the Commission has consistently maintained that any increase in total caused or received  S- d(#-interference is contrary to the public interest.fXp yOk - v ԍInterference caused occurs when one station extends its interfering contour to overlap the protected service  d(#contour of a second station. Interference received occurs when one station extends its protected service contour to overlap the interfering contour of a second station.f Exceptions to this approach have been grounded on narrow technical or policy considerations.  Sj -  218.` ` Notwithstanding the Commission's longstanding resistance to negotiated interference, we  d(#believe that this technical streamlining initiative provides an opportunity to reconsider our policy options  d(#in the context of the technically simpler NCE FM and commercial FM services. We remain cognizant  d(#of our obligation to reevaluate regulatory standards over time and to modify policies in response to  S - d(#changes in the broadcast industry. p {O&-ԍE.g., Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 707 F.2d 1413, 1425 (1983). Radio is truly a mature service. Over 10,000 commercial AM and  d(#yFM stations and nearly 2,000 NCE FM stations compete for listeners. Virtually all major and midsized  d(#markets, where we anticipate the greatest level of interest in negotiated interference agreements, receive  S- d(#service from five or more radio stations, our traditional measure of a wellserved area.zp {O- v ԍ#Xj\  P6G;XP##C\  P6QP#See, e.g., Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations, Bay City, Texas, 10 FCC 2d 3337 (1995) (stating  yO-the Commission considers areas receiving at least five aural services to be adequate service).#XP\  P6QXP#ё Opportunities  d(#for new full service or substantial facility improvements in these markets are extremely limited.  d(#Congestion in the FM band provides a major technical impediment to the further "urban clustering" of  d(#stations. Moreover, a station's core obligation to serve its community of license will continue to limit  d(#transmitter relocations and service area modifications. As a result, measures designed to give broadcasters  d(#additional flexibility may raise lesser concerns at this time regarding the "fair, efficient, and equitable  S-distribution of radio service . . . . "Gp yOG-ԍ47 U.S.C.  307(b).G  Sm-  Q19.` ` There are additional reasons to reconsider these policies at this time. The financial and  d(#management sophistication of the radio broadcast industry has grown dramatically in recent years, spurred  d(#lby fundamental changes in local ownership and the elimination of national ownership restrictions.  d(#Moreover, both Congress and the Commission are committed to relying to the greatest extent possible on  d(#competitive communications markets rather than resourceintensive regulatory policies to safeguard the  d(# public interest. The idea that the Commission must stand ready to protect stations "from their own  S;- d(#[economic] folly"`;d p {O?&-ԍMountain Empire Radio Co., 30 FCC at 743.` may not reflect either the realities of the radio industry or the Commission's current  d(#regulatory paradigm. In this environment we seek comment on whether it is possible to provide" ,l(l(,,"  d(#ybroadcasters some additional flexibility under our technical rules to expand service while at the same time  d(#establishing requirements to ensure that negotiated interference agreements are limited to situations where service gains would outweigh service losses and the creation of new and/or expanded areas of interference.  Sg-  S4- 20.` ` Discussion.  Section 73.509 establishes contour protection standards for all NCE FM  d(#kstations and generally prohibits the overlap of the interfering contour of the station and the protected  d(#contour of a second station. Section 73.215(a) establishes contour protection standards for commercial  d(#ZFM stations that do not satisfy the minimum distance separation requirements at Section 73.207. A station  d(#becomes a Section 73.215 station with respect to a second station upon grant of an application requesting  d(#processing under this rule. The applicant must demonstrate no prohibited overlap of protected and  d(#interfering contours in accordance with Section 73.215(a) and meet the less stringent separation  d(#jrequirements of Section 73.215(e) with respect to such second station. We seek comment on whether we  d(#<should amend Sections 73.215(a) and 73.509 to permit applications that would result in prohibited overlap,  Sj -and therefore, interference,j p {O -ԍAs explained in paragraph 23, infra, predicted interference would occur only in a portion of the overlap area. based on the following four criteria:    ` ` (1) Total interference received by any station from all interfering stations must be  no greater than five percent of the area and population within each affected station's protected service contour;   ` ` (2) Total service gain must be at least five times as great as the increase in total  binterference, in terms of both area and population. Service gain is defined as the  difference between the current service contour area and population, and the proposed  service contour area and population. Total service gain is the sum of all service gains for  3all stations included in the agreement. Interference increase is defined as the difference  between the current interference area and population, and the proposed interference area  and population. Total interference is the sum of all interference increases and decreases  qreceived by all affected stations and applicants, in terms of area and population.  Interference calculations would include interference received by a proposal even if it  occurs beyond that station's current service contour. If interference calculations made in  accordance with this criterion establish that total interference would be decreased, an applicant would be exempt from any service gain requirement;  ` ` (3) No predicted interference can occur within the boundaries of any affected station's community of license; and  5` ` (4) Any application causing or receiving interference in an area that previously  received interferencefree service would be required to demonstrate the existence of at least five remaining aural services within each interference area.     d(#We request comment on each of these factors, including whether the interference cap and gain/loss ratio  d(#strike an appropriate public interest balance. Should the Commission adopt additional or fewer  d(#[restrictions? Should the Commission adopt separate service floor requirements for commercial and NCE FM stations?  S=#- C21.` ` If a rule change is adopted, applicants would be required to file coordinated facility  d(#Mmodifications on the same date and clearly crossreference all associated applications. A copy of the  d(#written consent of all stations receiving interference within their protected service contour as a result of"$ Z,l(l(,,}("  d(#xproposed facility modification(s) would be submitted with the applications. Under this approach, we would  d(#propose to amend Form 301 to require applicants to certify compliance with these negotiated interference  d(#standards and to submit supporting materials in exhibit form. We believe that careful review of  d(#interference creating proposals filed pursuant to novel procedures would be particularly warranted. We  d(#zseek comment on this conclusion and whether the Commission should rely on applicant certifications  d(#without supporting exhibits. All nonreserved band applications would be required to satisfy the less  d(#stringent Section 73.215(e) spacing requirements and all construction permits granted to FM nonreserved  d(#yband applicants would be granted as Section 73.215 proposals. In addition, we would propose to amend  d(#Section 73.509 to prohibit second and thirdadjacent channel NCE FM stations from proposing transmitter  d(#sites within an affected station's 63 dBu contour. This would prevent interference areas deep within a  d(#ystation's service contour, and assure minimum distance separations between stations, thus promoting fair  d(#and equitable distribution of stations as required by Section 307(b) of the Communications Act. We seek  d(#<comment on whether this NCE FM restriction is necessary to prevent a deluge of modification applications  d(#that would shift service away from less well served areas. All construction permits granted pursuant to  d(#jthese procedures would be conditioned on the simultaneous implementation of all related proposals. We invite comment on each aspect of this proposal.   S - 22.` ` To the extent that these procedures would result in the favorable consideration of  d(#Lapplications that propose new areas of caused interference, they would also support changes in the way  d(#we treat interference received. New areas of received interference can result from a station's unilateral  d(#zproposal to extend its own service contour so that it overlaps the interfering contour of an authorized  d(#station. In effect, such a proposal reflects a station's determination that increased potential listenership  d(#outweighs a certain amount of interference within its (expanded) service area. Typically, the new area  d(#=of interference affects potential listeners who were not predicted to receive service previously. We seek  d(#comment on whether we should permit such modifications provided that an applicant demonstrates  d(#.compliance with each of the requirements specified above. However, no consent from any other station  d(#would be required where the proposal would not result in interference occurring within the service contour  d(#=of any reserved band station, any Section 73.215 station, or any station operating with the equivalent of  d(#=maximum class facilities. However, applicants that propose a shortspacing to any other type of station  d(#would have to obtain consent from such affected stations to receive interference. If the affected station  d(#zchooses not to increase power simultaneously to a fullclass facility as part of the agreement with the  d(#applicant, the affected station must request reclassification as a Section 73.215 licensee/permittee. This  d(#"Section 73.215 condition" on the affected station's authorization would effectively limit that station to  d(#zits current facilities (with regard to the applicant's proposal) and would prevent subsequent unilateral increases by the affected station resulting in interference caused to the applicant's improved facilities.  S- ~23.` ` We seek comment on whether we should follow the methodology adopted in the recent  d(#grandfathered shortspaced FM station proceeding to determine areas of interference using the desiredto Sn- d(#yundesired signal strength ratio analysis and the standard F(50,50) and F(50,10) propagation curves. np {O -ԍGrandfathered ShortSpaced FM Stations, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 11840 (1997). As  d(#jnoted therein, contour overlap is an effective method for demonstrating that no interference would occur.  d(#In contrast, the ratio method is the most appropriate method for determining areas of interference. We  d(#seek comments on this view. Cochannel interference would be predicted to exist at all locations within  d(#the desired station's coverage contour where the undesired (interfering) F(50,10) field strength exceeds  d(#a value 20 dB below the desired (protected) F(50,50) field strength. First adjacent channel interference  d(#lwould be predicted to exist at all locations within the desired station's coverage contour where the  d(#jundesired (interfering) F(50,10) field strength exceed a value 6 dB below the desired (protected) F(50,50)  d(#field strength. Second and third adjacent channel interference would be predicted to exist at all locations"$ Z ,l(l(,,}("  d(#within the desired station's coverage area where the undesired (interfering) F(50,10) field strength exceeds  S- d(#a value 40 dB above the desired (protected) F(50,50) field strength.!p {O5- v ԍSee Discussion at Section III E. 1. proposing to change the FM and NCE FM translator station secondadjacent channel NCE FM interfering contour to 100 dBu. We invite comment on these standards and the use of this methodology.  S4-  24.` ` We believe that consideration is warranted in this Notice of the standards that would apply  d(#!to waiver requests of the interference rules proposed herein. The original Section 73.207 mileage  d(#0separation rules were adopted as "the best means for achieving an orderly, efficient, and effective  S- d(#/development of the commercial FM broadcast service."K"&"p {O^ - v ԍGreater Media, Inc., 59 FCC 2d 796, 797 (1976); see ECI License Company, L.P. (WYUU), 11 FCC Rcd  {O( - d(#w3545, 3546 (M.M.Bur) ("WYUU") (spacing rules "adopted in part to promote a fair distribution of FM service across  d(#the country, as required by 307(b) of the Communications Act, avoiding undue concentration of stations in urban  {O -areas (particularly major markets).") (citations omitted), aff'd, 106 F.3d 442 (D.C.Cir. 1996).K The Commission has long held that "strict  d(#[enforcement of the mileage separation rules is of paramount importance to the integrity of the entire FM  S6- d(#assignment plan."%#6p {O- v ԍBoone Biblical College, 19 FCC 2d 155, 156 (1969); see WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1135, 1159  yO-(D.C.Cir. 1969) ("applicant for waiver faces a high hurdle even at the starting gate.").% Therefore, Section 73.207 waiver proponents were required to make a "compelling  d(#showing." Specifically, an applicant for waiver of Section 73.207 was required to make a threepart  d(#[threshold showing that (1) the present transmitter site was no longer suitable, (2) nonshortspaced sites  S - d(#were unavailable, and (3) the proposed new site was the least shortspaced site available.$ j p {O- v ԍStoner Broadcasting System, Inc., 49 FCC 2d 1011, 1012 (1974); Townsend Broadcasting Corp., 62 FCC 2d 511, 512 (1976). In addition,  Sj - d(#an applicant had to demonstrate that grant of waiver would serve the public interest.e%j p {O-ԍTownsend Broadcasting Corp., 62 FCC 2d at 511.e Section 73.215,  d(#which went into effect in 1989, specifies a procedure by which an applicant may obtain relief from our  S - d(#khistoric strict enforcement of the mileage separation requirements of Section 73.207.&^ V p {O- v ԍ47 C.F.R.  73.215; see Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules to Permit ShortSpaced FM  {O- d(#xStation Assignments by Using Directional Antennas, Report and Order in MM Docket 87121, 4 FCC Rcd 1681,  {O-1682 (1989) ("Contour Protection Order"), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 6 FCC Rcd 5356 (1991). Under Section  d(#73.215, applicants need only demonstrate that no prohibited contour overlap (and hence interference)  d(#>between shortspaced stations would be created, and that the shortspacing meets the less restrictive  Sk-spacing requirements of Section 73.215(e).Z'k|p {O -ԍSee WYUU, 11 FCC Rcd at 3546.Z  S- 25.` ` Adoption of Section 73.215 allowed the Commission to discontinue granting waivers of  S- d(#LSection 73.207.g(p {O$-ԍSee Reconsideration Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 535960.g  In its place, some applicants have sought waivers of Section 73.215. Under the WAIT  S- d(#-Radio doctrine, the Commission is bound to consider waiver requests._)p {O&-ԍSee WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d at 1159._ Unsurprisingly, waiver proponents" 2),l(l(,,"  d(#zhave sought to measure the magnitude of short spacing in accordance with the less restrictive distance  d(#minimums of Section 73.215. This approach is misguided. Section 73.215 codifies a relief mechanism  S- d(#for applicants to specify substandard spacings provided that certain criteria are met. If an applicant  d(#=cannot meet these standards, then Section 73.207 requirements must control. In fact, the Commission's  d(#interest in adhering to Section 73.207 minimum distance separations is all the more compelling because  S- d(#/Section 73.215 has given applicants additional site selection flexibility.e*p {Oj-ԍSee Reconsideration Order, 6 FCC Rcd. at 5360.e We propose to continue to  d(#=follow this same procedure with regard to any interferencerelated rule changes adopted pursuant to this  S- d(#yNotice. Specifically, in analyzing such a request for waiver of Section 73.215(e), we propose to measure  Sj- d(#jthe short spacing in accordance with Section 73.207 and to apply the traditional threshold threepart and  S7- d(#public interest tests developed in Section 73.207 jurisprudence.|+7Zp {O1 - v ԍSee WYUU, 11 FCC Rcd at 3546 n.4 (affirming explicit use of Section 73.207 separation standards for  d(#measuring extent of Section 73.215(e) shortspacing and affirming without comment staff application of Section  d(# 73.207 threshold test to Section 73.215(e) waiver request). To the extent that one staff decision suggests that Section  d(#;73.207 waiver standards are inapplicable to Section 73.215(e) waiver requests, that position is explicitly repudiated.  {OS-See WYUU, 11 FCC Rcd at 1799. | Similarly, with regard to interference d(#creating proposals between or among consenting broadcasters, the Commission would consider prohibited  S- d(#overlap in accordance with established precedent.,p yO- v .ԍWith regard to Section 73.215(a), the Commission acknowledged in the contour protection rulemaking that  d(#-waiver of prohibited contour overlap may be appropriate in "a very small number of cases . . . to permit greater  d(#power in a shortspaced station's direction where it is demonstrated that such a facility is necessary to allow use of  d(#ha multiplexed transmitting antenna and that its authorization would otherwise serve the public interest, for example,  {O- d(#iby allowing retention of existing service to an underserved area." Reconsideration Order, 6 FCC Rcd. at 5360 n. 27.  In no event would such an applicant be entitled to  d(#a presumption that creating any interference much less five percent within any station's protected service contour would be in the public interest. We seek comment on these protected waiver policies.  S - ~26.` ` A broadcaster's obligations to accurately prepare each facility application, to truthfully  d(#complete each application certification, to construct and operate facilities in accordance with its  d(#authorization, and, generally, to adhere to the Commission's technical rules become particularly significant  d(#Lwhere stations may create small amounts of interference and where several facility modifications may be  d(#mutually interdependent. Our experience is that the vast majority of FM facility proposals, both for new  d(#and existing stations, either meet the relevant interference criteria or seek the relevant rule waivers, and  d(#!truthfully complete all certifications. Moreover, most stations are built in accordance with their  d(#construction permits. The Commission, however, has not hesitated to impose severe sanctions where a  Sm- d(#broadcaster intentionally engages in unauthorized station construction.-Zm p {O - v ԍChameleon Radio Corporation, FCC 9873 (released April 22, 1998) (affirming revocation of station license  d(#based on applicant misrepresentations and lack of candor regarding STA request, including misrepresentations regarding loss of authorized site and status of proposed tower as an existing structure). Moreover, the Commission  d(#retains the power to revoke any construction permit or license "because of conditions coming to the  d(#yattention of the Commission which would warrant it in refusing to grant a license or permit on an original  S- d(#Lapplication."J.p yO&-ԍ47 U.S.C.  312(a)(2).J We are fully committed to exercising our plenary enforcement powers against applicants  d(#Nthat enter into negotiated interference agreements where we find that application showings and/or" :.,l(l(,,"  d(#certifications have fallen short of Commission standards, regardless of the time at which the application  d(#errors are brought to the Commission's attention. In the event we adopt negotiated interference procedures  d(#?for FM stations, we propose to publish, as necessary, decisions that explain or clarify these new  d(#procedures. We believe that a program that combines strict enforcement and broad information  d(#=dissemination would promote full and candid disclosure of material technical information in applications  d(#!and compliance with our rules and policies. We seek comment on this enforcement approach for  d(#negotiated interference agreements. We also request that commenters identify specific enforcement  d(#procedures that the Commission should follow and the sort of sanctions that it should impose where an  d(#Lapplicant provides false or incomplete information in its application or where construction is at variance to an authorization.  S- Q27.` ` We seek comment on whether this proposal to permit small amounts of interference in  d(#[limited circumstances would protect service to a station's community of license and would help preserve  d(#an adequate service floor for all listeners. It would be particularly responsive to those situations where  d(#factors such as unusual terrain create anomalous service contours that block meaningful service  d(#expansions. It would give greater weight to the willingness of a station to accept interference within its  d(#>protected service contour and would constitute a significant change in our technical regulation of FM  d(#\broadcast stations. In particular, we invite public comment on the following issues to help develop a better record on the technical and policy issues that these proposals raise.  S- o` ` Would these negotiated interference procedures sufficiently protect the interests of listeners and licensees not party to an agreement?  Sk- o` ` Could this proposal result in service losses to smaller communities and/or less desirable demographic audiences?  S-  o` ` Should negotiated interference agreements between commercial stations be treated differently from agreements between noncommercial educational stations?  S9- o` ` How might this proposal affect the development and implementation of inband onchannel (IBOC) digital radio systems?  S- %o` ` Is there a danger that negotiated interference agreements over time may lead to less flexibility to make future changes when, for example, a transmitter site is lost and a station must relocate?  S- #o` ` Is there reason to believe that the accumulation of negotiated interference agreements over a period of years could lead to a general degradation of FM service in the United States?  Sn- o` ` Is this negotiated interference proposal consistent with Section 307(b) of the Communications Act?  S - o` ` To what extent should the Commission rely on applicant certifications to ensure compliance with negotiated interference agreement requirements?  S<#- o` ` Should the Commission require licensees to maintain negotiated interference agreements in their local public inspection files? Should they be filed with the Commission?  S%- po` ` Should the Commission limit agreements to one or several license terms? Should an  d(#agreement be terminable following the transfer of a station that previously consented to interference within its service contour?"='.,l(l(,,+"Ԍ S- `ԙo` ` What remedies should the Commission and affected licensees have if a station breaches its negotiated interference agreement?  Sg-Q  III. Other Proposals to Give Stations Greater Technical Flexibility   S- \ A. Introduction  S- B28.` ` In this section we propose certain rule and policy changes to expand opportunities for  d(#[enhanced service and reduce regulatory burdens on applicants. We believe these proposals are consistent  d(#with our current efforts to streamline our existing rules and eliminate unnecessary or redundant procedural  S-requirements.` `  S - B. The PointToPoint Prediction Methodology  S6 -  29. ` ` Background. Interference between FM stations is defined in terms of protected and  S - d(#interfering contours./ p yOl-ԍThese concepts also form the basis for our minimum separation requirements in 47 C.F.R.  73.207.  Contour protection has generally worked well in fostering interferencefree service  d(#\in the FM band. However, it is not perfect. Because of the limited length (3 to 16 kilometers) of the  d(#radials used to determine antenna height above average terrain, the Commission's standard propagation  d(#methodology does not accurately account for all terrain effects. For example, our standard contour  d(#>methodology, which is used to calculate both interfering and protected contours, would not take into  d(#account a mountain at 25 kilometers from a transmitter site, and thus, would incorrectly predict service  d(#](or interference) to areas well beyond this mountain. In 1975, the Commission adopted a limited  d(#[correction factor to measure "terrain roughness" to overcome the effects of terrain beyond 16 kilometers.  d(#[This methodology required an analysis of terrain data along the radial(s) of interest, at distances between  S:- d(#6 and 31 miles (10 to 50 kilometers) from the transmitter site.0:Xp {O2-ԍField Strength Curves, Report and Order, Dockets 16004 and 18052, 53 FCC 2d 855, 863 (1975). However, the Commission later stayed  d(#Lthe general use of the terrain roughness factor (contained in 47 C.F.R  73.313 (f) through (j) and Figures  S-4 and 5 of 47 C.F.R.  73.333) because of difficulties with "atypical terrain configurations."91p {O^- v =ԍTemporary Suspension of Certain Portions of Sections 73.313, 73.333, 73.684, and 73.699, FCC 751226,   {O(-56 FCC 2d 749(1975), stay extended indefinitely, 40 Rad. Reg. 2d 965 (1977).  9   Sn- o30.` ` Presently, the Commission does not accept supplemental terrain analyses to determine  d(#-predicted interference between FM stations. This prohibition has its roots in the concept that applications  d(#with such showings are inherently more complicated, and the results more open to interpretation, than  d(#results obtained in accordance with the standard contour prediction method in Section 73.313. In addition,  d(#[the input parameters to many alternative methods have not been standardized and their selection may be  d(#a source of dispute, even where the same prediction method is used. Such complications, multiplied over  d(#a significant number of applications, could have an adverse impact on our ability to take prompt action  S - d(#on the applications that come before us..2$ Fp yO#- v ?ԍWe have accepted supplemental showings aimed at demonstrating compliance with the city coverage  d(#requirement in 47 C.F.R.  73.315 and the main studio requirement in 47 C.F.R.  73.1125, since there can be no  {O%- d(#interference created to other stations by such use. See Certain Minor Changes in Broadcast facilities Without a  {OI&-Construction Permit, Report and Order, MM Docket 9658, 12 FCC Rcd 12371 at 1240103. . Thus, applications proposing new or expanded service may be unreasonably precluded where interference is predicted although, in fact, unlikely. "2 2,l(l(,,"Ԍ S- ԙ31.` ` Discussion. In Appendix B we set forth a supplemental pointtopoint ("PTP") prediction  d(#{model designed for the purpose of providing a more accurate prediction of interfering contours. It  d(#combines a procedure for characterizing terrain obstructions with a wellaccepted model of radio wave  d(#diffraction. Unlike the standard prediction method, it takes into account terrain beyond 16 kilometers from  d(#the transmitting antenna and would provide certain stations with greater flexibility in locating facilities and  d(#obtaining desired power levels. Accordingly, we propose that an applicant may use the PTP method to  d(#calculate interfering contours for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the Commission's various  S- d(#overlap/interference requirements.I3p yO-Ѝ#X\  P6G;P##C\  P6QP#Specifically, we refer to interfering contours calculated in association with the Commission's overlap requirements for FM commercial, NCE FM, and FM Translator stations (47 C.F.R.  73.215, 73.509, 73.1204, respectively); overlap of the interfering contours of intermediate frequency (IF) grandfathered shortspaced stations (Section73.213(b)); and the interfering contours utilized in showings that involve undesired todesired (U/D) signal ratios in conjunction with FM to TV Channel Six interference showings (Section73.525) and public  yO -interest showings related to pre1964 grandfathered shortspaced stations (Section73.213(a)).#K\  P@QP#I Such showings would be limited to the relationships between the PTP  d(#-predicted interfering contours and the affected station's standard F(50,50) curve predicted protected service  d(#contour. We also propose to permit the use of PTP methodology to demonstrate compliance with the interference area and population limits set forth above for negotiated interference agreements.  S - A32. ` ` We tentatively conclude that applicants should be permitted to use the PTP methodology  d(#<for certain other purposes. All commercial FM stations must demonstrate compliance with the community  d(#of license city grade coverage requirements of Section 73.315. This requires (1) a predicted 3.16 mV/m  d(#contour that encompasses the community of license; and (2) the lack of major terrain obstructions  d(#-between the transmitter site and the community. Since the PTP methodology more accurately incorporates  d(#the effects of terrain into the prediction of coverage, we propose to permit the use of PTP calculations by  d(#.both applicants and objectors to resolve any questions raised regarding compliance with 73.315 and to  d(#treat the PTP calculations as controlling. We propose to require applicants to submit a PTP contour study  d(#where terrain between a transmitter site and a community of license could put in issue either the use of  d(#the standard methodology or the station's compliance with city grade coverage requirements. Existing  d(#stations that currently cover their community based on the standard prediction method, but fail to satisfy  d(#Mthe PTP methodology, would be exempt from a PTP determination provided they do not propose to  d(#relocate transmission facilities or withdraw coverage towards the community of license. Additionally, we  d(#propose to allow PTP methodology in two specific instances that require the calculation of 3.16 mV/m  S- d(#coverage: compliance with main studio requirements of 73.11254@p yO-Ѝ#X\  P6G;P# #C\  P6QP#The staff currently entertains alternate prediction methods in the context of main studio locations. However, in order to warrant study, current commercial FM processing policy requires that such showings may be submitted if they alter the 3.16 mV/m contour by at least ten percent when compared to the standard prediction method. In contrast, the staff can efficiently confirm that an applicant has properly used the PTP methodology. Accordingly, we propose to eliminate the ten percent method for PTP contour studies that establish compliance with the Commission's main studio location rule. and demonstration that an allotment,  d(#>when considered at maximum Class facilities, would comply with Section 73.315 with respect to the  Sm- d(#community of license (if use of a supplemental method is warranted consistent with existing precedents).S5m p {O#-Ѝ#X\  P6G;P#See, e.g., Woodstock, VA, 3 FCC Rcd 6398 (1988); Cresswell, OR, 4 FCC Rcd 7040 (M.M. Bur. 1989);  {O$-and Kings Beach, CA 6 FCC Rcd 4375 (M. M. Bur. 1991). #K\  P@QP#S We seek comment on these proposals.  S- "5,l(l(,,l"Ԍ S- 33.` ` The PTP methodology is proposed in this Notice for the primary purpose of demonstrating  S- d(#that the standard prediction method overstates the area encompassed by a station's interfering contour.  d(#yThus, we propose to prohibit the use of the PTP methodology to extend interfering contours beyond the  d(#standard F(50,10) predicted curves for the purpose of demonstrating harmful interference received.  d(#Allowing this use of the PTP to extend protection rights, which is specific to a particular site, would in  d(#some instances effectively provide stations with greater protection from interference than that provided  d(#by fullyspaced stations because the minimum distance separations are based upon the standard prediction  d(#curves. PTP showings are not permitted in any of our international agreements and thus could not be  Sj- d(#[used to demonstrate compliance with international requirements.   We also propose not to permit the use  d(#of this methodology to calculate protected service contours for the purposes of demonstrating: the lack  d(#kor existence of overlap; or compliance or noncompliance with contour limitations for boosters, fillin translators, or auxiliary facilities.  Sk -  34.` ` We also propose not to consider PTP showings in the context of demonstrating compliance  d(#Mwith the multiple ownership requirements of Section 73.3555. In instances involving the major radio  d(#markets, multiple ownership studies often involve dozens of stations. Selective application of the PTP  d(#method to some, but not all stations in a relevant market would invite disputes where contradictory results  d(#could occur. Conversely, in light of the sometimes radical differences between PTP calculations and  d(#standard predicted contours, utilizing the PTP method for all stations could affect these ownership studies  S9- d(#in ways not anticipated when the current multiple ownership rules were adopted. We believe that, in most  d(#instances, the use of the PTP methodology could significantly alter the definition of stations included in  d(#!a particular market and use of this methodology in this context would serve no useful function in  d(#administering our ownership policies. Accordingly, we propose not to accept such studies to determine  d(#whether an application complies with our ownership rules and policies. We seek comments on each aspect of this proposal regarding the adoption and use of the PTP methodology.  S- B35.` ` As noted above, we stayed the terrain roughness provision because of difficulties with  d(#atypical terrain configuration. We believe that the PTP methodology overcomes these difficulties and  d(#kwould provide a more sophisticated and not unduly burdensome method of assessing the effects of a  d(#variety of terrain anomalies. Therefore, we propose to delete the longstayed terrain roughness provisions  d(#from 47 C.F.R.  73.313(f) though (j) and Figure 4 of 47 C.F.R.  73.333 from the Commission's Rules  S-as they apply to the FM broadcast stations. We seek comment on these proposals.6\p {O=- v ԍSee Amendment of Sections 73.333 and 73.699, Field Strength Curves and For Fm and TV Broadcast  {M- d(#ZStations; Amendment of Part 73 of the Rules Regarding Field Strength Measurements for FM and TV Broadcast  {O-Stations, Dockets 16004 and 18052, 53 FCC 2d 855, 863 (1975).  S-  So- C. Commercial FM Technical Requirements: Amendments to Section 73.215  S<-  S - 1.Reduced Minimum Separation Requirements in Section 73.215(e) for Second and ThirdAdjacent Channel Stations  S-  Sp- A36.` ` Background.  Section 73.207 sets forth the minimum distance separation requirements for  d(#FM stations operating on coand adjacent channels in the nonreserved band and on intermediate frequency  d(#(IF) channels. The spacing table in Section 73.207 was adopted in part to ensure interferencefree FM  d(#-service within each commercial station's protected service contour. Applicants that proposed shortspaced  S!- d(#transmitter sites were required to demonstrate that (1) the present site was no longer suitable;7!p {O1'-#]\  PCP#э#C\  P6QP#See, e.g., John Lamar Hill, 70 FCC 2d 153 (Rev. Bd. 1978).#K\  P@QP# (2)"!~7,l(l(,,$"  S- d(#alternative fullyspaced sites were unavailable;8p {Oh-#]\  PCP#э#C\  P6QP#See, e.g., CarrollHarrison Broadcasting, Inc., 62 FCC 2d 45 (1976).#K\  P@QP# (3) the proposed transmitter site was the least shortspaced  S- d(#[site available; and (4) grant of the Section 73.207 waiver would serve the public interest.9Zp {O-#]\  PCP#эSee, e.g., On the Beach Broadcasting, 8 FCC Rcd 3123 (1993). However, the  d(#preparation and processing of requests for waiver of Section 73.207 proved to be increasingly burdensome  d(#\and time consuming for applicants and the staff. In 1989, the Commission adopted Section 73.215 to  S4- d(#afford FM applicants some additional flexibility in locating potential transmitter sites.R:4p {O-ԍSee 47. C.F.R.  73.215.R Applications  d(#processed under Section 73.215 must demonstrate that the proposed facilities would not create prohibited  d(#overlap to any station that does not satisfy Section 73.207 minimums. In response to concerns of  d(#spectrum overcrowding, the Commission retained minimum but lesser spacing requirements for Section  Sh- d(#>73.215 applicants.  See 47 C.F.R.  73.215(e).;h~p yO - v #]\  PCP#э#C\  P6QP#This Section 73.215(e) table utilized the Section 73.207 required separation for the next lower class of  yON-station as the minimum spacing under which a station could qualify for use of the contour protection rule.#K\  P@QP#љ For second and thirdadjacent channel stations, the  d(#[contour protection rule generally limits the amount of relief from Section 73.207 spacing requirements to  S- d(#no more than three kilometers and in some cases provides no relief.< p yOy- v yԍSpecifically, out of 28 possible combinations between the secondand thirdadjacent channel stations, Section  d(#73.215 provides 10 km relief to Class B1 C stations, and 9 km relief to Class C2C stations. In addition, four  d(#,combinations have 3 km of relief, 14 combinations have 2 km of relief, five combinations have 1 km of relief, and  yO-three combinations have no relief. #FuX  Pg9C >XP# As a result, stations with second  d(#yand thirdadjacent channel spacing problems have, in many cases, less flexibility to relocate facilities than  d(#under the former Section 73.207 waiver policies that permitted the staff to grant spacing waivers of up  Sj - d(#yto six kilometers.= j p yO- v Mԍ#]\  PCP##C\  P6QP#In addition to the limited relief for second and thirdadjacent stations, instances in which there is spacing  d(#of 6 km or less include Class B stations which employ contour protection under Section 73.215 with respect to  d(#cochannel Class C stations, and conversely Class C to Class B stations. Section 73.215 allows these stations to be  yO -no more than 4 km closer than the Section 73.207 required separation. #XZ\  P@QXP#ф Consequently, the staff has received numerous inquiries concerning the possibility of waivers of Section 73.215(e) for secondand thirdadjacent channel stations.  S -  `37.` ` Discussion. We propose to revise the Section 73.215(e) spacing table to afford all FM  d(#[commercial stations a minimum of 6 kilometers of relief from the applicable Section 73.207(a) standards.  d(#.We believe that this change would significantly increase certain licensees' flexibility to identify sites that  d(#provide sufficient spacing to second and thirdadjacent channel stations. We propose no change in the  d(#contour overlap methodology and requirements of Sections 73.215(a), (b), and (d). We also propose that  d(#grants under this proposal would continue to be listed as a contour protection construction permit. We seek comment on these proposals.  S:- 2. Additional Flexibility for Stations in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands   S-  n38.` ` Background. For many years commercial FM stations with Class A, B1 and B allotments  d(#\in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have been permitted to operate with greater facilities than those"=,l(l(,,"  S- d(#permitted for their counterparts in the United States and its territories.->p {Oh- v /#]\  PCP#э#C\  P6QP#See Revision of FM Broadcast Rules, 40 FCC 868 (1964) (addressing Class B stations in Puerto Rico and  {O2- d(#wthe Virgin Islands, respectively); Amendment of Section 73.211(b)(3) of the Rules Concerning maximum power and  {O- d(#antenna height for FM Broadcast Stations, 13 Rad. Reg. 1536 (1968) (Class A stations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin  {O- d(#Islands) and Permitting Increased Antenna Height of Class B1 Commercial FM Broadcast stations in Puerto Rico  {O-and the Virgin Islands, 49 Fed. Reg. 22088 (May 25, 1984).#K\  P@QP#- On the mainland, the spacing  d(#rules in 47 C.F.R.  73.207 are designed so that two stations operating with maximum class at minimum  S- d(#separation will not cause interference within either station's protected service contour.?p yO-#]\  PCP#э#C\  P6QP#For Class B stations, 54 dBu, for Class B1 stations 57 dBu, and for all other classes, 60 dBu.#K\  P@QP# In Puerto Rico  d(#[and the Virgin Islands, the protected and interfering contours extend further and often overlap because of  d(#the greater antenna heights permitted for these stations. This exception was initiated by the Commission  d(#in 1964 to help these stations overcome the effects of rugged island topography and to promote the  d(#/distribution of radio facilities in these areas. Although these stations may operate with transmission  d(#facilities in excess of class height and power maximums, assignments need only meet Section 73.207  d(#spacing requirements. Accordingly, it is possible for two stations to comply with Section 73.207 but have  d(#prohibited overlap under Section 73.215. The Commission recognized that as a result of these factors,  d(#jSection 73.215 would provide less relief to Virgin Island and Puerto Rican stations than to those stations  d(#limited to class height and power maximums. To address this matter, in 1991 the Commission adopted  d(#.Section 73.215(a)(4) which permits stations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands to make an alternative  d(#showing that the 1 mV/m contour from the proposed short spaced site would not extend past the present  d(#L1 mV/m location. However, stations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands seeking preferred site changes  d(#often find it impossible to comply with this contour requirement, especially where the move is from a low  d(#coastal location to higher inland locations. Consequently, in certain instances, Section 73.215(a)(4) provides no relief.  S7-  39.` ` Discussion. In 1993 the staff granted a request for waiver of Section 73.215(a)(1) to  d(#permit an alternate method to define the protected and interfering contours of certain stations in the Virgin  S- d(#Islands and Puerto Rico.@zp {O- v ^#]\  PCP#э#C\  P6QP#See St. Croix Wireless Co., Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 7329 (1993). In St. Croix Wireless, Co., the permittee  d(#requested a waiver of Section 73.215 as it defined the protected contour of a Class B station as the 54 dBu contour.  d(#The permittee demonstrated that use of the 54 dBu contour for Class B stations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands  d(#produced an anomalous result, affording vastly more protection than the spacings provide. Instead, the permittee  d(#showed that given the spacings and maximum facilities permitted in this region, the normally protected contour of  d(#such stations is the 63 dBu contour, and the use of this contour for Caribbean stations produces a result equivalent  yO6-to that on the mainland.#K\  P@QP# We propose revising Section 73.215 to incorporate the actual protected and  S- d(#interfering contours for Class A, B1 and B stations set forth in St Croix Wireless Co. AT p {O - v #]\  PCP#эId. at 7331. The actual protected and interfering contours under 47 C.F.R.  73.207 in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are set forth in Appendix C.  The proposed  d(#kmodifications take into account the higher HAAT limits specified in the rules for Puerto Rico and the  d(#[Virgin Islands, while affording stations additional site location flexibility. We believe this revision would  d(#protect other stations from interference in excess of that which may occur under our spacing rules. We seek comment on this proposal.  Sn- ";A,l(l(,,"ԌD. New Class C Height Above Average Terrain Requirements  S-  ~ 40.` ` Background. In 1983, the Commission made a number of changes to the FM allotment  Sh- d(#scheme, including establishment of three intermediate classes of stations: B1, C1 and C2.B^hp {O- v #]\  PCP#эModification of FM Broadcast Station Rules to Increase the Availability of Commercial FM Broadcast  {O- d(#Assignments, Report and Order in BC Docket 8090, 94 FCC 2d 152, 15556 (1983) ("Docket 8090 R&O"),  {Od-modified, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 97 FCC 2d 279 (1984) ("Docket 8090 MO&O"). Existing Class  d(#B and C stations were required to meet minimum facility requirements within three years or be reclassified  S- d(#[to an intermediate station class based on their actual operating facilities.Cp {O -#]\  PCP#эDocket 8090 R&O, 94 FCC 2d at 156. The Commission's purpose in  d(#adding the station classes was to minimize overprotection of stations and thereby increase the availability  S-of FM station assignments:  X[A] significant number of Class B and C stations were operating with facilities that were  nsubstantially below those permitted by the rules. Nevertheless, the Commission's spacing  `requirements protected those stations to the same extent as a full facility licensee. The  aresult of protecting all Class B and C stations at the maximum facility level was the  Sj -preclusion of new, otherwise permissible services.#Dj p {O- v #]\  PCP#эDocket 8090 MO&O, 97 FCC 2d at 281; see Notice of Proposed Rule Making in BC Docket 8090, 78  {OT-FCC 2d 1235, 124041 (1980) ("Docket 8090 Notice").#   S - }41.` ` For Class C stations, the Commission adopted a 100 kW power requirement and minimum  d(#antenna height requirement of 300 meters height above average terrain ("HAAT"), onehalf the existing  S - d(#{maximum antenna height limitation for Class C stations of 600 meters.-E p {O- v #]\  PCP#эDocket 8090 R&O, 94 FCC 2d at 18384. Only Class C stations have a minimum HAAT requirement to  {O-exceed the next lower class (Class C1) maximum of 300 meters. Id.- Following the threeyear  d(#ktransition period, Class C stations that did not meet the required minimum values were reclassified as  d(#Class C1 or C2 stations. Thus, Class C stations presently operate with antennas between 300 and 600  S-meters HAAT.F8 p {O-#]\  PCP#эId.; see 47 C.F.R.  73.211  S-  242.` ` A recent staff study reveals that many Class C stations continue to operate with facilities  d(#ythat are significantly less than maximum. Specifically, the study reveals that 519 of the 863 FM stations  d(#.presently occupying Class C assignments, or approximately 60 percent, operate with facilities less than  d(#450 meters HAAT. The fact that such a large percentage of Class C stations are operating more than 150  d(#meters below the maximum antenna height limitation of 600 meters HAAT indicates that the  d(#zCommission's present allotment structure overprotects a substantial number of Class C stations and,  Sm-therefore, may unnecessarily preclude proposals to introduce new and/or expand existing services.GZm p {O#- v #]\  PCP#эSee Docket 8090 Notice, 78 FCC 2d at 1241 ("The separation requirements are based upon the assumption  d(#Zthat each assigned station is, or at some time in the future will be, operating at the maximum power and antenna height for its particular class."). "G,l(l(,,"Ԍ S- B43.` ` Discussion. We propose to create an additional intermediate class of stations between  d(#!Class C and Class C1, to be designated Class C0 (Class C zero). Class C0 stations would have a  d(#maximum height limitation of 450 meters HAAT and a minimum antenna height requirement of 300  d(#>meters HAAT. Both classes of stations would be required to maintain a power level of 100 kw, the  d(#present value for Class C stations. Under this proposal, Class C stations would be required to operate at  S- d(#Na minimum antenna height of no less than 451 meters HAAT. We would amend the FM distance  S- d(#/separation tables to include the reduced spacing requirements for the new station class.HZp {O7- v \#]\  PCP#эSee 47 U.S.C.  73.207, 73.213, 73.215, 73.507. A preliminary staff analysis of the proposed Class C0  d(#icategory has determined that cochannel spacing requirements would be reduced from Class C minimum distances by approximately 11 kilometers and firstadjacent channel spacing requirements by between 12 and 21 kilometers. In order to  d(#<provide a reasonable opportunity for existing Class C stations not operating at the proposed antenna height  d(#minimum to maintain their full Class C status, we propose a threeyear transition period to obtain a  d(#construction permit specifying an antenna HAAT of at least 451 meters. During the threeyear period,  d(#=each such station would be renewed on a conditional basis. If the station has not obtained the necessary authorization within the threeyear period, then the station would be reclassified as a Class C0 station.  Sj - 44.` ` We believe that these changes would increase the efficiency of FM broadcast band  d(#.licensing while permitting existing Class C stations to provide service equivalent to that embodied in the  d(#present allotment rules. We seek comments regarding this proposal, including comments that may shed  d(#light on the additional service the proposed additional station class could create, the effect of the loss of  d(#primary service areas for reclassified Class C0 stations, and whether creation of a temporary "buffer zone"  d(#to protect the ability of existing Class C stations to upgrade during the threeyear transition period would  S8-be appropriate.[IZ8p {O- v #]\  PCP#эSee Docket 8090 MO&O, 97 FCC 2d at 285 (adopting "16 kilometer buffer, in addition to the normal  d(#distance separation requirements, to existing Class C stations currently operating with an HAAT of less than 300 meters.").[ 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)  S- E. Streamlined Application Processing Changes  S-  Sl- 1. Introduction.  S- o45.` ` In this section, we propose a number of application processing changes that we believe  d(#would eliminate unnecessary administrative burdens and shorten processing time frames for certain  d(#applications. As discussed in detail below, we propose to extend our first come/first served procedures  d(#to AM, NCE FM and FM translator minor change applications. We also propose to expand the definition  d(#of "minor change" for the AM, NCE FM and FM translator services to conform to the commercial FM  d(#minor change definition. Furthermore, we propose to replace the current twostep application process for  S-coordinate corrections and FM translator power reductions with singlestep application procedures.  Sn- 2. Extending First Come/First Served Processing to AM, NCE FM and  S;-FM Translator Minor Change Applications  S- o46.` ` Background. Under our present rules, minor change applications for nonreserved FM  d(#band broadcast stations are subject to "first come/first served" processing, whereby a firstfiled application" I,l(l(,, "  S- d(#ycuts off the filing rights of subsequent, mutually exclusive proposals.Jp {Oh- v #]\  PCP#э47 C.F.R.  73.3573(g)(3); see Amendment of Sections 73.3572 and 73.3573 Relating to Processing of FM  {O2- d(#and TV Broadcast Applications, Report and Order in MM Docket 84-750, 50 Fed. Reg. 19936, 1994142, recon.  {O- d(#den., 50 Fed.Reg. 43157 (1985); see also Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Permit FM Channel and Class  {O- d(#Modifications by Application, Report and Order in MM Docket 92159, 8 FCC Rcd 4735, 473839 (1993) (minor  yO-change applications protected against subsequentlyfiled, conflicting rulemaking petitions).  Minor changes for AM, reserved  d(#lFM band and FM translator stations do not receive such cutoff protection, but remain subject to  S- d(#competing proposals until the staff disposes of the applications.Kp {O- v #]\  PCP#эSee 47 C.F.R.  73.3571 (Processing of AM broadcast station applications), 73.3573 (NCE FM), and 74.1233 (FM translator). This policy imposes significant  d(#uncertainty and delay on minor change applicants in these services: at any time during the pendency of  d(#an application, a conflicting proposal may be filed that could halt further processing of the application and  d(#necessitate a technical amendment, settlement between the parties or designation of the mutually exclusive  S- d(#.applications for comparative hearing.2L&p {OH- v N#]\  PCP#эSee Auction NPRM, 12 FCC Rcd 22363, 2236467 (1997), regarding delays in resolving comparative  {O- d(#broadcast proceedings. The Commission asked for comment in the Auction NPRM on whether conflicting major and  d(#minor modification applications should be treated as subject to auctions under Section 309(j) of the Communications  {O-Act. See Auction NPRM, 12 FCC Rcd at 22382. 2 The uncertainty persists through the entire application process.  d(#The prospect of expending significant resources to prosecute an application without any certainty of grant may substantially deter applicants from seeking to improve service.  S- ~47.` ` Discussion. We propose to extend application of the first come/first served processing  d(#system to AM, NCE FM and FM translator minor change applications. We believe that the unlimited  d(#exposure to conflicting applications and the concomitant expense and delay under the current policy is  d(#[both inequitable and inconsistent with our treatment of minor changes for FM commercial band stations.  d(#We anticipate that this proposal would effectively remedy the uncertainty and delay presently associated  S - d(#iwith AM, NCE FM and FM translator minor change applications.M$ p {Ol- v #]\  PCP#эSee Conflicts Between Applications and Petitions for Rulemaking to Amend the FM Table of Allotments,  {O6- d(#-Report and Order in MM Docket No. 91348, 7 FCC Rcd 4917, 4919 (1992) (cutoff procedures in rulemaking  d(#petition and commercial FM band application proceedings "have proven effective in providing certainty to parties and avoiding unnecessary delays in processing"). We also believe that cutoff protection  d(#would serve the public interest by encouraging potential applicants to file for enhanced facilities while  d(#>minimizing the resources expended by the Commission and applicants in resolving conflicts between  d(#minor change applications. We are mindful that adoption of this proposal may restrict the ability of other  d(#parties to file competing proposals that would be precluded by grant of the firstfiled application. We  d(#>believe that the certainty and protection from delay that the proposed procedures would provide are  d(#sufficient to offset the lessened opportunity for the filing of competing applications. We invite comment on this proposal.  S9- 3.Revisions to the Definition of "Minor" Change in AM, NCE FM, and FM Translator  S-Services  S-  `48. ` ` Background. Under our present rules, a proposed change in the facilities of an existing  Sn- d(#Mcommercial FM band station is classified as a major change only if it involves a change in community"nM,l(l(,,"  S- d(#of license and/or certain changes in frequency and/or class.lNXp yOh- v >#]\  PCP#э47 C.F.R.  73.3573(a)(1) classifies certain class and channel changes as minor. These include proposals  d(#filed by licensees and permittees for a higher or lower class allotment on a co or adjacent channel or on an intermediate frequency. l For AM, NCE FM and FM translator  d(#stations, however, various other facility changes also are classified as major changes: (1) for AM stations,  S- d(#-most proposed increases in power;Op {O"- v L#]\  PCP#эId. at  73.3571(a)(1). The rule establishes an exception where the station's radiation levels in all directions  {O- d(#remain the same due to a reduction of antenna efficiency. Id. Changes in hours of operation also are classified as  {O- d(#major changes for AM stations due to the complex propagation characteristics of AM signals. Id. Finally, a Class  d(#JD station proposing a nighttime power increase up to 250 watts (141 mV/m at 1 kilometer equivalent) is treated as  {OH -a minor change.  Id.  (2) for NCE FM stations, any proposed change of 50 percent or more  Sg- d(#kin the station's predicted 1 mV/m (60 dBu) coverage area;PZgp {O - v #]\  PCP#эId. at 73.3573(a)(1). This standard formerly was applied to commercial FM band stations as well. See  {Mq - d(#Matter of Revision of Sections 73.3571, 73.3572 and 73.3573 of the Commission's Rules, First Report and Order in MM Docket 831377, 56 RR 2d 941, 943 (1984). and (3) for FM translators, any proposed  S4- d(#change or increase of over 10 percent in the 1 mV/m coverage area.rQ4 p {O-#]\  PCP#эId. at  74.1233.r Accordingly, facility modification  d(#.applications in these services may be subject to additional administrative procedures. These include the  d(#statutory requirements that the Commission provide a thirtyday public notice period following the  d(#zacceptance of a major change application and the opportunity to file petitions to deny and competing  Sh-applications within the thirtyday period.RhT p {O\-#]\  PCP#э#]\  PCP#See 47 U.S.C.  309(b); 47 C.F.R.  73.3573(e), 73.3580.  S- 49.` ` We perceive no compelling reason to impose these burdens and delays on proposals that  d(#are fundamentally technical and minor in nature. Staff review for major and minor change applications  S - d(#is essentially the same, and is primarily an engineering function.S p {O"-#]\  PCP#эSee First Report and Order, 56 RR 2d at 943. If the Commission decides to expand  Si - d(#jthe definition of "minor change" as proposed in this Notice, it would continue to provide public notice of  d(#the tendering of the applications and the public would continue to have an opportunity to file informal  S - d(#objections and seek reconsideration of staff actions.MT xp {O- v #]\  PCP#э47 U.S.C.  405; 47 C.F.R.  1.106, 73.3564, 73.3587; see First Report and Order, 56 Rad. Reg. 2d at 94344 (employing similar analysis in classifying commercial FM band station facilities increases as minor changes).M We believe that these procedures provide adequate  d(#>safeguards for public participation. We are aware that such treatment, as set forth more fully below,  d(#<together with our abovestated proposal to provide cutoff protection for minor change applications, would  d(#enable AM, NCE FM and FM translator stations to make certain facility changes without being subject  S8- d(#to competing applications.8U8p {O#- v #]\  PCP#эSee, e.g., Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 4738 (acknowledging that adopting cutoff protection for minor  {Ot$- d(#,change applications could foreclose prospective petitioners' opportunities to request modifications); Amendment of  {O>%- d(#Part 74 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Translator Stations, Report and Order in MM Docket 88140, 5 FCC  d(#,Rcd 7212, 7224 (1990) (rejecting suggestions that changes in FM translator coverage areas greater than 10 percent  d(#be classified as minor changes based on concern over enabling translators to increase coverage significantly without being subject to competing applications).8 We do not believe, however, that other prospective applicants would be"8PU,l(l(,,"  d(#unfairly prejudiced by this policy because prospective applicants have the ability to predict whether other  d(#?area stations have the potential to seek facilities increases based on applicable contour protection  S- d(#requirements and to file first for enhanced facilities.Vp {O- v #]\  PCP#эSee 47 C.F.R.  73.37(a) (AM daytime contour protection requirements); 73.182(q) (AM nighttime contour  yO- d(#protection requirements); 73.509 (NCE FM stations must protect 1 mV/m contour of NCE FM stations); 74.1204  {O- d(#(FM translators must protect primary service contours of existing FM and FM translator stations); see also Report  {O^- d(#and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 4738 (employing similar reasoning in adopting cutoff protection for minor change applications against rulemaking petitions) Thus, the process would be designed to favor the  d(#Kparty that is most prompt in submitting its request to the Commission. Furthermore, regardless of whether  d(#classified as a major or a minor change, the potential preclusive impact of a proposed facilities increase  d(#in the AM, NCE FM or FM translator service is necessarily limited by applicable contour protection requirements.  Sh-  #50.` ` Accordingly, we propose to expand the definition of minor change for the AM, NCE FM  d(#>and FM translator services to conform to the commercial FM "minor change" definition. Thus, only  d(#[applications to change community of license and to change to a nonmutually exclusive channel and class  S- d(#would be classified as "major" changes.W~p yO-#]\  PCP#эWe propose to continue to treat AM applications to change from Class B to Class D as "minor" changes. To prevent NCE FM and FM translator stations from  d(#abandoning their present service areas, however, we propose to require these stations to continue to  d(#provide 1 mV/m service to some portion of their presently authorized 1 mV/m service areas in order for  S6 - d(#their applications to be classified as minor changes.;X6 p yO- v #]\  PCP#эCommercial FM and AM stations presently are required to maintain 3.16 mV/m and 5 mV/m contours,  {O-respectively, over their communities of license. See 47 C.F.R.  73.24(i), 73.315(a).; We tentatively conclude that this proposal would  d(#eliminate the present inconsistent treatment of proposed facilities increases for different radio services  d(#without undermining the administration of any Commission rule or policy. In addition, we anticipate that  d(#lthis proposal would expedite the application process for certain applications and, thus, speed the introduction of improved service to the public. We invite comment on this proposal.  S- 4. Coordinate Corrections by Single Application for Licensed Stations  S-  S- 51.` ` Background. Presently, broadcast stations seeking to correct coordinates must file a  Sl- d(#construction permit application, and after grant, a license application.YZlh p {Ot- v #]\  PCP#эSee 47 C.F.R.   73.1690(b)(2) and 73.3536. Applications for construction permits must be filed on FCC  d(#+ Form 301 for commercial stations, Form 340 for noncommercial educational stations and Form 349 for FM translator and booster stations. License applications are filed on FCC Form 302 or 350 as appropriate Coordinate corrections, however,  d(#.are generally considered to be minor changes to broadcast facilities because they do not involve physical  d(#changes to the facilities or a change in licensed parameters. It has been our experience that minor  d(#ycoordinate corrections do not cause conflicts with other stations. Accordingly, we believe that for many  d(#Ncoordinate corrections the twoapplication procedure is unduly burdensome. We also believe that  d(#eliminating the separate license application requirement will reduce the burden on applicants as well as the Commission, and reduce the time necessary to license the coordinate correction.  S-  252.` ` Discussion. We propose to adopt new provisions in Parts 73 and 74 to allow corrections  d(#yof coordinates for broadcast facilities, where no other licensed parameters are changed, via a single license  d(#application. We also propose to require the applicant to certify that all licensed parameters not altered"o Y,l(l(,,="  d(#in the license application would remain unchanged. Under our proposal, the applicant would not be  d(#required to file a separate construction permit. We propose to make this procedure available where the  d(#jcorrection would be less than 3 seconds latitude and 3 seconds longitude, provided that the applicant has  Sg- d(#sought FAA clearance and antenna structure registration.ZZgp {O- v /#]\  PCP#э#C\  P6QP#In 1996, the Commission received comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM  d(#Docket 9658 requesting that a rule be adopted to allow a coordinate correction in a modification of license  {Oa- d(#application, thereby eliminating the requirement for a construction permit. See Certain Minor Changes in Broadcast  {O+- d(#Facilities Without a Construction Permit, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 8800 (1996).  The  d(#LCommission denied the request stating that the proposed onestep procedure could invite abuse by applicants  d(#+ "correcting" coordinates to a shortspaced transmitter site or a site involving prohibited contour overlap. By retaining  d(#the construction permit process, the Commission indicated that the safeguards against abuse inherent in the  {OM - d(#construction permit process would be not be lost. See Certain Minor Changes in Broadcast Facilities without a  {O - d(#Construction Permit, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12371 (1997). We now believe that limiting onestep license  d(#wapplication coordinate corrections to situations involving less than 3 seconds of longitude and latitude would provide  yO -adequate safeguards. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.#K\  P@QP#Z We seek comment on this proposal and  d(#whether an alternative standard should be adopted. We also propose to continue our policy of issuing  d(#=public notices announcing the receipt of the application, and the processing of the coordinate correction  d(#as if it were a routine minor change application. However, in the event the coordinate correction  d(#!establishes a violation of our technical rules, the Commission would retain a full range of options  Sh- d(# including the designation of the license application for hearingx[h2 p {O:-#]\  PCP#эSee 47 U.S.C.  319(c).x and the issuance of an order to show  S5- d(#cause why the construction permit should not be revoked.\5 p {O-#]\  PCP#эSee 47 U.S.C.  312(a)(2), 319(c). We propose to require any permittee that  d(#discovers an antenna structure coordinate error to file an application to modify its outstanding construction  d(#Mpermit. We tentatively conclude that the Commission may adopt this change in licensing procedures  S - d(#pursuant to Section 319(d) of the Communications Act.] V p {O-#]\  PCP#эSee Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104,  403(m), 110 Stat. 56 (1996). We believe that this process would permit full  d(#?staff review and a meaningful opportunity to file informal objections. We seek comment on these proposals.  S - + p +  S - 5.FM Translator and Booster Station Power Reductions by Single Application  S -  Sj- 53.` ` Background. Currently, FM translator and booster station licensees seeking to decrease  d(#power must comply with a twostep application process. First, an application must be filed requesting a  S- d(#construction permit authorizing the proposed decrease in effective radiated power (ERP).^p yO -#]\  PCP#э#C\  P6QP#FCC Form 349.#K\  P@QP#ѳ Second, prior  S- d(#to commencing operations, a license application must be filed for a license for the modified facilities._xp yO"-#]\  PCP#э#C\  P6QP#FCC Form 350.#K\  P@QP#ѳ  S- d(#See 47 U.S.C.  319(d). We have found, however, when reviewing license renewals that many FM  d(#translator and booster stations are actually operating at a power less than that specified in their license.  d(#In order to authorize the reduced power operation, we now require licensees to go through the twostep  d(#zprocess. In addition, FM translator licensees may resolve an interference complaint by a reduction in power. In this instance, the twostep process delays the resolution of the interference problem."_,l(l(,,4"Ԍ S- ԙ54.` ` Discussion. In order to expedite FM station license modifications in these circumstances,  d(#we propose to eliminate the twostep application process for FM translator and booster stations seeking  d(#to decrease ERP. We tentatively conclude that recent changes in Section 319 of the Communications Act  Sh- d(#jpermit the Commission to adopt this one step licensing procedure.`\h yO- v #]\  PCP#э#C\  P6QP#In 1996, Congress amended Section 319 of the Act to authorize the Commission to waive the requirement  {O- d(#for a construction permit for minor changes in the facilities of authorized broadcast stations. Telecommunications  {Ob-Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104,  403(m), 110 Stat. 56 (1996).#K\  P@QP# We seek comment on this view. In  d(#these instances, we would permit licensees to decrease their ERP after the filing of a license application  d(#proposing the power decrease. Initial construction permits for these secondary facilities are reviewed for  d(#compliance with border agreements, overlap with any authorized facilities, and overlap with channel 6  d(#television reception. A proposal to decrease the authorized ERP of such a station would not require a  d(#zfurther review of these issues. In addition, there are no minimum coverage requirements which would  S6- d(#necessitate prior approval of reductions in power.a6 {O -#]\  PCP#э#C\  P6QP#See Ted Tucker and Jan Tucker, 4 FCC Rcd 2816, 2817 (1989).#K\  P@QP# Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that the  d(#adoption of a onestep licensing procedure for these applications would be appropriate. We seek comment  S-on this proposal.b\~ {O-#]\  PCP#э#C\  P6QP#In Amendments of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Certain Minor Changes in  {O-Broadcast Facilities without a Construction Permit, 12 FCC Rcd 12371 (1997) the Commission adopted a  yO-similar onestep license process for eligible FM commercial stations to decrease power.#K\  P@QP#  S -  Sj -F. Relaxed Noncommercial Educational FM and Translator Technical Requirements  S - 1.SecondAdjacent Channel Interference Ratios for Predicting Prohibited Overlap in the Reserved Band  S -  Sk- 55.` ` Background. The Commission's commercial FM station interference protection standards  d(#require stations operating on the same channel or any of the first three adjacent channels to meet certain  S- d(#minimum distance standards.c {OH-#]\  PCP#эSee 47 C.F.R.   73.207 and 73.215. These minimum distances were derived by computing predicted interfering  d(#yand predicted service contours of stations operating at class maximums. Thus, no prohibited overlap can  d(#occur if stations meet the full spacing requirements of Section 73.207. Noncommercial educational FM  d(#stations also are protected from interference by stations operating on coand the first three adjacent  d(#channels under the rules, which generally prohibit the overlap of one station's protected service contour  S- d(#kand a second stations interfering contour.d4  {O- v #]\  PCP#эSee 47 C.F.R.  73.509 (defining prohibited overlap contours for station operating on the same channel or any of the first three adjacent channels). Analytically, where no overlap occurs, no interference is  d(#=predicted. The noncommercial rules do not specify minimum distance separation requirements. Actual,  d(#=rather than maximum class facilities are used to calculate whether prohibited overlap would occur. Thus,  d(#the location of a station's service and interfering contours determines the preclusionary impact of such  d(#stations on other potential cochannel and adjacent channel facilities. Pursuant to these requirements, a  d(# secondadjacent channel FM educational station operating on Channels 201 through 220 (88.1 MHz  d(#through 91.9 MHz) may not place its interfering contour over the protected contour of a station operating  d(#=on a secondadjacent frequency. Similarly, an FM translator applicant must avoid overlap of its 80 dBu" d,'',,k"  d(#linterfering contour with the protected contour of any other station operating on a second adjacent  S- d(#channel.e yO5- v j#]\  PCP#эA secondadjacent translator must avoid overlap of its 77 and 74 dBu interfering contours with the protected contour of class B1 and B stations in the reserved band, respectively. Although both commercial and noncommercial FM interference standards are derived from a  d(#common methodology, the commercial rules use a less preclusive 100 dBu interfering contour to calculate  Sg-minimum distance separations for stations operating on secondadjacent frequencies./fg  yO'- v j#]\  PCP#э#C\  P6QP#This inconsistency can be traced to 1962 when the Commission modified the spacing requirements to require  d(#Kthe transmitter site of any interfering second and thirdadjacent channel station be located outside the protected  {O- d(#station's service area. See Revision of FM Rules, 23 Rad. Reg. 1801 (1962). This modification eliminated any  d(#Jdistinction between second and thirdadjacent channel commercial stations for Section 73.207 purposes. No parallel  yOI -modification was adopted for noncommercial educational stations or FM translators stations. #K\  P@QP#/  S- 256.` ` Discussion. We propose to eliminate the inconsistency between the commercial and non d(#commercial station interference protection standards. Specifically, we propose to modify Sections 73.509  d(#and 74.1204(a) to specify a 100 dBu interfering contour for secondadjacent channel noncommercial  Si- d(#[educational and FM translator stations.gi yO- v #]\  PCP#эThe 97 and 94 dBu interfering contours will be specified for secondadjacent channel FM translator stations protecting class B1 and B stations in the reserved band, respectively. Based on our licensing experience in the commercial FM band,  d(#we believe that this preclusive standard better identifies areas of potentially degraded or lost service within  d(#a station's protected service area caused by another station operating on a second adjacent channel. We  d(#ialso believe it would afford certain FM educational and translator stations an opportunity to increase power  d(#and service, and provide flexibility to relocate facilities. In addition, the proposed change would permit  d(#some stations the opportunity to increase effective radiated power and, therefore, coverage at a relatively  d(#low cost. We find no reason for FM translators covered by 47 C.F.R.  74.1204(a) to be held to more  d(#stringent requirements than full service FM commercial and noncommercial educational stations. We seek comment on this proposed rule change.  Sk- 2. Minimum Coverage of the Community of License by NCE FM Stations  S-  57.` ` Background. The Commission's rules do not require NCE FM stations operating in the  d(#reserved band (Channels 201 to 220) to place a minimum field strength signal over their communities of  S- d(#license, unlike their commercial counterparts.hX*  yOj- v ԍ#C\  P6QP#47 C.F.R.  73.315(a) requires commercial FM stations to place the 70 dBu F(50,50) contour over the  d(#icommunity of license. The "Note" to this rule section specifically exempts noncommercial educational stations  yO-operating in the reserved band from this requirement.#K\  P@QP#Ѿ The Commission enacted this policy based on the fact  d(#that many NCE FM stations operate at low power levels and simply could not provide coverage to the  S:- d(#entire area within the legal boundaries of its community of license.6i:J  {O$"- v #]\  PCP#эSee Amendments to Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Certain Minor Changes in  {O"-Broadcast Facilities Without a Construction Permit, 12 FCC Rcd 12371, 12380 n. 11 (1997).6 The Commission also recognized  d(#that NCE FM stations are generally dependent on listener support, and may not have the financial  d(#resources to construct facilities that serve the entire community of license. In addition, a NCE FM  S- d(#station's programming is often oriented toward a particular audience (e.g., a college campus). However,  So- d(#-public interest concerns are raised where an NCE FM station covers no portion of its community of license"oi,'',,"  d(#with its 60 dBu contour. The association of a broadcast station with a community of license is a basic  S- d(#tenet of the Commission's allocation scheme for broadcast stations.xj {O5-#]\  PCP#эSee 47 U.S.C.  307(b).x The 60 dBu contour defines the  d(#area within which a station provides a generally listenable signal and which the Commission's rules protect  d(#from interference. Where no part of the community of license lies within the 60 dBu protected service  d(#contour, the community is at risk of losing all service from the station licensed to it should a second  d(#[station obtain an authorization for new or modified facilities that precludes the ability of the first station to place its 60 dBu contour over the community of license.  Sh-  o58.` ` Discussion. We propose to delete the note to Section 73.315(a) and to add a provision  d(#requiring FM noncommercial educational stations to provide 60 dBu (1 mV/m) service to at least a portion  S- d(#of the community of license. We recognize that many noncommercial educational stations cannot cover  d(#\their entire community of license with a 60 dBu strength signal. We believe this proposal would give  d(#LNCE FM applicants significant flexibility to locate technical facilities, consistent with the Commission's  d(#statutory licensing requirements. We seek comment on this proposal and on the percent of the population  S7 - d(#jand/or area of the community that should be covered. In the event that an NCE FM community coverage  d(#standard is adopted, we propose to apply the rule only to new station and modification applications filed after the effective date of this new rule. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.  S - 3. Revisions to Class D Rules  S-  ~ 59.` ` Background. The Commission created a low power NCE FM Class D service in 1948,  d(#=as an inexpensive means of encouraging the FM broadcasting service and as a substitute for the "campus  S- d(#broadcasting systems" then in use.kZ {O- v #]\  PCP#эMemorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC 2d 429, 429430 (1969) (rejecting proposed increase in  yOd-permissible transmitter output power for Class D stations). By 1976, however, the demand for NCE FM licenses had increased  d(#.dramatically, prompting the Commission to initiate a rule making proceeding to determine how to foster  S:- d(#the most effective use of NCE FM spectrum.l^: {O- v #]\  PCP#эSee Changes in the Rules Relating to Noncommercial Educational FM Broadcast Stations, Second Report  {OX- d(#kand Order in Docket No. 20735, 44 RR 2d 235, 23639 (1978) ("Second Report and Order"), modified,  {O"-Memorandum Opinion and Order, 70 FCC 2d 972, 974 (1979) ("MO&O").  The Commission concluded that Class D stations  d(#constituted an inefficient use of spectrum, and adopted measures to minimize their negative impact on the  d(#development of the NCE FM radio service. Specifically, the Commission encouraged Class D stations  d(#to upgrade to Class A status. It required Class D stations that did not upgrade to migrate to a commercial  d(#[FM channel or Channel 200, where they would have secondary status. Those stations unable to migrate  d(#would be required to move to the reserved band channel with "the least preclusionary impact on other  d(#potential stations[.]" In addition, the Commission ended Class D stations' protection against interference  S- d(#yand imposed a permanent freeze on applications for new Class D stations.m {OO"- v #]\  PCP#эSee Second Report and Order, 44 RR 2d at 24447; see also MO&O at 977, n. 11. This notice neither  d(#makes nor proposes any change to this permanent freeze policy. We note that the Commission has requested public  {O#- d(#Zcomment on two rulemaking petitions to establish a low power or microbroadcasting service. See Public Notice,  {O$- d(#Report No. 2254 (released February 5, 1998) (RM # 9208); Public Notice, Report No. 2262 (released March 12, 1998) (RM # 9242) (erratum). These measures and others" m,'',,l"  S-adopted in the same proceeding have fostered a more efficient use of the NCE FM spectrum.nZ yOh- v >#]\  PCP#эFor example, whereas there were 314 authorized NCE FM stations in 1966, when the issue of what to do  {O0- d(#xwith Class D stations first arose, see Notice of Inquiry in Docket 14185, 5 FCC 2d 587, 58889 (1966), there are  yO-now 1,947 authorized NCE FM stations.  S- 60.` ` The Commission remains committed to promoting the full use of the NCE FM channels.  d(#Congestion in the reserved band has increased during the past twenty years, and demand for NCE FM  S4- d(#licenses remains high.o4 {O-#]\  PCP#эSee, e.g., Educational Information Corp., 6 FCC Rcd 2207, 2208 (1991). Furthermore, a recent staff study reveals that a number of the remaining Class  S- d(#[D stations with reserved band authorizations are causing interference to full service NCE FM stations.p| yO -#]\  PCP#эThe study reveals that 38 of the 70 Class D stations with reserved band licenses are causing interference.  d(#We believe, therefore, that certain modifications to our Class D policies are appropriate. We anticipate  d(#/that the changes proposed herein would serve the Commission's original objective while avoiding the  d(#unnecessary cancellation of Class D licenses. In addition, we believe that the proposed changes would simplify and expedite Class D station licensing and renewal procedures.  S- $61.` ` Discussion. Under Section 73.512(a), Class D stations are required with each renewal  d(#cycle to migrate to an available commercial channel or Channel 200, or demonstrate the unavailability of  Sj - d(#such channels.qZj  {O- v z#]\  PCP#э47 C.F.R.  73.512(a); see Letter to Jerry A Kimbro, Ref. No. 1800B3BJB/KDY at 5, n. 11 (Chief, Audio  d(#Services Division Oct. 6, 1994) ("The Commission staff will determine a Class D station's compliance with 47 C.F.R.  73.512(a) with every renewal cycle."). We do not believe the administrative burdens these requirements impose on both  d(#zlicensees and the Commission staff are warranted where an existing Class D station is operating on an  d(#NCE FM channel without objectionable interference. Accordingly, we propose to permit Class D stations  d(#to operate on any channel where no interference (as defined by Section 73.509(b)) would be caused to any  d(#<broadcast station, and to eliminate the requirement that Class D licensees with reserved band authorizations  d(#kdemonstrate the unavailability of any commercial FM channel or Channel 200 in their license renewal  d(#applications. Under this proposal, the staff would handle channel location issues as they arise rather than  d(#addressing them as license renewal issues. In addition to reducing unnecessary administrative burdens,  d(#-we anticipate that this proposal would simplify and expedite the renewal process for Class D stations. We  d(#zalso anticipate that this proposal would facilitate improved service by Class D stations. Whereas the  d(#Mcurrent rules require Class D stations to migrate to available commercial channels or Channel 200 and  d(#[contain no provision for such stations to move back to the reserved band, the proposed new rules would  d(#allow existing Class D stations to relocate to any available interferencefree reserved or nonreserved  S-channel in order to avoid receiving interference from full power FM stations, or for any other reason.  Sm-  62.` ` With regard to Class D stations that are causing or are predicted to cause interference (as  d(#defined by Section 73.509(b)) on their current channel, we propose to apply the following standards: first,  d(#stations would be required to move to an available interferencefree channel; second, if no interferencefree  d(#ychannel is available, stations would be required to move to an NCE FM channel that would result in only". q,'',,{"  S- d(#second and/or thirdadjacent channel contour overlap;zr yOh- v .#]\  PCP#эThe current rules define Class D stations operating in the nonreserved band as "secondary," and we propose  {O0- d(#ino change in this definition. See 47 C.F.R.  73.506(a). Thus, under both the current rules and our proposal, no  d(#Class D station may be licensed to operate on a commercial FM channel with predicted interference to a full power  d(#Lstation. For purposes of this Class D channel displacement discussion, Channel 200 is treated as an NCE FM channel.z and third, if no channel is available that would  d(#be either interferencefree or create only second and/or thirdadjacent channel interference, the station  d(#Lwould be required to obtain the consent of each affected NCE FM station subject to co or firstadjacent  d(#channel interference as a condition for continued operation. The Commission has observed that co or  d(#firstadjacent channel overlap is a more serious matter than second or third adjacent channel overlap  S- d(#zbecause "the interference that may occur results in the loss of service over a wide area."sz {O -#]\  PCP#эEducational Information Corp., 6 FCC Rcd at 2208. "Second or  d(#third adjacent channel overlap may result in the replacement of one signal by another (not the complete  S- d(#loss of service) and is confined to a very small area around the transmitter of the interfering station."t  {OG- v #]\  PCP#эId. (In addition, the potential for such interference to occur depends to a great extent on the quality of the receivers used within the affected area.").  Sh- d(#In the case of low power Class D stations, the potential interference area would be exceedingly small.euhf  {On-#]\  PCP#эSee id.e  d(#Accordingly, we believe that second and thirdadjacent NCE FM channel overlap should be permitted  d(#where there is no available interferencefree channel for a Class D station. Should there be a number of  d(#=potential channels for an existing Class D station in this situation to choose from, we propose to require  d(#Lapplicants to adhere to the following frequency selection criteria: first, we would prefer overlap beyond  d(#an affected station's community of license to overlap within the licensed community; second, we would  d(#prefer third to second adjacent channel overlap; and third, we would prefer overlap involving the smallest  d(#percentage of population in a station's coverage area, so that there would be the least possible adverse  d(#impact on the affected station. In conjunction with these changes, we also propose to eliminate the "least  d(#preclusion" requirement, which is inadequately defined in the existing rules and has proved impracticable.  Sj- d(#[See 47 C.F.R.  73.512(a)(3). With regard to Class D stations presently causing second or third adjacent  d(#Lchannel overlap in the NCE FM band, we invite comment as to whether such stations should be allowed  d(#to remain on their present channels absent actual complaints of interference or required to move in  S-accordance with the standards proposed herein.v\  yOj- v |#]\  PCP#эThere is no present "actual interference" standard in the rules governing Class D stations. Rather,  {O2- d(#Yinterference is determined based on predicted contour overlap. See 47 C.F.R.  73.509(b). An "actual interference"  {O-standard is applied to FM translator and booster stations. See id. at  74.1203.   Sl-  n63.` ` A recent staff study reveals that every Class D station authorized to operate on a reserved  d(#band frequency has available at the present time an NCE FM channel on which it could operate free of  d(#^co or firstadjacent channel contour overlap. However, in the event that changes in NCE FM  d(#zauthorizations create a situation where no channel free of co and firstadjacent channel interference is  d(#available, we propose to require the Class D station to obtain the consent of the affected NCE FM"v,'',,"  S- d(#station(s) as a condition for continued operation.w yOh- v ?#]\  PCP#э We would allow Class D licensees to obtain such consent not only for the channel they are currently operating on but for any NCE FM channel or Channel 200. In the event that no agreement is reached, the Class  S- d(#[D station would be required to cease operation when program tests for the affected station commence,|x  {O-#]\  PCP#эCf. 47 C.F.R.  73.512(d). |  S- d(#and would have up to one year to obtain the required consent.y {O-#]\  PCP#эSee 47 U.S.C.  312(g) (station license expires at the end of consecutive 12month period of silence). We anticipate that such situations would  d(#.arise only very rarely, and encourage affected stations to cooperate fully with each other. Nevertheless,  d(#jwe are mindful of the possibility that the proposed rules could result in the cancellation of some Class D  d(#Llicenses in the future. The Commission recognized the same possibility when it adopted the transitional  S- d(#NClass D measures of the Second Report and Order.zD {O -#]\  PCP#эSecond Report and Order, 44 RR 2d at 245; see MO&O at 980. Having balanced its competing concerns of  d(# inefficiency and fairness to Class D stations, however, it concluded that the potential public interest  Si-benefits involved warranted its action.a{i {O-#]\  PCP#эId.a We tentatively reach the same conclusion here.  S- 64.` ` Revise Class D Definition Based on Transmitter Power Output. The current rules define  S- d(#=Class D stations as stations with transmitter power output ("TPO") of 10 watts or less.{|h  {O-#]\  PCP#эSee 47 C.F.R.  73.506(a).{ Higher class  S - d(#NCE #f\  PCx&P#FM stations, however, are defined by their predicted 1 mV/m (60 dBu) contour distances, as  Sk - d(#determined by power and antenna height in accordance with Section 73.211(b).}k  {O-#]\  PCP#э47 C.F.R.  73.211(b); see id. at  73.511. We propose to conform  d(#the definition of Class D stations to that of higher class NCE FM stations, by eliminating the TPO  d(#Lrestriction and instead defining Class D stations as stations with predicted 60 dBu contour distances not  d(#\exceeding five kilometers, as determined in accordance with Section 73.211(b). Because this standard  d(#would provide Class D stations with greater flexibility in choosing power and antenna height  d(#combinations, we anticipate that it would enable Class D stations to improve service without increasing  S9- d(#their interference potential. We are aware of five Class D stations with predicted 60 dBu contour distances  d(#exceeding the proposed five kilometer restriction. We propose to grandfather such "superpowered" Class  d(#D facilities, permitting them to continue to operate as Class D stations at their present power and antenna  d(#height and to modify their facilities provided they do not extend their predicted 60 dBu contour distances.  Sm- d(#zIn this regard, we also propose to grandfather "underpowered" Class A facilities. These stations were  d(#[authorized prior to the adoption of the Class A minimum power and antenna height requirements and do  S- d(#=not currently meet such requirements. 47 C.F.R.  73.211(a)(3). In practice, such stations currently are  S-treated as Class A facilities.  Sn- C65.` ` Classify Construction Permit Applications as Minor Changes. As noted above, the  d(#Commission imposed a permanent freeze in 1978 on the filing of applications for new Class D stations.  d(#yCertain Class D construction permit applications, including those proposing operation on a new channel,  d(#are treated as major change applications. We propose to consider all Class D facility applications as minor" },'',,"  d(#^change applications that would be processed under our more efficient "first come/first served"  S- d(#Zprocedures.|~ yOh-#]\  PCP#э47 C.F.R.  73.3573, 73.3580.| In light of the unprotected status of Class D stations, only other Class D applications would  S- d(#be affected by this proposal, {O-#]\  PCP#э47 C.F.R.  73.509(b); see Second Report and Order at 24647. and mutually exclusive Class D applications are extremely unlikely due  Sg- d(#to the low power and relatively small number of Class D stations.g yO$-#]\  PCP#эWe are unaware of any mutually exclusive Class D applications during the past decade. Ŀ By eliminating the 30day public  d(#notice period for Class D permit applications, we anticipate that this proposal would expedite processing  d(#of such applications, conferring an important benefit on displaced Class D stations. We invite comment  d(#yas to whether an application by a Class D station proposing to upgrade to Class A status, a modification that would confer protected status on such station, should be classified as a major change.  S5-  66.` ` Consistent with the above, we propose to permit Class D stations to propose changes of  d(#\licensed community or of 50 percent or more of the area within their predicted 1 mV/m contour areas  d(#provided their applications demonstrate that they would maintain continuity of service to their core  d(#audience. The present rules prohibit such changes in order to prevent the establishment of "new" Class  Si - d(#D stations.i  {O-#]\  PCP#э47 C.F.R.  73.512(c), 73.3573(a)(1); see supra, n. 104 and accompanying text. We believe this proposal would better effectuate the purpose of the present rules while  d(#providing Class D stations with greater flexibility to propose service improvements. We seek comment on these proposals.  S - 67.` ` Revise Contour Protection Requirements for Class B and B1 Stations. Section 73.509(b)  d(#requires Class D stations to protect the 1 mV/m (60 dBu) contour of all other broadcast stations, regardless  S8- d(#Lof class or location on the FM band.q8? yO-#]\  PCP#э47 C.F.R.  73.509(b).q Commercial Class B and B1 FM stations, however, traditionally  S- d(#^have received greater protection to their 0.5 mV/m (54 dBu) and 0.7 mV/m (57 dBu) contours,  S- d(#Mrespectively.F {OB- v #]\  PCP#эSee Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules to Permit ShortSpaced FM Station Assignments by  {O -Using Directional Antennas, Report and Order in MM Docket 87121, 4 FCC Rcd 1681, 1687 (1989).F Accordingly, we propose to modify Section73.509(b) to require Class D stations to  d(#protect commercial Class B and B1 stations, as well as NCE FM Class B and B1 stations operating on commercial channels, to their respective 54 dBu and 57 dBu contours. We invite comment as to whether  d(#jClass D stations that currently are required to protect the 60 dBu contours of Class B or B1 stations but  S- d(#would not comply with the proposed new standard should be permitted to continue to operate at their  S-present powers and antenna heights absent actual interference complaints.   Sn-  68.` ` We invite comment on these Class D station proposals. Are they warranted in the interest  d(#of improved NCE FM channel use? Would they promote more efficient use of NCE FM channels?  S- d(#Should we apply to Class D stations the "actual interference" standard applicable to FM translators?y+  {O#-#]\  PCP#эSee 47 C.F.R.  74.1203.y  S-Would the proposed changes sufficiently protect the ability of Class D stations to continue to operate? "o ,'',,j"Ԍ S-7 IV. Minor Rule Changes Đ\  S-  o69.` ` The following revisions are being made in this proceeding in order to clarify and correct  d(#existing rule sections. Because these revisions are noncontroversial and will have no adverse effect on  d(#any party, we find that notice and comment procedures are unnecessary and need not be followed prior  S- d(#to their adoption. {Oi-#]\  PCP#эSee 5 U.S.C.  553(a)(1), (b)(3)(B); 47 C.F.R.  1.412(c). Rule revisions are set forth in Appendix D to this Notice. We explain these revisions briefly below.  Si- #70.` ` Numerous rule sections that require the submission of informal letters to the Commission  d(#[for various types of notifications or requests state erroneous addresses where the submissions should be  d(#sent. Accordingly, we shall amend the following rule sections to include the proper address within the  d(#Commission to which the submission should be sent: Sections 73.45, 73.54, 73.58, 73.68, 73.258, 73.561,  d(#<73.1350, 73.1560, 73.1580, 73.1750, 73.3542, 73.3544, 73.3549, 74.734, 74.751, 74.763, 74.784, 74.1231, and 74.1234.  S -  71.` ` We shall adopt revisions to 47 C.F.R.  74.1235 of the Commission's rules with respect  d(#to the protection that must be afforded to and received from FM translator stations within 320 kilometers  d(#of the Canadian and Mexican borders. These revised protection requirements were promulgated in the  d(#[Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United  d(#Mexican States Relating to the FM Broadcasting Service in the Band 88-108 MHz, dated August 11, 1992  d(#and a separate exchange of Diplomatic Notes that modified provisions of the existing Agreement between  d(#the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada concerning the use of  d(#zthe 88 to 108 MHz frequency band for frequency modulation broadcasting (FM), dated February 25,  Sl- d(#/1991.&lZ {Of- v #]\  PCP#эSee U.S.Canada FM Agreement Modified to Permit Added Flexibility for FM Translators in 9722, Public  {O0- d(#Notice, DA 97-1595 (July 28, 1997); cf. In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.207(b) of the Commission's Rules  {O-Regarding Minimum Distance Separations to Mexican Broadcast Stations, Order, FCC 97-272 (August 13, 1997).   The rule revisions conform the rule to the Agreements. These changes will have no adverse  d(#effect on any existing or presently proposed FM translator station: in all cases, the revised protection requirements are less restrictive than the requirements presently specified in the rule.  S- 72.` ` We shall delete 47 C.F.R.  73.33 ("Antenna systems; showing required") of the  d(#Commission's rules, which duplicates Section 73.45(a) ("AM antenna systems"). We also shall delete the  d(#=reference to Section 73.1130 ("Station program origination") contained in the table of rule sections at the  S- d(#beginning of Part 73, subpart H of the Commission's rules. Section 73.1130 was eliminated by the Report  S- d(#and Order in MM Docket 86406, 2 FCC Rcd 3215 (1987). In addition, we shall add references to  S- d(#=Section 73.1692 of the Commission's rules, which was adopted in the Report and Order in MM Docket  d(#9658, 12 FCC Rcd 12371 (1997), to the index of rule sections at the end of Part 73. Furthermore, we  d(#[shall correct a typographical error in Section 73.312(b) ("Topographic data"), an error in the instructions  d(#for use of the F(50,50) field strength chart in Section 73.313(c)(2) ("Prediction of coverage"), and convert  d(#the English unit measurements to metric units in Section 73.151 ("Field strength measurements to establish performance of directional antennas"), consistent with the rest of the Commission's rules.  S?- 2X` (#%'0*,.8135@8: