**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

1998 Biennial Regulatory Review \-- ) MM Docket No. 98-93

Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in )

Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission\'s Rules )

**SECOND REPORT AND ORDER**

**Adopted: October 12, 2000 Released: November 1, 2000**

By the Commission:

Table of Contents:

Paragraph

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. Negotiated Interference in the FM Service: Agreements Involving
    Applications

> That Would Cause New or Increased Interference . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..3

III. Other Proposals to Give Stations Greater Technical Flexibility

> A. Point-to-Point Prediction Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...7

B. Commercial FM Technical Requirements: Amendments to Section 73.215

1.  Reduced Minimum Separation Requirements for Second- and

> Third Adjacent Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.  Additional Flexibility for Stations in Puerto Rico and the U.S.

> Virgin Islands . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..13

C.  C. New Intermediate C0 Station Class and Class C Height Above
    Average Terrain

> Minimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

D.  D. Streamlined Application Processing Changes

> 1\. Licensed Station Coordinate Corrections by Single Application . .
> . . . . . . 34
>
> 2\. FM Translator and Booster Station Power Reductions by Single
>
> Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

E.  Relaxed NCE FM and FM Translator Technical Requirements

> 1\. Second-Adjacent Channel Interference Ratios for Predicting
>
> Prohibited Overlap in the Reserved Band . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . .39
>
> 2\. Minimum Community of License Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . ..41
>
> 3\. Revisions to Class D Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

IV\. Administrative Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Appendix A: Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)

Appendix B: List of Comments and Reply Comments

Appendix C: New Class C0 FM Minimum Distance Separation Requirements

Appendix D: Rule Changes Adopted by the Commission

# INTRODUCTION

1.  This *Second Report and Order* continues the Commission's
    wide-ranging reform of the Mass Media Bureau's radio technical
    rules.[^1] We amend the Section 73.215(e) spacing table to afford
    second- and third-adjacent channel stations minimum relief of six
    kilometers from Section 73.207(a) spacing requirements.[^2] We also
    expand the types of facility changes covered by our expedited
    one-step licensing procedures and provide additional flexibility for
    service improvements by commercial FM stations in Puerto Rico and
    the United States Virgin Islands. In addition, we adopt several
    changes in our rules governing noncommercial educational FM ("NCE
    FM") stations, modifying the second-adjacent channel interference
    standard to more closely conform to the less restrictive commercial
    FM standard and establishing an NCE FM principal community coverage
    standard. With regard to our proposal to increase the minimum Class
    C antenna height, establish a new intermediate C0 station class,
    establish an intermediate Class C0 (C zero) and automatically
    reclassify all Class C FM stations failing to meet new Class C
    minimum antenna height requirements after three years, we conclude
    that a more tailored approach to reclassification would best serve
    the public interest. Under the approach we adopt, the
    reclassification procedure will be triggered only where a specific,
    conflicting demand for the spectrum is expressed. An affected Class
    C station then will have an opportunity to preserve its Class C
    status by obtaining a construction permit for facilities that meet
    or exceed the new Class C minimum antenna height.

2.  We defer final resolution of several other issues. These include our
    proposal to permit FM stations to enter into negotiated interference
    agreements that would create small areas of new interference,
    provided the applicants can demonstrate significant service gains
    and satisfy additional public interest criteria. Some of the
    regulatory issues raised in the low power FM (LPFM) proceeding may
    be relevant to our evaluation of the NCE FM Class D rule changes
    proposed in the *Notice.* Accordingly, we also defer consideration
    of the proposed Class D rule changes until finality is achieved in
    the LPFM proceeding*.*[^3] In addition, commentators have identified
    several issues regarding the Point-to-Point ("PTP")
    terrain-dependent signal propagation methodology proposed in the
    *Notice* that require further inquiry. We intend to seek additional
    comments regarding possible improvements in the proposed PTP
    methodology after making available proposed modifications on the
    Commission's Web site in the near future.

# NEGOTIATED INTERFERENCE IN THE FM SERVICE:

**AGREEMENTS INVOLVING APPLICATIONS THAT WOULD CAUSE NEW OR INCREASED
INTERFERENCE**

3.  *Background.* The *Notice* sought comment on amending the commercial
    and NCE FM interference rules to permit stations to enter into
    agreements for coordinated facility modifications that would result
    in limited amounts of new or increased interference.[^4] Comments
    were sharply divided on this issue. Several commentors assert that
    negotiated interference would degrade FM service.[^5] In particular,
    NAB argues that negotiated interference is antithetical to the
    Commission's statutory obligation to ensure the technical integrity
    of the broadcast spectrum. Fuller-Jeffrey, NAB, National Public
    Radio, Inc. ("NPR") and Robert G. Thomas contend that additional
    signal congestion and interference resulting from negotiated
    interference agreements could impede the development of terrestrial
    digital audio broadcasting ("DAB").

4.  A number of commentors urge adoption of the negotiated interference
    proposal to help give stations additional flexibility to improve
    their facilities and better serve listeners.[^6] Cumulus
    specifically notes that a number of stations are facing digital TV
    ("DTV")-related relocations and that these stations would benefit
    from the added technical flexibility that the proposed policy would
    permit. Big River argues that the development of negotiated
    interference rules is consistent with the Commission\'s role as a
    facilitator of better broadcast service. Several commentors believe
    that stations will know best where interference would be acceptable
    and applaud the Commission's efforts to encourage private parties to
    expand their use of the radio broadcast spectrum.[^7]

5.  *Discussion.* We continue to believe that the public interest would
    be served by our consideration of negotiated interference
    agreements. The record demonstrates broad support for a careful
    reexamination of the Commission\'s long-standing prohibition to
    so-called negotiated interference agreements in the radio services.
    We also are convinced as a general policy matter that listeners'
    interests would be served by giving greater flexibility to licensees
    to identify ways to better reach their audiences. Finally, we
    believe that adopting specific negotiated interference rules, rather
    than relying on case-by-case adjudications, is a better and more
    efficient way to maintain the integrity of the FM service.

6.  While the Commission continues to evaluate the benefits of adopting
    negotiated interference rules, we believe that the public interest
    would best be served by implementing the other technical
    streamlining initiatives in this docket. We anticipate addressing
    the negotiated interference proposal and the PTP alternative FM
    signal propagation prediction methodology in a subsequent order
    later this year.

# OTHER PROPOSALS TO GIVE STATIONS GREATER TECHNICAL FLEXIBILITY 

A.  Point-To-Point Prediction Methodology

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
7.  In Appendix B of the *Notice* we set forth a supplemental
    point-to-point ("PTP") prediction model developed to provide a more
    accurate prediction of interfering contours than that provided by
    the Commission's standard prediction method.[^8] Unlike the standard
    prediction method, which takes into account only the terrain between
    three and 16 kilometers from the transmitter site, the PTP method
    considers the effects of terrain from as close as one kilometer from
    the transmitter site out to all critical contour distances.
    Additionally, the PTP method takes into account terrain
    obstructions, whereas the standard method does not. The computer
    code for the PTP program, along with a technical report and
    comparisons of program results with measurement data and other
    propagation models, was made available on the Commission's Web
    site.[^9] Many of the commentators accessed this information in
    preparing their comments.

8.  Twenty-two parties submitted comments and/or reply comments
    addressing the proposed PTP model.[^10] Twelve commentators support
    use of the PTP model,[^11] six oppose its use,[^12] DLR and V-Soft
    express conditional support,[^13] Fuller-Jeffrey recommends that the
    Commission "reserve judgment" and Graham Brock addresses several
    issues but expresses no preference. We commend these parties for
    their careful analysis of the PTP program and the related materials
    at our Web site. They have made many constructive suggestions and
    offered a number of useful modifications to enhance the accuracy and
    reliability of this signal propagation prediction model. We are
    persuaded that certain issues cannot be resolved on the basis of the
    current record. In particular, we believe that it is advisable to
    consider several program modifications. These include the addition
    of a PTP subroutine to assess secondary terrain obstacles on either
    side of a primary obstacle and a program modification to use a
    three-second, rather than thirty-second, terrain database. The staff
    also is developing terrain database-based alternatives to the
    proposed use of a 5 dB constant to determine clutter loss at
    specific points. We also are considering the addition of a different
    smoothing procedure to plot signal strength contours and program
    modifications to improve the accuracy of the PTP methodology with
    unusual terrain features. We plan in the near future to make
    available these program model revisions on the Web site and to issue
    simultaneously a public notice inviting further comment.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  Commercial FM Technical Requirements: Amendments to Section 73.215

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  **Reduced Minimum Separation Requirements for Second- and
    Third-Adjacent Channels**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
9.  *Background.* Section 73.215 permits applicants to propose
    transmitter sites that do not meet the minimum distance separation
    requirements of Section 73.207.[^14] Under Section 73.215, an
    applicant must demonstrate that the proposal would not result in
    prohibited contour overlap and satisfy less restrictive spacing
    requirements.[^15] The rule was adopted to afford applicants greater
    flexibility in specifying transmitter sites, thus allowing the
    Commission to discontinue granting waivers under Section 73.207. In
    the *Notice*, however, we identified a particular shortcoming in
    Section 73.215 with regard to stations with second- and
    third-adjacent channel spacing problems.[^16] Whereas the rule
    uniformly affords co- and first-adjacent channel stations
    substantial relief from Section 73.207 spacing requirements, it
    generally limits the relief afforded to second- and third-adjacent
    channel stations to no more than 3 kilometers.[^17] In some cases,
    it provides no relief whatsoever from Section 73.207 spacing
    requirements. As a result, many stations with second- and
    third-adjacent channel spacing constraints have less flexibility to
    relocate facilities than under the former Section 73.207 waiver
    policies, which permitted the staff to grant spacing waivers of up
    to six kilometers. To remedy this shortcoming, we proposed to revise
    the Section 73.215(e) spacing table to afford all commercial FM
    stations minimum relief of 6 kilometers from the applicable Section
    73.207(a) standards.

10. Seven of 16 commentators that responded specifically to this
    proposal supported it.[^18] NAB and Fuller-Jeffrey oppose the
    proposal on the ground that it would limit the development and
    implementation of in-band on-channel DAB systems. Press supports the
    proposal only as it applies to third-adjacent channel station
    separations, opposing a reduction in the Section 73.215 spacing
    requirements for second-adjacent channel stations on the grounds
    that some conventional receivers lack sufficient selectivity to
    reject undesired second-adjacent channel stations. Graham Brock
    recommends reinstatement of the prior eight-kilometer minimum short
    spacing waiver standard to give additional latitude in site
    locations for second- and third-adjacent stations in the commercial
    FM band.

11. *Discussion.* After careful consideration of the comments filed in
    this proceeding, we conclude that adoption of the proposal as set
    forth in the *Notice* would serve the public interest. Accordingly,
    the Section 73.215(e) spacing table will be revised to afford all
    commercial FM stations minimum relief of 6 kilometers from the
    applicable Section 73.207(a) standards. This remedial amendment
    addresses a shortcoming in the Section 73.215(e) spacing table by
    providing second- and third-adjacent channel stations the same
    flexibility to relocate facilities that existed under the former
    waiver policy. With regard to the concerns expressed by NAB and
    Fuller-Jeffrey Broadcasting, the *Notice* did not propose any
    changes in the contour overlap methodology or to subsections
    (a), (b) and (d) of Section 73.215. Thus, the revisions we adopt in
    this *Order* will not permit applicants to propose contour overlap
    currently prohibited by the Commission's rules. Consequently, we do
    not believe that adoption of this proposal will have any impact on
    the development or implementation of in-band on-channel DAB systems
    or on current levels of second-adjacent channel interference.

12. The limited rationale underpinning this rule change does not support
    most of the modifications suggested in the comments, in particular
    the substantial changes suggested by Mullaney and Harvey.[^19]
    Mullaney notes that Section 73.215 can be unnecessarily restrictive
    in protecting reserved band Class B and B1 stations, *e.g.*, a
    non-reserved band Channel 221 station application that is
    short-spaced to a NCE FM Class B Channel 220 station. This results
    from the fact that all NCE FM stations, including Class B and B1
    stations, are protected to their 60 dBu contours and the Section
    73.215(e) spacing requirements are based on the non-reserved band
    Class B and B1 protected contours, 54 and 57 dBu, respectively. In
    order to rectify any inequities arising for this very limited class
    of Section 73.215 applications, we will permit the staff grant
    waivers of Section 73.215(e) on a case-by-case basis. With regard to
    Graham Brock's comment regarding eight-kilometer short-spacings,
    Graham Brock mischaracterizes the Commission's prior policy. The
    eight-kilometer standard was instituted temporarily to limit the
    number of Section 73.215 applications received by the staff and
    discontinued in 1992.[^20] Eight kilometers was a *maximum* amount
    by which applicants could be short-spaced when compared to the
    spacing requirements of Section 73.207. Therefore, we decline to
    adopt Graham Brock's suggestion.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  **Additional Flexibility for Stations in Puerto Rico and the U.S.
    Virgin Islands**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
13. *Background.* The Commission adopted Section 73.215(a)(4) in 1991 to
    provide non-reserved band stations in Puerto Rico and the U.S.
    Virgin Islands with site location flexibility concomitant with that
    enjoyed by mainland U.S. stations.[^21] A station proposing a
    facility modification pursuant to this rule must demonstrate, in
    lieu of the traditional Section 73.215(a) contour overlap showing,
    that its proposal would not extend the station's 60 dBu contour
    toward any short-spaced station. We observed in the *Notice*,
    however, that in many cases, particularly where a proposed facility
    change is from a low coastal to a higher inland location, Section
    73.215(a)(4) provides no relief because stations find it impossible
    to comply with the provision. The staff in 1993 waived Section
    72.215(a)(4) and permitted use of a method that recognized the
    actual protected and interfering contours of stations operating in
    these areas.[^22] We proposed in the *Notice* to revise Section
    73.215 to codify the actual protected and interfering contour
    distances for Class A, B1 and B stations set forth in *St. Croix
    Wireless Co.*[^23]

14. *Discussion:* We received two favorable comments regarding this
    proposal.[^24] After careful consideration of the comments, we
    conclude that adoption of this proposal would serve the public
    interest. Accordingly, we shall amend Section 73.215 to codify the
    actual protected and interfering contours of Class A, B1 and B
    stations operating in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands set
    forth in *St. Croix Wireless Co.* The modified table we are adopting
    takes into account both the distance separation requirements of
    Section 73.207 and the higher HAAT limits specified for stations in
    Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We anticipate that this
    measure will help provide stations in Puerto Rico and the U.S.
    Virgin Islands with the same flexibility to relocate facilities as
    is enjoyed by mainland stations under Section 73.215.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
C.  New Intermediate C0 Station Class and Class C Height Above Average
    Terrain Minimum

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
15. *Background*. Currently, 519 of the 863 commercial FM Class C
    stations in the non-reserved band operate with antenna heights above
    average terrain ("HAAT") of between 300 and 450 meters, far less
    than the class maximum of 600 meters.[^25] The Commission's minimum
    distance separation requirements, however, protect all Class C
    stations from interference as if they were operating at the class
    maximum. Thus, interference protection for a majority of Class C
    stations is greater than necessary to protect the stations' actual
    "primary" 60 dBu service contours. In order to remedy this
    situation, which we stated may unnecessarily preclude the
    introduction of new and improved FM service, we proposed in the
    *Notice* a reclassification modeled on the Commission's 1983 action
    in the Docket 80-90 proceeding.[^26] Specifically, we proposed to
    create an intermediate Class C0 (C zero) between Classes C and C1
    with a maximum antenna HAAT of 450 meters and a minimum requirement
    of 300 meters, as well as a power level of 100 kW (the present value
    for Class C stations) and spacing requirements reduced from Class C
    requirements. We also proposed a three-year transition period to
    give affected Class C stations a reasonable opportunity to maintain
    Class C status by upgrading facilities to the new Class C antenna
    HAAT minimum of 451 meters. We expressed our belief that these
    changes would "increase the efficiency of FM broadcast band
    licensing while permitting existing Class C stations to provide
    service equivalent to that embodied in the present allotment
    rules."[^27]

16. Twenty-four commentators responded to the Class C0 proposal, with
    ten opposing it,[^28] eight supporting it,[^29] and six taking no
    position but suggesting modifications should we adopt the
    proposal.[^30] Generally, proponents agreed with the description of
    the public interest benefits in the *Notice*, whereas opponents
    argued that the benefits are speculative and are outweighed by the
    disruptive effect that the potential involuntary downgrade may have
    on affected Class C stations. We have reviewed the Class C0 proposal
    carefully in light of the various comments received. As discussed
    below, we believe that reducing the "overprotection" of lesser
    facility Class C stations is a reasonable and appropriate means to
    recover valuable FM spectrum and thereby create opportunities for
    new and/or improved FM service. On balance, however, we cannot
    conclude that the measurable benefits of reclassification warrant
    the sweeping measure proposed in the *Notice*. Instead, we have
    determined that a more tailored approach would better serve the
    public interest. Under the approach we are adopting, the
    reclassification procedure will be triggered only where a specific,
    conflicting demand for the spectrum is expressed, *i.e.,* an
    application for construction permit or petition for rule making to
    amend the FM Table of Allotments is filed that requires the
    downgrading of a subject commercial Class C station but satisfies
    the less restrictive Class C0 spacing requirements. The affected
    Class C station then will have an opportunity to preserve its Class
    C status by obtaining a construction permit to increase its antenna
    HAAT above 450 meters and constructing such a facility. We believe
    that this tailored approach will enable broadcasters to bring more
    and better service to listeners without unnecessary disruption to
    existing Class C stations.

17. *Discussion\-- overprotection*. The present overprotection of a
    majority of Class C stations constitutes an inefficient use of FM
    spectrum and is inconsistent with the technical assumptions
    underlying the Commission's rules. The FM allotment and non-reserved
    band assignment rules do not protect fully-spaced stations based on
    their individual service ranges or contours. Rather, they protect
    all stations to the same extent as a station operating at the
    maximum facilities for its particular class, based on the assumption
    \"that each station is currently, or at some future time will be,
    operating with maximum facilities.\"[^31] Thus, the 519 commercial
    FM Class C stations operating with antenna heights above average
    terrain of less than 451 meters receive interference protection in
    excess of their actual 60 dBu service contours.[^32]

18. Opponents of the instant proposal argue that overprotection does not
    waste spectrum because Class C FM stations operating with antennas
    of less than 451 meters HAAT provide useful service to areas beyond
    their individual 60 dBu contours in the absence of interference,
    especially in rural or \"fringe\" areas with fewer aural
    services.[^33] For example, NAB argues that at 92 kilometers (the
    predicted 60 dBu service range of a maximum facility Class C
    station), the predicted signal strength of a minimum facility Class
    C station is 52 dBu, "a very useable signal."[^34] NAB also
    maintains that because the interfering contours of lesser facility
    Class C stations do not extend as far, they allow nearby stations
    operating on co- and adjacent channels to provide wider
    interference-free service than otherwise would be possible. On the
    other hand, V-Soft argues that \"a large amount of spectrum is
    wasted by protecting minimum facilities\[,\]\" AFCCE asserts that
    the subject stations \"in reality never served these areas \[beyond
    their individual 60 dBu contours,\]\" and Graham Brock maintains
    that even in the absence of interference stations operating with
    antennas at 300 to 350 meters HAAT do not cover their protected
    service areas.[^35]

19. The Commission considered and rejected in the Docket 80-90
    proceeding similar arguments opposed to involuntary downgrades.[^36]
    We recognize that all stations, including Class C stations, may
    provide useful service beyond their individual protected contours in
    the absence of interference. It does not follow, however, that the
    Commission's rules should protect such extended service. Protected
    service ranges as defined pursuant to the Commission's rules are not
    simply a function of the distance at which adequate reception is
    possible. Rather, they reflect a balance between providing adequate
    service areas and permitting a sufficient number of FM
    assignments.[^37] An allotment scheme based on protecting existing
    stations' "useable signal\[s\]" would effectively close the FM
    spectrum to further assignments; indeed, such a scheme would have
    prevented the authorization of a large portion of existing FM
    stations. We see no reason now to move away from our core allocation
    standards, which have safeguarded the technical integrity of the FM
    band since 1962 while permitting the full development of the FM
    band. Overprotection of Class C stations is inconsistent with those
    standards and constitutes an inefficient use of spectrum.[^38] Of
    course, the fact that existing, interference-free service is likely
    to be lost as a result of reclassification is entitled to some
    weight in our public interest determination. In our 1983 action
    downgrading certain Class B and Class C stations, the Commission
    concluded that \"the provision of new primary service and first
    and/or second local service is *a* *higher priority* than the
    preservation of service beyond the normally protected service area
    of existing stations.\"[^39] As discussed below, we find that a
    comparable balance of interests obtains here.

20. NAB and other opponents of reclassification also argue that Class C
    stations subject to reclassification may face significant obstacles
    to upgrading their facilities, and that overprotection provides
    needed flexibility. According to these commentators, valid reasons
    for operating at substantially less than maximum facilities include
    lack of available funding to carry out facility upgrades, FAA or
    zoning restrictions, and population factors (*e.g.*, sparse
    population outside their current 60 dBu contours). They maintain
    that such obstacles, as well as lack of available tower space and
    construction crews, would prevent many of the affected stations from
    preserving their Class C status. In addition, they argue that the
    flexibility provided by overprotection to respond to potential
    changes in circumstances is an important part of the FM service\'s
    identity. On the other hand, *AFCCE* cites the above-stated
    obstacles in favor of the Class C0 proposal, reasoning that there is
    little likelihood that these stations would maximize their
    facilities. The Commission found unpersuasive similar arguments
    against reclassification in the Docket 80-90 proceeding.

The Commission realizes that many stations are operating at less than
'full' facilities because of other Commission regulations, other
government agencies\' limitations, or restrictions of local
jurisdictions. It is exactly this inconsistency, between the Commission
providing for expansion when the possibility is virtually non-existent,
that we wish to rectify. Rather than viewing reclassification as
discriminatory, the Commission believes that recognizing actual facility
limitations is a realistic means of allowing for additional
outlets.[^40]

The same reasoning applies here. "\[A\] station\'s classification should
reflect its potential, either by spacing requirements, economics, or
government limitations\[.\]\"[^41] Whatever the cause, a Class C station
operating near the class minimum antenna height does not provide actual
service commensurate with the interference protection that it receives
under the Commission's rules. Thus, we conclude that the public interest
would be served by adopting procedures to promote more efficient use of
FM spectrum by making available this underutilized spectrum on a demand
basis for competing broadcast uses.

21. Several commentators also argue that the Class C0 proposal is unfair
    to broadcasters that may have invested large sums of money to
    upgrade and preserve Class C status following the Commission's 1983
    action downgrading certain Class B and Class C stations, in
    particular small broadcasters for whom the cost of upgrade may be
    prohibitive. Northwestern College states that it spent over \$1
    million to regain a Class C allotment for KFNW(FM), Fargo, North
    Dakota, after the station was downgraded following the Docket 80-90
    proceeding. Robert G. Thomas, General Manager of KEXL(FM), Norfolk,
    Nebraska, states that over \$250,000 was invested to preserve KEXL
    as a Class C station after that proceeding. They maintain that the
    costs of upgrading again would be prohibitive for them and for other
    small broadcasters. NAB (in reply comments) argues that \"\[i\]t is
    simply inappropriate for the Commission to continually \'move the
    bar\' for these stations, forcing them to spend large sums of money
    in order to comply with new rules every few years.\"[^42] However,
    we cannot conclude that the effect of the instant proposal would be
    unfair, either in general or in the case of particular broadcasters,
    based on the fact that the Commission undertook a similar action in
    the Docket 80-90 proceeding. The *Report and Order* in that
    proceeding was released in 1983, over 15 years ago. In the instant
    proceeding, we proposed to provide stations subject to
    reclassification with an additional three-year transition period to
    upgrade their facilities and, as discussed below, we adopt with
    modifications these procedures in this *Order*.

22. *Creating additional FM service opportunities through
    reclassification*. We next address the potential for enhanced FM
    service resulting from the reclassification of Class C stations that
    fail to satisfy the proposed 451 meter HAAT requirement. Opponents
    of reclassification argue that it is not warranted by evidence of
    either a present demand for additional FM service or of the
    proposal's likely efficacy in addressing such a demand. SCCC argues
    that the proposal lacks the detailed study and compelling public
    interest basis that underpinned the Commission\'s actions in the
    Docket 80-90 proceeding. A substantial demand for new FM service
    supported the Commission's actions in that proceeding, SCCC asserts,
    whereas the *Notice* in the instant proceeding describes a congested
    FM band environment with little opportunity for new or improved
    services. SCCC, Heritage and Cosmopolitan are concerned that such
    congestion would be exacerbated by the creation of an additional
    class of FM stations. In addition, Cumulus, Fuller-Jeffrey and NAB
    stress that the Commission did not quantify in the *Notice* the
    potential of the Class C0 proposal to create opportunities for
    additional FM service.[^43] Cumulus argues that reclassification
    would produce few benefits in light of current FM band congestion
    and the previous Docket 80-90 proceeding, stating that \"the juice
    has already been largely if not entirely squeezed from the
    lemon.\"[^44] On the other hand, CTI argues that it would allow a
    number of Class A and C3 FM stations to upgrade facilities without
    creating interference to the actual 60 dBu service areas of
    downgraded Class C stations. Graham Brock contends that the proposal
    would enable some Class A stations to increase from three to six
    kilowatts and possibly allow class upgrades. Neither proponents nor
    opponents of the proposal offer data in support of their arguments
    regarding the Class C0 proposal's potential to create opportunities
    for new and improved full power FM service.

23. As SCCC's comments indicate, the Commission's adoption of various
    measures in the Docket 80-90 proceeding was founded in part on
    evidence of a substantial demand for new FM service and studies
    demonstrating the potential efficacy of proposed changes in FM
    licensing procedures.[^45] The FM service obviously is more
    developed now than at the time of the Docket 80-90 proceeding. We
    recognized in the *Notice* that radio is a mature service, and that
    virtually all major and mid-sized radio markets receive service from
    five or more radio stations.[^46] Nevertheless, there is evidence of
    a continuing demand for additional FM service, both in the largest
    markets and elsewhere. For example, the Commission received a total
    of 241 petitions to amend the FM Table of Assignments in fiscal year
    1998, and 96 petitions in the first quarter of fiscal year 1999
    alone. Competing expressions of interest have been filed with regard
    to approximately 35 percent of these petitions. In addition,
    approximately 200 one-step upgrade applications currently are on
    file with the Mass Media Bureau. The Commission previously has
    treated such evidence of demand "as a fair basis on which to examine
    the public interest aspects of new proposals. As a practical matter,
    if a community really has little potential for establishing an
    additional station, we believe it unlikely that applicants or
    investors would be willing to extend the effort or financial backing
    that is required."[^47] Based on this evidence, we find that as a
    general matter there is an unsatisfied demand for additional FM
    service opportunities. The substantial increase in the number of
    licensed stations since 1983 magnifies the need for measures to
    increase the efficiency of FM spectrum use. We find unpersuasive the
    concerns expressed by some commentators regarding spectrum
    overcrowding as a result of the Class C0 proposal. As discussed
    above, the instant proposal is entirely consistent with the
    principles underlying the FM allotment and assignment rules, by
    which the Commission has safeguarded the technical integrity of the
    FM band since 1962.

24. Despite the continuing demand for additional FM service
    opportunities, examination of the record before us indicates that
    the Class C0 proposal has limited potential for creating
    opportunities for additional FM service. First, as several
    commentators point out, the number of FM outlets has increased
    significantly since the Docket 80-90 proceeding. Second, whereas the
    Docket 80-90 proceeding involved the reclassification of both Class
    B and Class C FM stations, the instant proposal involves only the
    reclassification of Class C stations, which are not permitted to
    operate in most parts of the Northeast and in California under the
    Commission's rules.[^48] Thus, the proposal would not create any
    additional FM service opportunities in these areas. Finally, a staff
    computer study assessing the potential for new station assignments
    and existing station upgrades as a result of reclassification of the
    519 Class C stations operating with HAATs of 300 to 450 meters
    suggests that the proposal has limited potential for creating
    additional FM service opportunities elsewhere. The study identified
    94 cases in which reclassification would permit new Class A FM
    station assignments to communities of at least 1,000 persons that
    are currently without local FM or AM assignments. In most of these
    predominantly rural communities, however, the staff found that at
    least one other commercial frequency also was available for a new
    Class A FM station. In addition, the study identified 42 cases in
    which one-step upgrades in class by existing stations at their
    licensed sites would be possible as a result of reclassification,
    and an additional 42 cases in which reclassification could make
    possible one-step upgrades in class by existing stations at their
    licensed sites under the contour protection provisions of Section
    73.215(e).[^49] The potential for service improvements involving
    site changes would be greater, but is not subject to certain
    predictive analysis due to many factors, including: site
    availability; the interest of potential upgrade applicants in making
    facility improvements, possibly at new sites; intervening
    application filings; etc. Thus, we recognize that the staff's
    computer study is of limited utility. Nevertheless, taken together
    with the other factors stated above, it is sufficient to conclude
    that the C0 proposal is unlikely to significantly promote
    opportunities for new and improved full power FM service on a
    nationwide basis.

25. *Balance of interests*. In light of the Class C0 proposal's limited
    potential for creating opportunities for additional FM service, we
    must consider whether the disruption entailed in the possible
    downgrade of approximately 60 percent of all present Class C FM
    stations is warranted. In this regard, opponents of reclassification
    argue that an automatic downgrade would force affected Class C
    stations to expend resources in evaluating site options, zoning, FAA
    issues, etc., and in many cases to choose between an expensive tower
    relocation or modification and the potential loss of existing
    service. Cumulus asserts that the reclassification measures in the
    Docket 80-90 proceeding set off a costly and time-consuming scramble
    for tower space that would be repeated if we were to adopt the
    instant proposal. In some cases, there is no reason to put stations
    through this process because alternative spectrum is available for
    additional FM service or because there is relatively little feasible
    use for the spectrum that would be made available by downgrade. On
    balance, therefore, we cannot conclude that the measurable potential
    benefits of the Class C0 proposal warrant the sweeping
    reclassification proposed in the *Notice*. However, where there is a
    *bona fide* interest in such spectrum, however, we do not believe
    that the public interest is served by continued overprotection of
    stations that have failed to construct facilities in accordance with
    the expectations underlying their original Class C station
    assignments. Under these circumstances, reclassification would serve
    the public interest by recovering valuable FM spectrum.

26. *Reclassification procedure*. Based on the foregoing, we have
    determined that a reclassification procedure tied to a specific
    demand for underutilized spectrum would best serve the public
    interest. Under the approach we are adopting, the reclassification
    procedure will be triggered only where a specific, *bona fide*
    demand for the spectrum is expressed, *i.e.,* an application for
    construction permit is filed that is short-spaced to the Class C
    station but would be fully spaced to a Class C0 assignment.
    Triggering applicants may utilize the contour protection provisions
    of Section 73.215 of the Commission's rules.[^50] The Section 73.207
    and 73.215(e) spacing tables will be modified to accommodate the new
    Class C0.[^51] The triggering application must certify that no
    alternative channel is available for the proposed service.[^52]
    Copies of the triggering application and related pleadings must be
    served on the licensee whose authorization the triggering
    application seeks to modify. If the staff concludes that a
    triggering application is acceptable for filing, the staff will
    notify the affected licensee of the proposed reclassification by
    issuing an order to show cause via certified mail, return receipt
    requested.[^53] The order to show cause will provide the licensee 30
    days to express in writing an intention to seek authority to upgrade
    the subject station's technical facilities to preserve Class C
    status, or to otherwise challenge the proposed action. If no such
    intention is expressed and the proposed action is not challenged,
    the staff will reclassify the subject station as a Class C0 station,
    and complete its processing of the triggering application.[^54] If
    an intention to modify is expressed, an additional 180-day period
    will be provided during which the Class C station licensee must file
    an acceptable construction permit application to increase the
    station's antenna HAAT above 450 meters.[^55] The current three-year
    construction period will be applicable to Class C stations that
    obtain permits under this procedure. Upon grant of such a
    construction permit application, the triggering application will be
    dismissed. If the construction is not completed as authorized, the
    subject Class C station will be reclassified automatically as a
    Class C0 station, and the triggering applicant will be free to
    refile.[^56]

27. Stations seeking to upgrade to Class C0 status will be able to do so
    in accordance with the Commission's existing policies.[^57] Class C
    stations subject to reclassification may elect to be downgraded as
    part of a package of related, contingent facility modification
    applications filed under the contingent application rule.[^58]
    Vacant Class C allotments will not be subject to reclassification.
    Consistent with our existing procedures, however, if a construction
    permit application is filed for a vacant Class C allotment proposing
    Class C0 station facilities, *i.e.*, antenna HAAT between 300 and
    450 meters, then the station will be automatically downgraded to
    Class C0.

28. The reclassification procedure also may be initiated through the
    filing of an original rule making petition to amend the FM Table of
    Allotments. In such cases, the Commission will notify the affected
    Class C station licensee of the proposed reclassification by issuing
    a notice of proposed rule making in accordance with the Commission's
    rules.[^59] However, where a triggering petition proposes an
    amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to
    the proposed reclassification, such as a channel substitution, the
    staff will issue an order to show cause as described *supra*, and a
    notice of proposed rule making will be issued only after the
    reclassification issue is resolved. We believe that this procedure
    is necessary to avoid disrupting the efficient and orderly
    processing of petitions for rule making and imposing unnecessary
    burdens on the parties to such proceedings. For the same reasons,
    reclassification may be initiated only through an original petition
    for rule making to amend the FM Table of Allotments, and not through
    comments or counterproposals. Furthermore, to prevent a backlog of
    petitions contingent on matters in addition to reclassification,
    such petitions will be dismissed upon the filing, rather than the
    grant, of an acceptable construction permit application by the
    subject Class C station.

29. We shall amend Section 73.3584 to permit the filing of a petition to
    deny a reclassification application in connection with the staff's
    issuance of an order to show cause.[^60] Arguments opposing
    reclassification because the station provides useful extended
    service beyond its actual primary contour or because of obstacles to
    upgrading facilities will not be deemed to raise a substantial and
    material question of fact warranting hearing. Our above-stated
    findings establish that reclassification serves the public interest
    where there is a specific demand for spectrum and the Class C
    station licensee does not intend to upgrade. Affected Class C
    station licensees may successfully challenge reclassification by
    demonstrating that the triggering application violates the
    Commission's technical rules or that there is another frequency
    available for the proposed new or improved service. We do not
    believe that the costs entailed in the potential downgrade of an
    existing Class C station are warranted where an alternative
    frequency is available for the proposed service. As indicated above,
    available alternative frequencies are limited to frequencies upon
    which the proposed service could operate at its specified antenna
    location in full compliance with the distance separation
    requirements of Section 73.207, without any other changes to the FM
    Table of Allotments.[^61] Petitioners may not rely on frequencies
    that are available only as a result of the lesser spacing
    requirements of Section 73.215.[^62] Although triggering applicants
    may seek authorizations under Section 73.215, we do not believe that
    they should be forced to accept a Section 73.215 condition on their
    authorizations and the more limited interference protection afforded
    such stations.[^63] In addition, an "alternative" site showing must
    use the triggering applicant's specified site. Given the complicated
    nature of site selection, we do not believe that the Commission
    should be engaged in determining whether an alternative site is
    available and feasible for a proposed service. Therefore, a
    challenge to a proposed reclassification on the ground that another
    site is available at which the proposed service could be provided at
    full Class C spacing will not be deemed to raise a substantial and
    material question of fact warranting hearing.

30. Under this tailored approach, opportunities for new FM service and
    for substantial service improvements by existing stations will be
    facilitated without the disruption entailed in a blanket downgrade
    of Class C FM stations. Affected Class C stations will have a
    reasonable opportunity to preserve Class C status by upgrading
    facilities, but need not engage in expensive tower modification or
    relocation efforts in the absence of specific, *bona fide* demand
    for the spectrum that reclassification would make available. Because
    the procedures we are adopting hinge on the simple filing of
    construction permit applications or rule making petitions by
    interested parties, substantial staff resources will not be required
    to administer it. Furthermore, new and improved FM service may be
    made available to the public in a more expeditious manner than under
    the original C0 proposal, which involved a universal and inflexible
    three-year transition period. A station will be downgraded
    automatically after 30 days if it does not express an intention to
    upgrade facilities or otherwise challenge a proposed
    reclassification, and after 180 days if it fails to file an
    acceptable construction permit application. In addition, no wait
    will be necessary if interested parties can reach agreement on the
    reclassification of a Class C station to Class C0 status, in which
    case the licensees may seek authority for coordinated station
    modifications under our recently-modified contingent application
    rule.

31. A number of commentators argue variously that the originally
    proposed three-year transition period is too short, too long, or
    that exceptions should be granted under some circumstances. As set
    forth above, under the modified approach we are adopting, Class C
    stations subject to reclassification will have at least 30 days to
    determine whether to seek authority to upgrade, and an additional
    180 days to file an acceptable construction permit application. The
    Commission recently lengthened the authorized time period for
    construction of radio facilities from 18 months to three years,
    eliminated the practice of providing additional construction time
    after a permit has been modified or assigned, and imposed strict
    criteria for tolling the new extended construction period.[^64]
    Application of these policies will provide affected Class C station
    licensees an additional, unencumbered three years to complete
    construction of upgraded facilities once their permit application is
    granted. Based on our review of the record in this proceeding, we
    find no reason for departure from these policies in the context of
    these reclassification procedures. They will provide affected Class
    C stations with a reasonable opportunity to preserve their Class C
    status, while ensuring that new and improved FM service may be
    brought to the public as expeditiously as possible.[^65]

32. In this regard, we are mindful of the potential for abuse of our
    general broadcast construction policies in the context of this
    reclassification procedure. Although an affected Class C station
    must file an acceptable construction permit application within 180
    days of expressing an intent to modify facilities, the three-year
    construction period will not commence until grant of the
    application, which requires a valid FAA determination that the
    proposed antenna structure poses "no hazard" to air navigation.[^66]
    Whereas most permit applicants have an incentive to obtain FAA
    approval as quickly as possible in order to commence the authorized
    construction period, a Class C station subject to reclassification
    may wish to delay obtaining such approval, thereby increasing the
    period of time a triggering applicant ultimately must wait for a
    Class C0 spacing. We caution Class C station licensees against such
    tactics. We believe that the current staff practice of regularly
    monitoring the status of pending construction permit applications
    will be sufficient to guard against dilatory prosecution of
    applications. Furthermore, just as copies of triggering
    applications, petitions and related pleadings must be served on the
    licensee whose authorization may be modified,[^67] we will require
    that Class C station licensees serve on triggering applicants or
    petitioners copies of any FAA submissions related to the
    construction permit application process. Class C station licensees
    subject to reclassification that fail to prosecute construction
    permit applications by foot dragging in the FAA approval process
    will be subject to dismissal of their applications.[^68]

33. Finally, we address two suggested modifications to the original C0
    proposal made by commentators. First, KNXR and Karl D. Lahm, P.E.
    (in reply comments) proposed that we allow stations to retain Class
    C status by increasing power to attain equivalence with Class C
    stations operating with minimum facilities of 451 meters HAAT and
    100 kW. We reject this alternative based on the Commission's
    reasoning in the Docket 80-90 proceeding. As we noted there, "an
    increase in power increases interference more than it does service.
    Therefore, we should obviously encourage improvement in service
    through greater antenna height rather than greater power\[.\]"[^69]
    In addition, *Hatfield & Dawson* proposed that affected Class C
    stations in mountainous areas be allowed to retain Class C status
    where their antennas operate at more than 450 meters HAAT on at
    least four of the eight terrain radials required to compute antenna
    HAAT, pointing out that in such areas terrain may be substantially
    more elevated in certain directions than in others.[^70] We decline
    to adopt this proposal. Section 73.313(d) of the Commission's rules
    provides for the exclusion of terrain radials or portions thereof
    from antenna HAAT computation only where the radials extend over
    large bodies of water or foreign territories.[^71] In the "Denver
    cases," the Mass Media Bureau waived this rule to allow radials
    extending primarily over the Rocky Mountains to be excluded for the
    sole purpose of calculating HAAT, based on showings that the radials
    would improperly skew the antenna HAAT value of the stations in
    question.[^72] These waivers enabled the stations in question to
    avoid reclassification pursuant to the Docket 80-90 proceeding. The
    staff will give careful consideration to any requests for waiver of
    Section 73.313(d) submitted by Class C stations subject to
    reclassification that are located in mountainous areas, on a
    case-by-case basis.[^73]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
D.  **Streamlined Application Processing Changes**

**1. Licensed Station Coordinate Corrections by Single Application**

1.  

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
34. *Background*. Under our present rules, a broadcast station seeking
    to correct coordinates must complete a two-step process, first by
    filing an application to modify its outstanding authorization, and
    second, after grant of the construction permit application, an
    application for license to cover the permit.[^74] In the *Notice* we
    proposed, pursuant to Section 319(d) of the Communications Act,[^75]
    to revise our rules to allow licensees to correct coordinates of a
    broadcast facility via a single license application in instances
    where no other licensed parameters are changed.[^76] We tentatively
    concluded that applicants could use this procedure where the
    correction would be less than three seconds latitude and three
    seconds longitude, provided the applicant has obtained FAA clearance
    and antenna structure registration. Under this proposal, a public
    notice would be issued announcing receipt of a qualifying minor
    change application and its processing as a routine minor change
    application.

35. Parties commenting on this proposal had no objections, but most made
    comments or suggestions regarding coordinate corrections that would
    result in short spacings under Section 73.207 of the Commission's
    rule.[^77] For instance, WVRC states that where coordinate
    corrections result in a new short spacing, the Commission must
    determine whether to "grandfather" the station and make the
    appropriate change in the engineering database. Radio Property
    Ventures, however, "assumes" that where a one-second change would
    create a short spacing, the Commission would waive Section 73.207
    and grandfather the short spacing. AFCCE recommends that, if a
    facility becomes short spaced as a result of the correction, the
    facility file a FCC Form 301 (application for construction permit
    for a commercial broadcast station) accompanied by an exhibit
    addressing the short spacing issue.

36. *Discussion*. After careful consideration of the comments filed in
    this proceeding, we shall adopt without modification the one-step
    licensing proposal set forth in the *Notice*. We will not grant
    automatic waivers of Section 73.207 and "grandfather" short-spacings
    resulting from coordinate corrections. Rather, where a coordinate
    correction creates a short spacing or aggravates an existing short
    spacing, the station must follow the regular two-step application
    process.[^78] Although a corrected tower location may involve a *de
    minimis* short*-*spacing, such a proposal may raise technical or
    international treaty issues more appropriately considered in the
    context of an application for construction permit. Therefore, only
    coordinate corrections that do not result in short-spacings or
    aggravate existing short-spacings may use this streamlined
    procedure. License applications proposing short-spacings will be
    dismissed.

**2. FM Translator and Booster Station Power Reductions by Single
Application**

37. *Background*. Under our current rules, an FM translator or booster
    station seeking authorization to operate at reduced effective
    radiated power ("ERP") must go through a two-step process of filing
    a construction permit application and, second, an application for
    license to cover the modified facilities.[^79] Many translator and
    booster stations are currently operating at a power less than that
    specified in their license and must complete this two-step process
    to bring the station operations into compliance with the
    Commission's rules. In the *Notice* we proposed, pursuant to the
    1996 amendment of Section 319 of the Communications Act of 1934, to
    permit FM translator and booster licensees to obtain authorizations
    specifying lower ERPs by single application.[^80] Initial
    construction permit applications are reviewed for compliance with
    international agreements, and minimum protection requirements for
    radio and TV Channel 6 stations. A decrease in power will not
    require further review of these issues. We sought comment on this
    proposal and on whether the Commission has the authority to
    implement a one-step process under Section 319(f) of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996.[^81]

38. *Discussion.* Although several commentators supported proposals to
    streamline application processing in general, none commented on this
    specific proposal or questioned our authority under the Act to waive
    construction permit requirements.[^82] We shall adopt our proposal
    as set forth in the *Notice*. We shall revise our rules to expand
    one-step-licensing procedures to allow FM translator and booster
    stations to decrease power only by filing a license application.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
E.  **Relaxed NCE FM and FM Translator Technical Requirements**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  **Second-Adjacent Channel Interference Ratios for Predicting
    Prohibited Overlap in the Reserved Band**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
39. We proposed in the *Notice* to conform commercial and NCE FM
    interference standards by modifying Sections 73.509 and 74.1204(a)
    of the Commission's rules to specify a 100 dBu interfering contour
    for second-adjacent channel NCE FM and FM translator stations.[^83]
    Commercial and NCE FM interference standards are derived from a
    common methodology.[^84] Despite this, second-adjacent channel
    protection requirements use a 100 dBu interfering contour in the
    non-reserved band and an 80 dBu interfering contour in the reserved
    band. We stated in the *Notice* that, based on our experience, the
    commercial FM 100 dBu standard is a better gauge of potential
    second-adjacent channel interference than the 80 dBu standard, and
    that we were aware of no reason for continuing to impose more
    stringent standards on NCE FM and FM translator stations.[^85] We
    also observed that adoption of a less preclusive 100 dBu standard
    would create opportunities for NCE FM and FM translator stations to
    increase power and coverage, and provide them with greater site
    selection flexibility.[^86]

40. The eight commentators that responded specifically to this proposal
    unanimously support it.[^87] After careful consideration of the
    comments filed in this proceeding, we conclude that adoption of 100
    dBu second-adjacent channel interference standard for NCE FM and FM
    translator stations is warranted. Accordingly, Section 73.509 and
    74.1204(a) of the Commission's rules shall be modified to specify a
    100 dBu interfering contour for second-adjacent channel NCE FM and
    FM translator stations.[^88] As proposed in the *Notice*, 97 and 94
    dBu interfering contours will be specified for second-adjacent
    channel FM translator stations protecting non-reserved band Class B1
    and B stations, respectively.[^89]

**2. Minimum Community of License Coverage**

41. *Background.* Unlike their commercial counterparts, NCE FM stations
    are not required under our rules to provide a minimum field strength
    signal over their principal community.[^90] In the *Notice*, we
    proposed to revise our rules to delete the Note in Section 73.315(a)
    and require each NCE FM station to provide 60 dBu (1 mV/m) service
    to at least a portion of its community of license.[^91] We requested
    comment on minimum population and coverage area requirements. This
    proposal reflects our determination that a radio station cannot
    adequately serve its community of license unless it places a
    listenable and protected signal over at least a portion of such
    community. With one exception, commentators supported the proposal
    to require NCE FM stations to cover a portion of its community of
    license. However, none of the comments suggested any specific
    population or coverage minimum. NPR states that any required portion
    of coverage should be based on site options, target audience and
    "other relevant" factors. Hardy & Carey comments there was no reason
    to establish a new, more restrictive rule.

42. *Discussion*. After careful consideration of the comments filed in
    this proceeding, we conclude that the public interest would be
    served by adopting the proposal as set forth in the *Notice*. We
    disagree with Hardy & Carey because public interest concerns are
    raised when no portion of a community of license is covered by an
    NCE FM station's service contour. Accordingly, we shall delete the
    Section 73.315 Note. We shall also revise the rules to require NCE
    FM stations operating on reserved channels to provide a predicted 60
    dBu signal to at least 50 percent of its community of license or
    reach 50 percent of the population within the community. We have
    chosen to measure an NCE FM station's service to its community of
    license on the basis of 60 dBu signal strength for several reasons.
    First, a substantial portion of the population located within this
    contour is more likely to receive a listenable signal. Second, the
    Commission's technical rules protect all NCE FM stations to their 60
    dBu contour. Thus, this rule will help ensure that at least half of
    the community receives protected service on a permanent basis.
    Further, we recognize that many NCE FM stations operate at lower
    power levels and may not be able to comply with the 70 dBu
    commercial FM station principal community coverage requirement. As
    suggested by NPR, this 60 dBu coverage standard should ensure
    sufficient flexibility in siting facilities and reaching target
    audiences. We believe this modification balances the Commission's
    mandate under Section 307(b) of the Act with the service, technical,
    and financial realities of operating NCE FM stations.[^92]

43. We proposed in the *Notice* to apply the new rule only to
    applications filed after the effective date of the new rule. On
    further reflection, however, we now believe that licensing of NCE FM
    stations that do not meet this coverage minimum is contrary to the
    public interest. Accordingly, the coverage requirements set forth
    herein will apply to all applications pending as of the release date
    of this *Order* or filed thereafter. Applicants will be permitted to
    file curative amendments within thirty days of the *Order's*
    effective date to bring their applications into compliance with the
    new rules.

**3. Revisions to Class D Rules**

44. Low power NCE FM Class D stations are currently required to file
    applications to migrate to the non-reserved band or channel 200 as
    part of the license renewal process. We proposed in the *Notice* to
    replace this requirement with a more flexible approach based on the
    availability of interference-free channels. We also sought comment
    on eliminating the 10 watt maximum TPO restriction, and proposed
    instead to permit Class D stations to operate with power levels that
    limit predicted 60 dBu contour distances to five kilometers.[^93]
    Most of the comments on these issues supported efforts to simplify
    and expedite Class D station licensing and renewal procedures.[^94]
    Notwithstanding the *Notice's* explicit statement that these
    proposals solely concerned the approximately 135 currently licensed
    Class D stations, several commentators, including NAB, opposed
    changes to such stations' technical and interference characteristics
    based on the concern that such changes "might be used as a blue
    print for low power FM."[^95] We reiterate that our limited
    objectives in proposing Class D rule changes are to preserve a
    valuable and longstanding service, consistent with our interest in
    efficient spectrum management, and to streamline Class D renewal and
    licensing procedures. Importantly, the *Notice* proposed no change
    to the Commission's permanent freeze policy regarding new Class D
    station applications.[^96]

45. After the close of the public comment period in this docket the
    Commission initiated a proceeding to establish a new low power FM
    (LPFM) broadcast service.[^97] We believe that the new LPFM service
    may create new facility options for a number of Class D stations.
    However, the LPFM proceeding is not yet final. Thus, we cannot with
    certainty assess the practical impact of LPFM licensing
    opportunities for Class D stations. Accordingly, we conclude that
    deferral of the instant Class D proposals until the LPFM proceeding
    is final is warranted.

# ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

46. *Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis*. The action contained
    herein has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act
    of 1995 and found to impose new or modified reporting and
    recordkeeping requirements or burdens on the public. Implementation
    of these new or modified reporting and recordkeeping requirements
    will be subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget
    as prescribed by the Act.

47. The Commission has determined that the rules adopted in this *Second
    Report and Order* will not have a significant economic impact on a
    substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Commission has
    attached a copy of the Final Certification to this *Second Report
    and Order* as Appendix A.

48. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to the authority contained
    in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 308 and 309 of the Communications Act
    of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 4(i), 4(j), 303, 308 and 309, the
    Commission's rules ARE AMENDED as set forth in Appendix D.

49. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the rule amendments set forth in
    Appendix D WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 days after their publication in
    the *Federal Register*, and the information collection contained in
    these rules will become effective 30 days after publication in the
    *Federal Register*, following Office of Management and Budget
    approval, unless a notice is published in the *Federal Register*
    stating otherwise.

50. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Commission\'s Consumer Information
    Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    *Second Report and Order*, including the Final Regulatory
    Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
    Small Business

Administration.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

**Appendix A**

**[FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION]{.underline}**

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)[^98] requires
that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking
proceedings, unless the agency certifies that \"the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.\"[^99] The RFA generally defines \"small entity\" as having
the same meaning as the terms \"small business,\" \"small
organization,\" and \"small governmental jurisdiction.\"[^100] In
addition, the term \"small business\" has the same meaning as the term
\"small business concern\" under the Small Business Act.[^101] A small
business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated;
(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration
(SBA).[^102]

In this *Second Report and Order*, the Commission continues its
wide-ranging radio technical streamlining initiative. The *Order* amends
the commercial FM station spacing table for short-spaced assignments, 47
C.F.R. § 73.215(e), to provide all stations with minimum relief of six
kilometers from basic spacing requirements, 47 C.F.R. § 73.207, with
respect to second and third adjacent channel stations. (*See* Section
III.B.1.) The *Order* also provides special spacing relief for FM
commercial stations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands that operate
at greater than class maximums. (*See* Section III.B.2.) These changes
will give certain existing stations, including small entities,
additional flexibility in the siting of their technical facilities and
may facilitate station relocations to preferred sites. These rule
changes impose no costs or reporting burdens on existing stations.
Although impossible to predict, the Commission anticipates approximately
20 -- 30 stations per year of the more than 5,000 existing commercial FM
stations will take advantage of these changes and file applications to
improve their technical facilities.

The *Order* divides the current FM Class C into two separate classes
based on antenna height. (*See* Section III.C.) The Commission rejected
an across-the-board downgrading of existing Class C stations that do not
meet the new minimum antenna height. Instead, it adopted a procedure for
limited downgrading only where there is a competing demand for the radio
spectrum and the Class C station fails to modify its facilities to the
new Class C minimum antenna height. This modification of the rule
imposes no cost or reporting burden on existing stations. Although
impossible to predict, the Commission anticipates that not more than 10
stations per year will seek facility changes that require the
downgrading of one of the approximately 500 Class C stations operating
with antenna heights below the new class minimum.

The *Order* expands the types of facility changes covered by the Mass
Media Bureau's expedited one-step licensing procedure to include radio
tower coordinate corrections of less than three degrees and FM
translator and booster power reduction proposals. (*See* Section III.D.1
and 2.) These rule changes impose no cost or reporting burdens on
existing stations. Although impossible to predict, the Commission
anticipates that approximately 40 radio broadcast stations -- out of
approximately 12,600 radio stations and 4,000 FM translator stations
will benefit from the expansion of the one-step licensing procedure.

Finally, the *Order* gives additional facility siting flexibility to
noncommercial educational (NCE) FM stations by modifying the
second-adjacent channel interference standard to more closely conform to
the less restrictive commercial FM standard. (*See* Section III.E.1.) It
also establishes, on a going forward basis, an NCE principal community
coverage standard. These rule changes impose no cost or reporting
burdens on existing stations. The change in the second adjacent channel
interference protection standard will give certain NCE stations
additional flexibility in locating their technical facilities. Although
impossible to predict, the Commission anticipates that it will receive
approximately 10-20 facility modification applications, from a total of
over 2,500 NCE FM stations that take advantage of this increased
technical flexibility. The establishment of an NCE FM community of
license signal coverage requirement may restrict siting options for
certain stations. Although impossible to predict, the Commission
anticipates that this new requirement will impact fewer than five
stations per year.

In sum, the changes we are adopting are small and will generally have
minor but positive effects on radio licensees, including small entities,
that can take advantage of these streamlining rule changes. In addition,
the number of small entities affected by these modifications is not
substantial. As noted above, there is no economic effect on the vast
majority of radio stations as a result of most of the rule changes
adopted by the Commission in this *Order.* Only two changes could have
an adverse economic effect on radio stations: the costs associated with
a facility modification to preserve full Class C status; and the
potential costs associated with restricting the location of NCE FM
station technical facilities to those sites that would ensure adequate
signal coverage of the station's community of license. As stated above,
however, none of these potential economic impacts are expected to be
significant.

Therefore, we certify that the requirements of this *Second Report and
Order* will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the *Second
Report and Order*, including a copy of this final certification, in a
report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996.[^103] In addition, the *Second Report and Order*
and this certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the SBA, and will be published in the Federal Register.[^104]

**APPENDIX B**

LIST OF COMMENTS AND REPLY COMMENTS

**Comments:**

Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers

Big River Broadcasting Corporation

Central Virginia Educational Telecommunications Corporation

Communications Technologies, Inc.

Cosmopolitan Enterprises of Victoria, Inc.

Cumulus Media, Inc.

Delmarva Broadcasting Company

Thomas Desmond

du Treil Lundin & Rackley, Inc.

East Arkansas Broadcasters, Inc.

Educational Information Corporation

Fuller‑Jeffrey Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

Graham Brock, Inc.

Greater Media Radio Co.

Greenup County Broadcasting, Inc.

Hardy & Carey, L.L.P.

Richard L. Harvey

Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers, LLC

Heritage Communications, Inc.

Hometown Broadcasting Company, Inc.

Hometown Radio Corporation

Jim Lawson Communications, Inc.

Mullaney Engineering, Inc.

National Association of Broadcasters

National Public Radio, Inc.

Northeastern University

Northwestern College

Piedmont Broadcasting Corporation

Press Communications, LLC

Radio Property Ventures

Redwood Empire Stereocasters

Reynolds Technical Associates

The Rutherford Group, Inc.

Silverado Broadcasting Company

Sound of Life, Inc.

South Central Communications Corporation

Student Educational Broadcasting, Inc.

Robert G. Thomas, General Manager, KEXL(FM), Norfolk, Nebraska

Thunderbolt Broadcasting Company

Tuned In Broadcasting, Inc.

United Audio Corporation

V‑Soft Communications

Carlos J. Colon Ventura

WCPE (Deborah S. Proctor, General Manager)

WGUL-FM, Inc.

Bart Walker

Weigle Broadcasting Corporation

West Virginia Radio Corporation

**Reply Comments:**

American Community Oriented Radio Network

Big City Radio, Inc.

Communications Technologies, Inc.

Creative Educational Media Corporation, Inc.

Delmarva Broadcasting Company

du Treil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc.

Educational Information Corporation

Greater Media Radio Co.

Hampton Roads Educational Telecommunications Association, Inc.

Charles E. Harder

Heritage Communications, Inc.

Karl D. Lahm, P.E.

National Association of Broadcasters

National Public Radio, Inc.

Northeastern University

Press Communications, LLC

Reynolds Technical Associates

D. Michael Self Broadcasting, Inc.

Thunderbolt Broadcasting Company

Carlos J. Colon Ventura

The Washington University

Wine Country Radio

**APPENDIX C**

### NEW CLASS C0 FM MINIMUM DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS {#new-class-c0-fm-minimum-distance-separation-requirements .unnumbered}

47 C.F.R. § 73.207 C0 minimum distance separation requirements, in
kilometers (miles)

**Relation Co-channel 200 kHz 400/600 kHz 10.6/10.8 MHz**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  A to C0        215 (134)      152 (94)       86 (53)        25 (16)

  B1 to C0       248 (154)      180 (112)      87 (54)        27 (17)

  B to C0        272 (169)      214 (133)      89 (55)        31 (19)

  C3 to C0       226 (140)      163 (101)      87 (54)        27 (17)

  C2 to C0       239 (148)      176 (109)      89 (55)        31 (19)

  C1 to C0       259 (161)      196 (122)      94 (58)        37 (23)

  C0 to C0       270 (168)      207 (129)      96 (60)        41 (25)

  C to C0        281 (175)      220 (137)      105 (65)       45 (28)
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

#### APPENDIX D {#appendix-d .unnumbered}

**I. Part 1 of Title 47 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows**:

**Section 1.420 is amended by changing Note 2 to subsection (h) to Note
3 and adding Note 2 to subsection (g) to read as follows**:

Note 2: The reclassification of a Class C station in accordance with the
procedure set forth in Note 4 to Section 73.3573 may be initiated
through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM Table
of Allotments. The Commission will notify the affected Class C station
licensee of the proposed reclassification by issuing a notice of
proposed rule making, except that where a triggering petition proposes
an amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to
the proposed reclassification, the Commission will issue an order to
show cause as set forth in Note 4 to Section 73.3573, and a notice of
proposed rule making will be issued only after the reclassification
issue is resolved. Triggering petitions will be dismissed upon the
filing, rather than the grant, of an acceptable construction permit
application to increase antenna height to at least 451 meters HAAT by a
subject Class C station.

**II. Part 73 of Title 47 of the United States Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:**

**Section 73.207 is amended by revising Table A of subsection (b) to
read as follows**:

\(b\) \* \* \* \* \*

Table A\--Minimum Distance Separation Requirements In Kilometers (Miles)

Co- 400/600 10.6/

Relation channel 200 kHz kHz 10.8 MHz

A to A..................... 115 (71) 72 (45) 31 (19) 10 (6)

A to B1 .................... 143 (89) 96 (60) 48 (30) 12 (7)

A to B..................... 178 (111) 113 (70) 69 (43) 15 (9)

A to C3 .................... 142 (88) 89 (55) 42 (26) 12 (7)

A to C2 .................... 166 (103) 106 (66) 55 (34) 15 (9)

A to C1 ................... 200 (124) 133 (83) 75 (47) 22 (14)

A to C0 ................... 215 (134) 152 (94) 86 (53) 25 (16)

A to C..................... 226 (140) 165 (103) 95 (59) 29 (18)

B1 to B1.................. 175 (109) 114 (71) 50 (31) 14 (9)

B1 to B.................... 211 (131) 145 (90) 71 (44) 17 (11)

B1 to C3.................. 175 (109) 114 (71) 50 (31) 14 (9)

B1 to C2.................. 200 (124) 134 (83) 56 (35) 17 (11)

B1 to C1.................. 233 (145) 161 (100) 77 (48) 24 (15)

B1 to C0.................. 248 (154) 180 (112) 87 (54) 27 (17)

B1 to C .................. 259 (161) 193 (120) 105 (65) 31 (19)

B to B..................... 241 (150) 169 (105) 74 (46) 20 (12)

B to C3.................... 211 (131) 145 (90) 71 (44) 17 (11)

B to C2.................... 241 (150) 169 (105) 74 (46) 20 (12)

B to C1.................... 270 (168) 195 (121) 79 (49) 27 (17)

B to C0.................... 272 (169) 214 (133) 89 (55) 31 (19)

B to C......................274 (170) 217 (135) 105 (65) 35 (22)

C3 to C3.................. 153 (95) 99 (62) 43 (27) 14 (9)

C3 to C2.................. 177 (110) 117 (73) 56 (35) 17 (11)

C3 to C1.................. 211 (131) 144 (90) 76 (47) 24 (15)

C3 to C0.................. 226 (140) 163 (101) 87 (54) 27 (17)

C3 to C ................... 237 (147) 176 (109) 96 (60) 31 (19)

C2 to C2.................. 190 (118) 130 (81) 58 (36) 20 (12)

C2 to C1.................. 224 (139) 158 (98) 79 (49) 27 (17)

C2 to C0.................. 239 (148) 176 (109) 89 (55) 31 (19)

C2 to C ................... 249 (155) 188 (117) 105 (65) 35 (22)

C1 to C1.................. 245 (152) 177 (110) 82 (51) 34 (21)

C1 to C0.................. 259 (161) 196 (122) 94 (58) 37 (23)

C1 to C ................... 270 (168) 209 (130) 105 (65) 41 (25)

C0 to C0.................. 270 (168) 207 (129) 96 (60) 41 (25)

C0 to C ................... 281 (175) 220 (137) 105 (65) 45 (28)

C to C..................... 290 (180) 241 (150) 105 (65) 48 (30)

**Section 73.210 is amended by revising subsections (a) and (b)(3) to
read as follows**:

\(a\) The rules applicable to a particular station, including minimum
and maximum facilities requirements, are determined by its class.
Possible class designations depend upon the zone in which the station\'s
transmitter is located, or proposed to be located. The zones are defined
in Sec. 73.205. Allotted station classes are indicated in the Table of
Allotments, Sec. 73.202. Class A, B1 and B stations may be authorized in
Zones I and I-A, Class A, C3, C2, C1, C0 and C stations may be
authorized in Zone II.

\(b\) \* \* \* \* \*

\(3\) \* \* \* \* \*

\(iv\) If this distance is greater than 72 km and less than or equal to
83 km, the station is Class C0.

\(v\) If this distance is greater than 83 km and less than or equal to
92 km, the station is Class C.

**Section 73.211 is amended by revising subsections (a), (b)(1) and
adding subsection (d) as follows**:

\(a\) *Minimum requirements*.

\(1\) \* \* \* \* \*

\(vii\) The minimum ERP for Class C and C0 stations is 100 kW.

\(2\) Class C0 stations must have an antenna height above average
terrain (HAAT) of at least 300 meters (984 feet). Class C stations must
have an antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) of at least 451
meters (1480 feet).

\(b\) *Maximum limits*. (1) Except for stations located in Puerto Rico
or the Virgin Islands, the maximum ERP in any direction, reference HAAT,
and distance to the class contour for each FM station class are listed
below:

Class

Reference contour

Station class Maximum ERP HAAT in distance

meters (ft.) in kilo-

meters

A\...\...\...\...\...\... 6kW (7.8 dBk)\...\...\...\.... 100
(328)........ 28

B1\...\...\...\...\..... 25kW (14.0 dBk)\...\...\..... 100
(328)......\... 39

B\...\...\...\...\...\... 50kW (17.0 dBk)\...\...\..... 150
(492)......... 52

C3\...\...\...\...\..... 25kW (14.0 dBk)\...\...\..... 100
(328)......... 39

C2\...\...\...\...\..... 50kW (17.0 dBk)\...\...\..... 150
(492)......... 52

C1\...\...\...\...\..... 100kW (20.0 dBk)\...\...\....299 (981).........
72

C0............. 100kW (20.0 dBk)........450 (1476)........ 83

C\...\...\...\...\...\... 100kW (20.0 dBk)\...\...\....600
(1968)........ 92

\* \* \* \* \*

\(d\) *Existing Class C stations below minimum antenna HAAT*. Class C
stations authorized prior to \[the effective date of the Second Report
and Order in MM Docket No. 98-93\] that do not meet the minimum antenna
HAAT specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for Class C stations
may continue to operate as authorized subject to the reclassification
procedures set forth in Note 4 to Section 73.3573.

**Section 73.215 is amended by revising subsections (a) and (e) to read
as follows**:

\(a\) \* \* \* \* \*

\(4\) Protected and interfering contours (in dBu) for stations in Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are as follows:

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.948611111111111in"
height="3.3986111111111112in"}

\(e\) \* \* \* \* \*

400/600

Relation Co-Channel 200 kHz kHz

A to A\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.............. 92 (57) 49 (30) 25
(16)

A to B1\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............ 119 (74) 72 (45) 42
(26)

A to B\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.............. 143 (89) 96 (60)
63 (39)

A to C3\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............ 119 (74) 72 (45) 36
(22)

A to C2\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............ 143 (89) 89 (55) 49
(30)

A to C1\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............ 178 (111) 111 (69)
69 (43)

A to C0\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\... 193 (120)
130 (81) 80 (50)

A to C\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.............. 203 (126) 142 (88)
89 (55)

B1 to B1\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............. 143 (89) 96 (60) 44
(27)

B1 to B\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............ 178 (111) 114 (71)
65 (40)

B1 to C3\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............. 143 (89) 96 (60) 44
(27)

B1 to C2\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............ 175 (109) 114 (71) 50
(31)

B1 to C1\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\........... 200 (124) 134 (83) 71
(44)

B1 to C0\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\... 215 (134) 153
(95) 81 (50)

B1 to C\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\........... 233 (145) 165 (103)
99 (61)

B to B\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.............. 211 (131) 145 (90)
68 (42)

B to C3\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............ 178 (111) 114 (70)
65 (40)

B to C2\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............ 211 (131) 145 (90)
68 (42)

B to C1\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............ 241 (150) 169 (105)
73 (45)

B to C0\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\... 266 (165)
195 (121) 83 (52)

B to C\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.............. 268 (163) 195
(121) 99 (61)

C3 to C3\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............. 142 (88) 89 (55) 37
(23)

C3 to C2\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............. 166 (103) 106 (66) 50
(31)

C3 to C1\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............. 200 (124) 133 (83) 70
(43)

C3to C0 \...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\... 215 (134) 152
(94) 81 (50)

C3 to C\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............ 226 (140) 165 (103)
90 (56)

C2 to C2\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............. 177 (110) 117 (73) 52
(32)

C2 to C1\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............. 211 (131) 144 (90) 73
(45)

C2 to C0\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\... 227 (141) 163
(101) 83 (52)

C2 to C\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............ 237 (147) 176 (109)
96 (61)

C1 to C1\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............. 224 (139) 158 (98) 76
(47)

C1 to C0\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\... 239 (148) 176
(109) 88 (55)

C1 to C\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\............ 249 (155) 188 (117)
99 (61)

C0 to C0 \...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\... 259 (161) 196
(122) 90 (56)

C0 to C \...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\..... 270 (168) 207
(129) 99 (61)

C to C\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.............. 270 (168) 209
(130) 99 (61)

**Section 73.315 is amended by deleting the Note**.

**Section 73.509 is amended by revising subsection (a) to read as
follows**:

\(a\) \* \* \* \* \*

> Contour of Contour of other

Frequency separation proposed station station

Co-channel\...\...\...\...\...\...\....0.1mV/m (40 dBu).. 1 mV/m (60
dBu).

1 mV/m (60 dBu)\... 0.1 mV/m (40 dBu).

200 kHz\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.... 0.5 mV/m (54 dBu).. 1 mV/m (60
dBu).

1 mV/m (60 dBu)\... 0.5 mV/m (54 dBu).

400 kHz/600 kHz \...\..... 100 mV/m (100 dBu) 1 mV/m (60 dBu).

1 mV/m (60 dBu)\... 100 mV/m (100 dBu).

**A new Section 73.515 is added as follows**:

**§ 73.515 NCE FM Transmitter Location**

The transmitter location shall be chosen so that, on the basis of
effective radiated power and antenna height above average terrain
employed, a minimum field strength of l mV/m (60 dBu) will be provided
over at least 50 percent of its community of license or reach 50 percent
of the population within the community.

**§73.807 Minimum distance separation between stations, is amended as
follows**

> \* \* \* \* \*
>
> (a)(1) An LP100 station will not be authorized initially unless the
> minimum distance separations in the following table are met with
> respect to authorized FM stations, timely-filed applications for new
> and existing FM stations, authorized LP100 stations, LP100 station
> applications that were timely-filed within a previous window, and
> vacant FM allotments. LP100 stations are not required to protect LP10
> stations. LPFM modification applications must either meet the distance
> separations in the following table or, if short-spaced, not lessen the
> spacing to subsequently authorized stations.

+--------+--------+-------+-------+---------+--------------+--------+
| S      | Co-c   |       | Firs  |         | Sec          | I.F .  |
| tation | hannel |       | t-adj |         | ond-adjacent | C      |
| Class  | M      |       | acent |         | Channel      | hannel |
| Pro    | inimum |       | Ch    |         | Minimum      | m      |
| tected | Sepa   |       | annel |         | Separation   | inimum |
| by     | ration |       |       |         |              | separ  |
| LP100  |        |       | Mi    |         | (km)         | ations |
|        | (km)   |       | nimum |         |              |        |
|        |        |       | Separ |         | Required     | 10.6   |
|        | For No |       | ation |         |              | or     |
|        |        |       |       |         |              | 10.8   |
|        | Interf |       | (km)  |         |              | MHz    |
|        | erence |       |       |         |              |        |
|        |        |       | For   |         |              |        |
|        | Re     |       | No    |         |              |        |
|        | ceived |       |       |         |              |        |
|        | From   |       | In    |         |              |        |
|        | Max.   |       | terfe |         |              |        |
|        |        |       | rence |         |              |        |
|        | Class  |       |       |         |              |        |
|        | Re     |       | Rec   |         |              |        |
|        | quired |       | eived |         |              |        |
|        | Fa     |       |       |         |              |        |
|        | cility |       | From  |         |              |        |
|        |        |       | Max.  |         |              |        |
|        |        |       | Class |         |              |        |
|        |        |       | Req   |         |              |        |
|        |        |       | uired |         |              |        |
|        |        |       | Fac   |         |              |        |
|        |        |       | ility |         |              |        |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+---------+--------------+--------+
| LP100  | 24     | 24    | 14    | 14      | None         | None   |
|        |        |       |       |         |              |        |
| D      | 24     | 24    | 13    | 13      | 6            | 3      |
|        |        |       |       |         |              |        |
| A      | 67     | 92    | 56    | 56      | 29           | 6      |
|        |        |       |       |         |              |        |
| B1     | 87     | 119   | 74    | 74      | 46           | 9      |
|        |        |       |       |         |              |        |
| B      | 112    | 143   | 97    | 97      | 67           | 12     |
|        |        |       |       |         |              |        |
| C3     | 78     | 119   | 67    | 67      | 40           | 9      |
|        |        |       |       |         |              |        |
| C2     | 91     | 143   | 80    | 84      | 53           | 12     |
|        |        |       |       |         |              |        |
| C1     | 111    | 178   | 100   | 111     | 73           | 20     |
|        |        |       |       |         |              |        |
| C0     | 122    | 193   | 111   | 130     | 84           | 22     |
|        |        |       |       |         |              |        |
| C      | 130    | 203   | 120   | 142     | 93           | 28     |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+---------+--------------+--------+

> (a)(2) \* \* \* \* \*
>
> (b)(1) An LP10 station will not be authorized unless the minimum
> distance separations in the following table are met with respect to
> authorized FM stations, timely-filed applications for new and existing
> FM stations, vacant FM allotments, or LPFM stations.

+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------------+--------+
| S      | Co-c   |       | Firs  |        | Se            | I.F .  |
| tation | hannel |       | t-adj |        | cond-adjacent | C      |
| Class  | M      |       | acent |        | Channel       | hannel |
| Pro    | inimum |       | Ch    |        | Minimum       | m      |
| tected | Sepa   |       | annel |        | Separation    | inimum |
| by     | ration |       |       |        |               | separ  |
| LP10   |        |       | Mi    |        | (km)          | ations |
|        | (km)   |       | nimum |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | Separ |        | Required      | 10.6   |
|        | For No |       | ation |        |               | or     |
|        |        |       |       |        |               | 10.8   |
|        | Interf |       | (km)  |        |               | MHz    |
|        | erence |       |       |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | For   |        |               |        |
|        | Re     |       | No    |        |               |        |
|        | ceived |       |       |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | In    |        |               |        |
|        | From   |       | terfe |        |               |        |
|        | Max.   |       | rence |        |               |        |
|        | Class  |       |       |        |               |        |
|        | Re     |       | Rec   |        |               |        |
|        | quired |       | eived |        |               |        |
|        | Fa     |       |       |        |               |        |
|        | cility |       | From  |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | Max.  |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | Class |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | Req   |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | uired |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | Fac   |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | ility |        |               |        |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------------+--------+
| LP100  | 16     | 22    | 10    | 11     | None          | None   |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| LP10   | 13     | 13    | 8     | 8      | None          | None   |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| D      | 16     | 21    | 10    | 11     | 6             | 2      |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| A      | 59     | 90    | 53    | 53     | 29            | 5      |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| B1     | 77     | 117   | 70    | 70     | 45            | 8      |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| B      | 99     | 141   | 91    | 91     | 66            | 11     |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| C3     | 69     | 117   | 64    | 64     | 39            | 8      |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| C2     | 82     | 141   | 77    | 81     | 52            | 11     |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| C1     | 103    | 175   | 97    | 108    | 73            | 18     |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| C0     | 114    | 190   | 99    | 127    | 84            | 21     |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| C      | 122    | 201   | 116   | 140    | 92            | 26     |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------------+--------+

\* \* \* \* \*

**Section 73.1690 is amended by revising subsection (b)(2) and adding
subsection (c)(11) as follows**:

\(b\) \* \* \* \* \*

\(2\) Any change in station geographic coordinates, including coordinate
corrections of more than 3 seconds latitude and/or 3 seconds longitude.
FM and TV directional stations must also file a construction permit
application for any move of the antenna to another tower structure
located at the same coordinates.

\(c\) \* \* \* \* \*

\(11\) Correction of geographic coordinates where the change is less
than 3 seconds latitude and 3 seconds longitude provided no there is no
physical change in location and no other licensed parameters are
changed. The correction of coordinates may not result in any
short-spacings or increases in existing short-spacings.

**Section 73.3573 is amended by adding Note 4 to read as follows**:

NOTE 4: A Class C station operating with antenna height above average
terrain ("HAAT") of less than 451 meters is subject to reclassification
as a Class C0 station upon the filing of a triggering application for
construction permit that is short-spaced to such a Class C station under
Section 73.207 but would be fully spaced to such a station considered as
a Class C0 assignment. Triggering applications may utilize Section
73.215. Triggering applications must certify that no alternative channel
is available for the proposed service. Available alternative frequencies
are limited to frequencies that the proposed service could use at the
specified antenna location in full compliance with the distance
separation requirements of Section 73.207, without any other changes to
the FM Table of Allotments. Copies of a triggering application and
related pleadings must be served on the licensee of the affected Class C
station. If the staff concludes that a triggering application is
acceptable for filing, it will issue an order to show cause why the
affected station should not be reclassified as a Class C0 station The
order to show cause will provide the licensee 30 days to express in
writing an intention to seek authority to modify the subject station's
technical facilities to minimum Class C HAAT or to otherwise challenge
the triggering application. If no such intention is expressed and the
triggering application is not challenged, the subject station will be
reclassified as a Class C0 station, and processing of the triggering
application will be completed. If an intention to modify is expressed,
an additional 180-day period will be provided during which the Class C
station licensee must file an acceptable construction permit application
to increase antenna height to at least 451 meters HAAT. Upon grant of
such a construction permit application, the triggering application will
be dismissed. Class C station licensees must serve on triggering
applicants copies of any FAA submissions related to the application
grant process. If the construction is not completed as authorized, the
subject Class C station will be reclassified automatically as a Class C0
station. The reclassification procedure also may be initiated through
the filing of an original petition for rule making to amend the FM Table
of Allotments as set forth in Note 2 to Section 1.420(g).

**Section 73.3584 is amended by adding subsection (a)(1) to read as
follows**:

(a)(1) A party in interest may file a Petition to Deny any application
that proposes reclassification of a Class C authorization to Class C0
not later than 30 days after issuance of an order to show cause by the
Commission notifying the affected licensee of the proposed
reclassification.

**III. Part 74 of Title 47 of the United States Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:**

**Section 74.1204 is amended by revising subsection (a) to read as
follows**:

(a) \* \* \* \* \*

\(1\) Commercial Class B FM Stations (Protected Contour: 0.5 mV/m)

> Interference
>
> contour of Protected contour

Frequency proposed of commercial

Separation translator Class B station

> station

Co-channel 0.05 mV/m (34 dBu) 0.5 mV/m (54 dBu)

200 kHz 0.25 mV/m (48 dBu) 0.5 mV/m (54 dBu)

400 kHz/

600 kHz 50.0 mV/m (94 dBu) 0.5 mV/m (54 dBu)

\(2\) Commercial Class B1 FM Stations (Protected Contour: 0.7 mV/m)

> Interference

contour of Protected contour

Frequency proposed of commercial

separation translator Class B1 station

station

Co-channel 0.07 mV/m (37 dBu) 0.7 mV/m (57 dBu)

200 kHz 0.35 mV/m (51 dBu) 0.7 mV/m (57 dBu)

400 kHz/

600 kHz 70.0 mV/m (97 dBu) 0.7 mV/m (57 dBu)

\(3\) All Other Classes of FM Stations (Protected Contour: 1 mV/m)

Interference

contour of Protected contour

Frequency proposed of any other

separation translator station

Co-channel 0.1 mV/m (40 dBu) 1 mV/m (60 dBu)

200 kHz 0.5 mV/m (54 dBu) 1 mV/m (60 dBu)

400 kHz 100 mV/m (100 dBu) 1 mV/m (60 dBu)

600 kHz 100 mV/m (100 dBu) 1 mV/m (60 dBu)

**Section 74.1251 is amended to revised subsection (b)(7) to read as
follows**:

\(b\) \* \* \* \* \*

\(7\) Any increase of authorized effective radiated power. FM translator
and booster stations may decrease ERP on a modification of license
application provided that exhibits are included to demonstrate that the
following requirements are met:

\(i\) The license application may not propose to eliminate the
authorized horizontally polarized ERP, if a horizontally polarized ERP
is currently authorized;

\(ii\) The installed height of the antenna radiation center is not
increased by more than two meters nor decreased by more than four meters
from the authorized height for the antenna radiation center; and

\(iii\) The station is not presently authorized with separate horizontal
and vertical antennas mounted at different heights. Use of separate
horizontal and vertical antennas requires a construction permit before
implementation or changes.

[^1]: ^?^ *See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Streamlining of Radio
    Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, First
    Report and Order* in MM Docket No. 98-93, FCC 99-55 14 FCC Rcd 5272
    (1999), 1999), and *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in MM Docket No.
    98-93*,* 13 FCC Rcd 14849 (1998) ("*Notice*").

[^2]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.207(a), 73.215(e).

[^3]: ^?^ *Creation of a Low Power Radio Service*, *Report and Order* in
    MM Docket No. 99-25, 15 FCC Rcd 2205 (2000).

[^4]: ^?^ *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14857-63.

[^5]: ^?^ *See* Comments of the Association of Federal Communications
    Consulting Engineers ("AFCCE"), Cosmopolitan Enterprises of
    Victoria, Inc. ("Cosmopolitan"), Thomas Desmond, Fuller-Jeffrey
    Broadcasting Companies, Inc. ("Fuller-Jeffrey"), the National
    Association of Broadcasters ("NAB"), South Central Communications
    Corporation ("SCCC") and Robert G. Thomas.

[^6]: ^?^ *See* Comments of Big River Broadcasting Corporation ("Big
    River"), Cumulus Media, Inc. ("Cumulus"), Delmarva Broadcasting
    Company ("Delmarva"), Hardy & Carey, L.L.P. ("Hardy & Carey"), Tuned
    In Broadcasting, Inc., V-Soft Communications ("V-Soft") and Weigle
    Broadcasting Corporation ("Weigle").

[^7]: ^?^ *See* Comments of Big River, Educational Information
    Corporation ("EIC") and Jim Lawson Communications, Inc. ("Lawson").

[^8]: ^?^ The standard prediction method refers to the use of Figures 1
    and 1a of 47 C.F.R. §73.333 for predicting the location of protected
    service and interfering contours, respectively.

[^9]: ^?^ The Fortran code can be accessed at
    \[http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/asd/prp/\]. The report is located at
    \[http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1998/fcc98117.txt\].
    Comparisons with data is located at
    \[ftp://www.fcc.gov/pub/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Databases/mmb/fm/model/\].

[^10]: ^?^ *See* Comments and Reply Comments of AFCCE, Big City Radio,
    Inc., CTI, Cumulus, DLR, Thomas Desmond, Fuller-Jeffrey, Graham
    Brock, Greenup County Broadcasting, Inc. ("Greenup"), Hardy & Carey,
    Hatfield & Dawson, Hometown Radio Corp., NAB, NPR, Redwood Empire
    Stereocasters, Reynolds, Silverado Broadcasting Company, Sound of
    Life, SCCC, V-Soft, WVRC and Wine Country Radio.

[^11]: ^?^ *See* Comments and Reply Comments of Big City Radio, Inc.,
    CTI, Cumulus, Thomas Desmond, Greenup, Hometown Radio Corp., Redwood
    Empire Stereocasters, Silverado Broadcasting Company, Sounds of
    Life, SCCC, WVRC and Wine Country Radio.

[^12]: ^?^ *See* Comments and Reply Comments of AFCCE, Hardy & Carey,
    Hatfield & Dawson, NAB, NPR and Reynolds.

[^13]: ^?^ *See* Comments and Reply Comments of DLR and V-Soft.

[^14]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 73.215.

[^15]: ^?^ *Id.* at § 73.215(a), (e).

[^16]: ^?^ *See Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14865-66.

[^17]: ^?^ *See id.* at 14866 n. 60.

[^18]: ^?^ *See* Comments of AFCCE, CTI, DLR, Hardy & Carey, Carlos J.
    Colon Ventura ("Ventura"), V-Soft and WVRC.

[^19]: ^?^ Mullaney comments that the Section 73.215(e) spacing table
    should be eliminated altogether because the city grade contour
    coverage requirement and the Commission's limits on directional
    antennas are sufficient to preclude interference. Mullaney further
    suggests that the proposal is unnecessary in light of the
    Commission's proposal to allow negotiated interference. Harvey
    asserts that the changes as proposed would not solve his particular
    transmitter site relocation problems and that most stations would
    not receive the intended relief. Harvey suggests that the proposal
    be amended to: 1) allow stations to locate closer to their cities of
    license without regard to second- and third-adjacent channel
    spacing; 2) allow applications to be processed under the prior
    Section 73.207 waiver policy; 3) permit stations to use a higher
    signal strength, and thus less restrictive, protected contour; 4)
    eliminate second- and third-adjacent channel spacing restrictions;
    and 5) protect 1989 grandfathered Class A stations, which now must
    comply with Section 73.213(c), to only the 3 kW power level.

    We recognize the restrictions on permissible short spacing for NCE
    FM Class B and B1 facilities as set forth by Mullaney, and note that
    we will entertain waiver requests for these facilities.

[^20]: ^?^ *See Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules to Permit
    Short-Spaced FM Station Assignments Using Directional Antennas*,
    *Report and Order* in MM Docket No. 87-121, 7 FCC Rcd 6473 (1992).

[^21]: ^?^ Such a measure was necessary because stations operating in
    Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are permitted under Section
    73.211(b)(3) to operate with antenna HAATs greater than their
    mainland counterparts, but need only meet normal Section 73.207
    spacing requirements. 47 C.F.R. § 73.211(b)(3); *see Permitting
    Increased Antenna Height of Class B1 Commercial FM Broadcast
    Stations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands*, 49 Fed.Reg. 22088
    (May 25, 1984); *Amendment of Section 73.211(b)(3) of the Rules
    Concerning Maximum Power and Antenna Height for FM Broadcast
    Stations*, 13 Rad.Reg. 1536 (1968) (Class A stations in Puerto Rico
    and the Virgin Islands); *Revision of FM Broadcast Rules*, 40 FCC
    868 (1964) (addressing Class B stations in Puerto Rico and the
    Virgin Islands); *see also Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14866-67 ("This
    exception was initiated by the Commission in 1964 to help these
    stations overcome the effects of rugged island topography and to
    promote the distribution of radio facilities in these areas."). As a
    result, it is possible for such stations to comply with Section
    73.207 but have prohibited contour overlap under Section 73.215.

[^22]: ^?^ *See St. Croix Wireless Co*., 8 FCC Rcd 7329 (M.M. Bur.
    1993).

[^23]: ^?^ These contour distances were set forth in Appendix C to the
    *Notice*.

[^24]: ^?^ *See* Comments of Ventura and Graham Brock.

[^25]: ^?^ *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14868.

[^26]: ^?^ *Id.* at 14869; *see Modification of FM Broadcast Station
    Rules to Increase the Availability of Commercial FM Broadcast
    Assignments, Report and Order* in BC Docket 80-90, 94 FCC 2d 152,
    155-56, 183-84 (1983) ("*Docket 80-90 R&O*"), *modified, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 97 FCC 2d 279 (1984) ("*Docket 80-90 MO&O*"),
    *recon. den., Order*, 1 FCC Rcd 1079 (1986). Among other things, the
    Commission in the Docket 80-90 proceeding downgraded certain Class B
    and Class C FM stations to newly-established intermediate station
    classes B1, C1 and C2. *See id.*

[^27]: ^?^ *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14869.

[^28]: ^?^ *See* Comments and Reply Comments of Cosmopolitan, Cumulus,
    Fuller-Jeffrey, Heritage Communications, Inc. (\"Heritage\"), NAB,
    NPR, Northwestern College, SCCC, Robert G. Thomas and United Audio
    Corp.

[^29]: ^?^ *See* Comments and Reply Comments of AFCCE, CTI, Thomas
    Desmond, Graham Brock, Mullaney, Reynolds, Thunderbolt Broadcasting
    Company ("Thunderbolt") and V-Soft.

[^30]: ^?^ *See* comments and reply comments filed by DLR, East Arkansas
    Broadcasters, Inc. ("East Arkansas"), Hardy & Carey, Hatfield &
    Dawson and Karl D. Lahm, P.E.

[^31]: ^?^ *Docket 80-90 R&O*, 94 FCC 2d at 153; *id.* at 176 (\"the
    minimum separation requirements assume maximum facilities.\"); *see*
    47 C.F.R. §§ 73.207, 73.213, 73.215(e).

[^32]: ^?^ For example, whereas the predicted 60 dBu service range of a
    maximum facility Class C station (600 meters antenna HAAT and 100
    kW) is 92 kilometers, the predicted 60 dBu service range of a
    minimum facility Class C station (300 meters HAAT and 100 kW) is
    only 72 kilometers.

[^33]: ^?^ *See, e.g.*, comments filed by SCCC at 8-9. SCCC argues that
    such existing, interference-free service may be lost as a result of
    this proposal, a result it views as contrary to the public interest.

[^34]: ^?^ NAB reply comments at 13. Similarly, SCCC argues that the
    protection of Class B FM stations to their 54 dBu contours
    demonstrates the Commission\'s recognition that adequate reception
    at this signal strength is possible.

[^35]: ^?^ Hardy & Carey, while noting that coverage often extends
    beyond a station\'s actual 60 dBu contour in the absence of
    interference, especially in rural areas with less overall service,
    states that a significant amount of spectrum could be recovered for
    other uses as a result of the Class C0 proposal. Mullaney and Thomas
    Desmond both argue that the Class C0 proposal does not go far
    enough: Desmond supports eliminating station classes altogether and
    protecting stations on the basis of existing coverage, and Mullaney
    argues that Section 73.215 of the Commission's rules should be
    revised to protect stations only 50 to 100 meters beyond their
    existing coverage. 47 C.F.R. § 73.215

[^36]: ^?^ *See Docket 80-90 R&O*, 94 FCC 2d at 161-163.

[^37]: ^?^ *See id.* at 162 (\"the Commission recognized in 1963 that
    certain amounts of potential interference-free service had to be
    discounted if a sufficient number of assignments were to be
    made.\"); .

[^38]: ^?^ *See Docket 80-90 MO&O*, 97 FCC 2d at 282-83 (characterizing
    overprotection as a \"waste of valuable spectrum resources which
    could be used to provide much needed service\" elsewhere).

[^39]: ^?^ *Docket 80-90 R&O*, 94 FCC 2d at 164 (italics added).

[^40]: ^?^ *Id.* at 176; *see Docket 80-90 MO&O*, 97 FCC 2d at 282.

[^41]: ^?^ *Docket 80-90 R&O*, 94 FCC 2d.at 176-77.

[^42]: ^?^ Reply Comments of NAB at 11.

[^43]: ^?^ Fuller-Jeffrey and NPR (in reply comments) also argue that
    the proposal is premature given the uncertainty of how it may affect
    implementation of digital or in-band/on-channel radio, and that we
    should defer action pending further analysis of this issue.

[^44]: ^?^ *See* Comments of Cumulus at 10.

[^45]: ^?^ The Commission cited the following evidence of demand: (1)
    the magnitude of the number of communities identified as underserved
    in the Station Requirement List (\"List\"), an inventory of
    potential interest or demand for additional full-time radio stations
    prepared two years earlier for international negotiations regarding
    the United States' future radio needs, and compiled from lists of
    communities without local AM or FM assignments, without local
    nighttime service, and in need of additional minority-owned or
    public radio service; (2) the number of new channel allotments
    requested every year and the instances of competing applications;
    and (3) the fact that approximately half of the 35 commentators
    supporting the proposed new rules in the Docket 80-90 proceeding
    indicated that additional FM stations needed in their communities
    were not available without the changes proposed. *See Docket 80-90
    R&O*, 94 FCC 2d at 159-61. Evidence of the new measures\' potential
    efficacy was provided by a staff computer analysis of 200 locations
    from the List, indicating that whereas the existing rules would
    allow at least one new FM allotment in only 7 percent of the
    locations studied, at least one new outlet would be available in 41
    to 61 percent of the locations studied under the proposed new rules.
    *Id.* With regard to reclassification, the Commission found that the
    measure could increase the availability of new FM station
    assignments in the locations studied from 43 to 57 percent. *Id.* at
    176.

[^46]: ^?^ *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14857 (\"Opportunities for new full
    service or substantial facility improvements in these markets are
    extremely limited.\"). Most major and mid-sized markets already were
    well-served at the time of the Docket 80-90 proceeding. *Docket
    80-90 R&O*, 94 FCC 2d at 157. The Commission\'s primary goal then
    was the provision of new primary service and first or second local
    service to underserved communities, rather than additional service
    to top markets. *See id.* at 160, 164.

[^47]: ^?^ *Docket 80-90 R&O*, 94 FCC 2d at 159, 161 (citing number of
    petitions filed annually and competing expressions of interest as
    evidence of unsatisfied demand for additional FM service*); cf.
    Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making* in MM Docket No. 99-25, FCC 99-6 at ¶ 11 (released February
    3, 1999) ("the Commission received over 13,000 inquiries in the last
    year from individuals and groups showing an interest in starting a
    low power radio station.").

[^48]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.205, 73.210.

[^49]: ^?^ The ability of existing stations to upgrade under the less
    restrictive spacing requirements of Section 73.215 would be
    contingent on demonstration of the existence of allotment sites that
    are fully-spaced in accordance with Section 73.207. 47 C.F.R. §§
    73.207, 73.215(e); *see* 47 C.F.R. § 73.203. In this regard, we note
    that the Commission recently denied an application for review
    involving a proposal to modify and upgrade a Class A FM station to
    Class C3 where the proposal satisfied the spacing requirements of
    Section 73.215(e) but failed to demonstrate the existence of a
    reference site for the proposed allotment that was fully-spaced to a
    Class C station. *Thunderbolt Broadcasting Company*, 13 FCC Rcd 6959
    (1998). The staff's analysis indicates that a fully-spaced reference
    site could be identified if the Class C station in question were
    reclassified.

[^50]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 73.215.

[^51]: ^?^ New Class C0 FM minimum distance separation requirements
    under Section 73.207(b)(1) of the Commission's rules are set forth
    in Appendix C. As is the case for other classes of commercial FM
    stations, the new Class C0 spacings generally are derived by
    computing predicted interfering and protected service contours for
    stations operating at class maximums. To avoid incongruities in the
    spacing table, the required spacing between second- and
    third-adjacent channel Class C and Class C0 stations under Section
    73.207(b)(1) is 105 kilometers, the same as that for second- and
    third-adjacent channel Class C and C1/C2 stations and one kilometer
    more than the 104 kilometers that would be necessary to avoid
    prohibited contour overlap. In addition, the spacing between
    co-channel Class B and C0 stations under Section 73.207(b)(1) is 272
    kilometers, midway between the co-channel Class B/C spacing of 274
    kilometers and Class B/C1 spacing of 270 kilometers, rather than the
    285 kilometers that would be necessary to avoid prohibited contour
    overlap.

[^52]: ^?^ For purposes of the reclassification procedure, available
    alternative frequencies are limited to frequencies upon which the
    proposed service could operate at the specified antenna location in
    full compliance with the distance separation requirements of 47
    C.F.R. § 73.207, without any other changes to the FM Table of
    Allotments.

[^53]: ^?^ *See* 47 U.S.C. § 316; 47 C.F.R. § 1.87.

[^54]: ^?^ Reclassification of Class C stations to Class C0 will be
    followed by amendment of the FM Table of Allotments. Such amendments
    will be treated as minor and non-controversial as they simply
    reflect authorized station operations. Thus, there is good cause for
    proceeding without notice and comment and for making the rule change
    effective upon publication in the Federal Register. *See* 5 U.S.C. §
    553(b)(B)(d); *see also Amendment of the Commission's Rules to
    Permit FM Channel and Class Modifications by Application*, *Report
    and Order* in MM Docket No. 92-159, 8 FCC Rcd 4735, 4737 n. 18
    (1993) (amendments to the FM Table of Allotments to reflect one-step
    upgrades in class treated as minor and non-controversial).

[^55]: ^?^ Pursuant to the Commission's processing procedures for
    commercial FM broadcast applications, construction permit applicants
    will be given one opportunity to correct any acceptability defects.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3564(a); *Amendment of Part 73 of the
    Commission's Rules to Modify Processing Procedures for Commercial FM
    Broadcast Applications, Report and Order* in MM Docket No. 91-347
    (1992).

[^56]: ^?^ We recognize that, under the Commission's first-come,
    first-served filing procedures, triggering applicants may lose
    priority rights to spectrum made available by automatic
    reclassification as a result of dismissal of their applications.
    Nevertheless, we believe that this procedure is necessary in order
    to prevent a backlog of triggering proposals that must be protected
    yet cannot be granted unless a Class C station fails to carry out
    authorized facility upgrades.

[^57]: ^?^ Until the relevant international agreements can be modified
    to reflect the new Class C0, Class C0 station allotments and
    assignments in the Canadian and Mexican border areas will be treated
    as Class C for the purpose of complying with such agreements.

[^58]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 73.3517; *see First Report and Order* in MM
    Docket No. 98-93, FCC 99-55 at ¶¶ 11-18 (amending the contingent
    application rule to permit commercial FM broadcasters to undertake
    certain mutual facility modifications without being subject to
    competing applications).

[^59]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.87(b), 1.411, *et seq.* (Rule Making
    Proceedings).

[^60]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 73.3584 (Procedure for filing petitions to deny);
    *see* 47 U.S.C. § 309(d); 47 C.F.R. § 1.87(d).

[^61]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 73.207; *see supra*, n. 66.

[^62]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 73.215.

[^63]: ^?^ *Id.* at § 73.215(b)(2)(iv).

[^64]: ^?^ *1998 Biennial Regulatory Review---Streamlining of Mass Media
    Applications, Rules, and Processes, Report and Order* in MM Docket
    No. 98-43, FCC 98-281 (released November 25, 1998), at ¶ 83-89
    (reconsideration petitions filed).

[^65]: Two commentators supported, and four opposed, the creation of a
    "temporary buffer zone" to protect the ability of affected Class C
    stations to upgrade facilities during the originally-proposed
    three-year transition period. *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14869; see
    Docket 80-90 MO&O, 97 FCC 2d at 283-85. We are inclined to agree
    with Graham Brock, DLR and Reynolds (in reply comments) that such a
    measure, adopted by the Commission in the Docket 80-90 proceeding,
    would not be necessary now due to the flexibility afforded by
    Section 73.215 of the Commission's rules, which went into effect in
    1989. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.215 (Contour protection for short-spaced
    assignments). In any event, we do not believe that such a measure
    would be appropriate under the tailored reclassification procedure
    we are adopting.

[^66]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 17.4.

[^67]: ^?^ *See supra*, ¶ 43.

[^68]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3568(b).

[^69]: ^?^ *Docket 80-90 R&O*, 94 FCC 2d at 177 (citations omitted);
    *see also Crain Broadcasting, Inc.*, 8 FCC Rcd 4406, 4407 (1993)
    ("the Commission historically has refused to authorize excessive
    power levels in order to compensate for insufficient antenna
    heights.").

[^70]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.313(d).

[^71]: ^?^ *Id.* at § 73.313(d)(2).

[^72]: *See* *Crain Broadcasting, Inc.*, 8 FCC Rcd at 4407, n. 4 and
    accompanying text (*citing Letter to Ramsey L. Woodworth, Esq. and
    to John Wells King, Esq.*, Reference No. 8920-MA (Chief, Audio
    Services Div., January 14, 1986), and *Letter to Malrite Radio &
    Television, Inc.*, Reference No. 8920-AED (Chief, Audio Services
    Div., June 11, 1987). For example, in the *Ramsey L. Woodworth*
    letter decision, involving Denver stations KOSI(FM) and KPKE(FM),
    the stations effectively operated with maximum Class C facilities to
    the east, where the terrain was flat and where the vast majority of
    their service populations resided. However, the calculated value of
    the stations' antenna HAATs based on all eight terrain radials was
    less than 300 meters because of the Rocky Mountains rising abruptly
    to the west. Increasing the stations' antenna HAAT value would have
    required contour protection of the nearby Table Mountain Receiving
    Zone in Boulder County and was likely to degrade overall service to
    the public.

[^73]: ^?^ Such requests would be appropriately submitted in response to
    a Commission order to show cause. *See supra*, ¶ 43.

[^74]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.1690(b)(2), 73.3536.

[^75]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 319(d).

[^76]: ^?^ *See Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14872-73.

[^77]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 73.207; *see* Comments of AFCCE, CTI, Radio
    Property Ventures and WVRC.

[^78]: ^?^ Where coordinate corrections would result in a rule
    violation, we expect the licensee to take prompt remedial action to
    bring its station into compliance with the Commission's rules.

[^79]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.1690(b)(2), 73.3536.

[^80]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 319(d), as amended. Section 319(d) was modified
    to eliminate the prohibition against waiving the permit requirements
    for applicants to make minor changes to broadcast facilities.

[^81]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 319(f).

[^82]: ^?^ *See* Comments of AFCCE, Graham Brock, Hardy & Carey, NPR,
    Sound of Life and V-Soft.

[^83]: ^?^ *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14875.

[^84]: ^?^ Commercial FM stations are required to meet minimum distance
    separation requirements generally derived by computing predicted
    interfering and protected service contours of stations operating at
    class maximums. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.207, 73.213, 73.215. Rather
    than spacing requirements, NCE FM and FM translator stations are
    governed by restrictions on overlap of predicted interfering and
    protected contours, which are calculated based on actual station
    facilities. *See id.* at §§ 73.509, 74.1204(a). In each case, the
    same method is used to predict interfering and protected contours.

[^85]: ^?^ *See Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14875.

[^86]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^87]: ^?^ *See* Comments and Reply Comments of AFCCE, CTI, DLR, Graham
    Brock, Hardy & Carey, NPR, Press and V-Soft. V-Soft suggested that
    we "confirm the impact on NCE broadcasters of new second adjacent
    interference \[standards\] through the application of a scientific
    study using an appropriate sampling of modern receivers." V-Soft
    comments at 7. In light of our longstanding experience with the 100
    dBu standard in commercial FM station licensing, we are not
    persuaded of the need for further study of the instant proposal's
    likely effect on NCE FM stations.

[^88]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.509, 74.1204(a).

[^89]: ^?^ *See Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14875 n. 103. The *Notice*
    erroneously referred to second-adjacent channel FM translator
    stations protecting Class B1 and B stations in the "reserved band,"
    rather than the non-reserved band.

[^90]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 73.315(a), Note a.

[^91]: ^?^ *See Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14876.

[^92]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 307(b).

[^93]: ^?^ *See Notice* at 14876-80.

[^94]: ^?^ *See* Comments and Reply Comments of CTI, Thomas Desmond,
    DLR, EIC, Fuller-Jeffrey, Hardy & Carey, Hatfield & Dawson,
    Mullaney, NAB, NPR, Northeastern University, Press, V-Soft and
    Washington University. Of the fourteen commentators, only
    Fuller-Jeffrey and Hardy & Carey opposed the overall proposal.

[^95]: ^?^ Comments of NAB at 35.

[^96]: ^?^ *See Notice* at 14876 n. 109.

[^97]: ^?^ *See Notice of Proposed Rule Making,* MM Docket No. 99-25, 14
    FCC Rcd 2471 (1999).

[^98]: The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et. seq*., has been amended by the
    Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121,
    110 Stat. 847 (1996) ("CWAAA"). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small
    Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ("SBREFA").

[^99]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^100]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^101]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632).
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small
    business applies \"unless an agency, after consultation with the
    Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after
    opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions
    of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency
    and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.\"

[^102]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^103]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^104]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).