Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In re: Application of )

)

**Greater Media Radio Company, Inc.** )

)

For Construction Permit and Related ) File No. BPH-940513IB

Short-Spacing Waiver Requests for )

Station WPLY(FM), Media, Pennsylvania )

)

Application for Review )

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: August 19, 1999 Released: October 1, 1999**

**By the Commission: Commissioners Powell and Tristani dissenting and
issuing a joint statement.**

1\. The Commission has before it an Application for Review filed
September 23, 1996 by Greater Media Radio Company, Inc. (\"Greater
Media\"), challenging the Mass Media Bureau\'s (\"Bureau\") action
denying its application for a construction permit and related
short-spacing waiver requests. *Letter from Linda Blair, Chief, Audio
Services Division to Edwin N. Lavergne, Esq.*, Reference No.
1800B3-DEB/KDY (August 19, 1996) (\"*Bureau Letter*\").[^1] For the
reasons set forth below, we deny the Application for Review.

**Background**

2\. Greater Media proposes to relocate the transmission facilities of
Class B station WPLY(FM), Media, Pennsylvania, from their present site
in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, to the Roxboro antenna farm in
Philadelphia.[^2] It seeks three FM spacing rule waivers in connection
with its proposal: (1) waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 73.215 to move WPLY 3.1
kilometers closer than the rule allows to first-adjacent-channel Class A
station WJRZ-FM, Manahawkin, New Jersey; (2) waiver of Section 73.213(a)
to move WPLY 5.3 kilometers closer than allowed to
second-adjacent-channel Class B station WFMZ(FM), Allentown,
Pennsylvania; and (3) waiver of Section 73.213(a) to move WPLY 16.9
kilometers closer than allowed to co-channel Class B station WHTZ(FM),
Newark, New Jersey.

3\. In its construction permit application, Greater Media contended that
WPLY\'s present site is unsuitable because of Receiver-Induced Third
Order Intermodulation Effect (\"RITOIE\")[^3] and multipath
interference. Specifically, Greater Media alleged RITOIE-based service
disruptions to WPLY\'s signal within a 5.5 kilometer radius of the
Roxboro antenna farm from radio facilities operating there, affecting
approximately 138,000 residents of the area, an undetermined number of
workers in office buildings, and an average of 83,000 vehicles
travelling a 10 kilometer portion of the Schuylkill Expressway daily.
Greater Media alleged that terrain obstructions also contributed to the
RITOIE. In addition, Greater Media alleged pockets of multipath
interference to WPLY\'s signal in eastern Delaware County, including
Upper Darby Township, which has a population of over 81,000. The areas
of alleged RITOIE and multipath interference are within WPLY\'s 70 dBu
principal community coverage contour but outside of Media, its community
of license. Greater Media also contended that there were no
non-short-spaced sites available, and that the Roxboro antenna farm was
the least short-spaced site available.

4\. In addition, Greater Media identified a number of alleged public
interest benefits associated with its proposal: (1) eliminating the
above-referenced RITOIE and multipath interference and improving WPLY\'s
service within its 60 dBu and 70 dBu contours; (2) increasing the
distance between WPLY and co-channel WBIG-FM, Washington, D.C., and
reducing or eliminating existing predicted interference from WPLY\'s
signal to WBIG, WHTZ and WFMZ;[^4] and (3) enabling WQIC(FM), Lebanon,
PA and WJRZ to increase their power to full Class A facilities of 6,000
watts.[^5] Greater Media also asserted that increased short-spacing to
WJRZ and WFMZ under its proposal would create no actual interference
because WPLY\'s antenna would be directionalized towards WJRZ, and
predicted new interference to WFMZ (from WPLY) and to WPLY (from WJRZ)
would be \"masked\" by existing interference from other stations.[^6] In
addition, Greater Media contended that the Commission granted similar
spacing waivers in *Beasley Broadcasting of Philadelphia, Inc.*, 100 FCC
2d 106 (1985), and other cases.

5\. In denying the construction permit application and waiver requests,
the Bureau first addressed Greater Media\'s request for waiver of
Section 73.215 to move WPLY closer to WJRZ.[^7] This request satisfies
neither the contour protection nor the minimum distance separation
requirements of the rule. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.215(a), (e). The Bureau
rejected Greater Media\'s masking argument that prohibited contour
overlap under Section 73.215(a) should be allowed because predicted
co-channel interference to WPLY from WHTZ in the area in question would
mask any actual interference from first-adjacent-channel station WJRZ.
The Bureau reasoned that due to the statistical nature of FM propagation
and reception, as well as local factors, service may occur where
interference is expected, so that listeners of WPLY might actually
receive a useable signal despite predicted interference from WHTZ. The
Bureau concluded that additional interference from WJRZ in the area in
question would diminish the probability of satisfactory reception of
WPLY. The Bureau also refused to waive Section 73.215(e)\'s spacing
requirements, observing that each such waiver to some extent undermines
the goal of insuring fair distribution of FM service. The Bureau stated
that it was unaware of any case in which the Commission waived a
short-spacing of the magnitude proposed between WPLY and WJRZ, and that
Greater Media had offered no sufficient justification for such a
waiver.[^8]

6\. The Bureau also held that waiver of Section 73.213(a) with respect
to WFMZ was not in the public interest. Whereas the proposed move would
eliminate interference to WFMZ from WPLY affecting a 33.6 square
kilometer area with a population of 9,162, the Bureau noted that it also
would create interference within WFMZ\'s protected service contour
affecting an 88 square kilometer area with a population of 131,476
persons. The Bureau rejected a masking argument regarding the latter
area. *See supra*, n. 6. Concerning Greater Media\'s request for waiver
of Section 73.213(a) with regard to WHTZ, the Bureau acknowledged that
interference between the two stations would be reduced by the use of a
directional antenna and, therefore, stated that it would be inclined to
waive the increased short-spacing to WHTZ and grant the application had
Greater Media demonstrated that the other spacing waivers were in the
public interest.

7\. Furthermore, the Bureau rejected Greater Media\'s contention that
WPLY\'s present transmitter site is unsuitable. The Bureau declined to
consider mobile receivers on the Schuylkill Expressway because of their
inherent transient nature, relying on *WKLX, Inc.*, 6 FCC Rcd 225, 227
(1991). The alleged RITOIE and multipath interference to non-mobile
receivers do not render WPLY\'s present transmitter site unsuitable, the
Bureau held, because they do not occur within Media, WPLY\'s community
of license. The Bureau also found that Greater Media had not
demonstrated that the Roxboro antenna farm was the least short-spaced
site available, as it had investigated only sites within or just outside
of the Philadelphia radio market, without considering sites west of
Media.[^9] In addition, the Bureau concluded that the proposal\'s
claimed benefits did not outweigh its disadvantages. The Bureau
distinguished the precedent cited by Greater Media on grounds that,
among other things, all of the cases involved interference within the
stations\' communities of license.

8\. Greater Media presents numerous challenges to the Bureau\'s decision
in its Application for Review. Our conclusion that the Bureau properly
denied Greater Media\'s request for waiver of Section 73.215 moots its
two Section 73.213(a) waiver requests. *See* *Colonial Communication,
Inc.*, 6 FCC Rcd 2296, 2296 (1991) (\"An agency, like a court, need not
decide questions which are not relevant to its decision.\") (*quoting
Deep South Broadcasting Co. v. FCC*, 287 F.2d 264, 266 (D.C.Cir.
1960).[^10] We also shall not address a number of arguments in the
Application for Review that either rely on questions of fact and law not
presented to the Bureau, in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(c), *see,
e.g.,* *Heartland Radio, Inc.*, 11 FCC Rcd 1698, 1699 (1996), or were
considered and rejected in *Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission\'s
Rules to Permit Short-Spaced FM Station Assignments by Using Directional
Antennas*, *Report and Order* in MM Docket 87-121, 4 FCC Rcd 1681 (1989)
(\"*Contour Protection Order*\"), *recon. granted in part and denied in
part*, 6 FCC Rcd 5356 (1991) (\"*Reconsideration Order*\"). *Cf.*
*Patteson Brothers, Inc.*, 8 FCC Rcd 7595, 7596 (1993) (rejecting
proposed method for defining relevant market as untimely request to
reconsider radio ownership rulemaking proceeding).[^11]

**Discussion**

9\. *Section 73.215(a) and (e) Waiver Standards.* The spacing rules were
put into force as \"the best means for achieving an orderly, efficient,
and effective development of the commercial FM broadcast service.\"
*Greater Media, Inc.*, 59 FCC 2d 796, 797 (1976);[^12] *see* *ECI
License Company, L.P. (WYUU)*, 11 FCC Rcd 3545, 3546 (\"*WYUU*\")
(spacing rules \"adopted in part to promote a fair distribution of FM
service across the country, as required by 307(b) of the Communications
Act, avoiding undue concentration of stations in urban areas
(particularly major markets).\") (citations omitted), *aff\'d*, 106 F.3d
442 (D.C.Cir. 1996). The Commission has long held that \"strict
enforcement of the mileage separation rules is of paramount importance
to the integrity of the entire FM assignment plan.\" *Boone Biblical
College*, 19 FCC 2d 155, 156 (1969); *see* *WAIT Radio v. FCC*, 418 F.2d
1135, 1159 (D.C.Cir. 1969) (\"applicant for waiver faces a high hurdle
even at the starting gate.\"). Therefore, while the Commission is bound
to consider carefully all spacing rule waiver requests, *see id.*, such
requests must be supported by a \"compelling showing\" in order to be
granted. *Stoner Broadcasting System, Inc.*, 49 FCC 2d 1011, 1012
(1974).

10\. Section 73.215, which went into effect in 1989, specifies a
procedure by which an applicant may obtain relief from the spacing
requirements of Section 73.207. 47 C.F.R. § 73.215; *see* *Contour
Protection Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 1682. Prior to 1989, applicants for
waiver of former Section 73.207 were required to make a three-part
threshold showing that (1) the present transmitter site was no longer
suitable, (2) non-short-spaced sites were unavailable, and (3) the
proposed new site was the least short-spaced site available. *Townsend
Broadcasting Corp.*, 62 FCC 2d 511, 512 (1976). In addition, applicants
had to demonstrate that grant of waiver would serve the public interest.
*Id.* Section 73.215 affords applicants additional flexibility in
antenna site selection, allowing them to avoid the spacing requirements
of Section 73.207; under Section 73.215, applicants need only
demonstrate that no prohibited contour overlap (and hence interference)
between short-spaced stations is created, and that the short-spacing
meets the less restrictive spacing requirements of Section 73.215(e).
*See* *WYUU*, 11 FCC Rcd at 3546. Adoption of Section 73.215 allowed the
Commission to discontinue granting waivers of Section 73.207. *See
Reconsideration Order*, 6 FCC Rcd at 5359-60.

11\. The Commission acknowledged in the contour protection
reconsideration that waiver of the contour protection requirements under
Section 73.215(a) may be appropriate in \"a very small number of cases .
. . to permit greater power in a short-spaced station\'s direction where
it is demonstrated that such a facility is necessary to allow use of a
multiplexed transmitting antenna and that its authorization would
otherwise serve the public interest, for example, by allowing retention
of existing service to an underserved area.\" *Id.* at 5360 n. 27.

12\. The Commission has not addressed the issue of what standard is
applicable to requests for waiver of Section 73.215(e)\'s spacing
requirements. We conclude that the threshold and public interest
criteria formerly used to analyze Section 73.207 waiver requests are
applicable to requests for waiver of Section 73.215(e). This conclusion
follows from the Commission\'s longstanding practice of strict
enforcement of the mileage separation rules, and enables the Commission
to utilize the rich body of precedent under Section 73.207.[^13] We
note, however, that the bar for obtaining short-spacing waivers is
higher under Section 73.215(e) than it was under Section 73.207: the
interest in adhering to our technical rules is all the more compelling
now that the Commission has provided for site selection flexibility in
those exceptional circumstances where no fully spaced sites are
available by adopting Section 73.215. *See Reconsideration Order*, 6 FCC
Rcd. at 5360.

13\. *Application of Waiver Standards.* Greater Media\'s proposal to
move WPLY closer to WJRZ requires waiver of both the contour protection
and spacing requirements of Section 73.215. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.215(a),
(e). Turning first to the spacing requirements, Greater Media has failed
to satisfy the first threshold criterion for waiver: unsuitability of
the present site. Greater Media\'s primary justification for the
proposed move is to improve WPLY\'s service to areas outside its
licensed community where its signal is allegedly subject to RITOIE and
multipath interference. Unsuitability based on coverage problems may be
demonstrated by showing that (1) the station\'s present coverage of its
community of license is \"patently inadequate\[,\]\" *Greater Media,
Inc.*, 59 FCC 2d at 797 (denying request for waiver of Section 73.207 to
increase service area where station provided complete (70 dBu) coverage
of its city of license), or (2) the station\'s signal does not reach
areas outside of its community of license that are either unserved or
underserved. *Cf. Stoner*, 49 FCC 2d 1012 (denying waiver of Section
73.207 based on service gains to area served by at least nine other
stations). Greater Media alleges no deficiency in WPLY\'s coverage of
Media, its community of license, and has not shown that any of the
alleged areas of RITOIE and multipath interference to WPLY\'s signal
outside of Media are either unserved or underserved.[^14]

14\. Greater Media contends that it has demonstrated patently inadequate
service within WPLY\'s \"true community of license,\" consisting of the
area encompassed by the Station\'s 70 dBu principal community coverage
contour, including all of Delaware County (\"County\"). Application for
Review at 15. In support of this contention, it argues, among other
things, that the Commission accepted a broader definition of WPLY\'s
community of license by granting it a Class B license when a Class A
license would have sufficed to serve Media.[^15] We reject this
contention. Greater Media does not, and indeed cannot, dispute that WPLY
is licensed solely to Media. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.202(b). The Commission
previously rejected an attempt to expand a broadcast station\'s
community of license beyond the municipal or corporate limits of the
town in question, and Greater Media cites no precedent in which its
broader definition of the term was accepted by the Commission. *See
WCSV, Inc.*, 46 FCC 2d 159, 159-60 (1974) (upholding denial of overlap
rule waiver request). The Commission also previously rejected the
argument that grant of a certain class of license militates waiver of
the spacing rules. *See* *Stoner*, 49 FCC Rcd at 1013 (Commission
policies respecting maximum potential facilities for Class C stations
would not be advanced by spacing rule waiver where service gains were
not to an underserved area).[^16]

15\. Greater Media also contends that WPLY cannot serve Media adequately
without improving its coverage outside of Media, because Media residents
are most likely to listen to the Station outside their homes but within
WPLY\'s 70 dBu contour, while commuting on the Schuylkill Expressway or
working in Philadelphia. Furthermore, it contends that by disregarding
mobile receivers\' reception of WPLY on the Schuylkill Expressway, the
Bureau retreated from the Commission\'s \"commitment to provide service
to mobile radio listeners\[.\]\" Application for Review at 20 (citing
*Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, Memorandum Opinion
and Order*, 4 FCC Rcd 3843, 3845 (1989)). These contentions are
essentially variations on Greater Media\'s contention that WPLY\'s
community of license is substantially larger than Media. The
\"commitment\" cited by Greater Media was simply a recognition that FM
commercial broadcasters have an economic incentive to provide service to
the widest area possible because, among other things, \"FM radio draws
substantial revenues from providing service to persons utilizing
automobile radios,\" who have a great deal of mobility. *Id.* The
existence of such an incentive does not provide a basis for waiver of
the spacing rules, as Commission precedent makes patently clear. *See*
*WYUU*, 11 FCC Rcd at 3546 (denying waiver of Section 73.215 \"for the
sole purpose of improving service to a near-by larger community that is
already well-served.\").[^17]

16\. In addition, Greater Media contends that the Bureau placed undue
emphasis on adherence to the spacing rules. It argues that Commission
policy objectives would not be undermined by grant of a spacing waiver
here due to the nature of the Philadelphia radio market and the limited
interference that would result from WPLY\'s operations at the proposed
site.[^18] This argument lacks merit. Every waiver of the spacing rules
incrementally undermines the effectiveness of the FM assignment plan.
Moreover, by serving as precedent for additional waivers, the
unprecedented technical waivers that Greater Media seeks would
substantially erode the protections afforded by the spacing rules. In
this regard, we note that many stations experience similar signal
disruptions in urban areas*.* Staff analysis indicates, as does Greater
Media\'s study, that the alleged disruptions to WPLY\'s signal in the
Roxboro area are probably due to a combination of factors including
RITOIE, terrain obstacles that weaken WPLY\'s signal relative to other
station signals at certain locations, multipath interference and
blanketing interference. *See supra*, n. 17. Although the Commission\'s
technical rules are designed to protect a station\'s signal from
interference within its principal community coverage contour, these same
rules are premised on a statistical methodology that recognizes that a
station will not deliver a listenable signal at all locations within
this contour. Thus, WPLY\'s alleged signal reception difficulties are
neither anomalous nor unique, and do not justify the unprecedented
technical waivers that Greater Media seeks. The Commission previously
has recognized that localized signal reception difficulties affect
numerous FM stations operating in urban environments. *See, e.g.,*
*WYUU*, 11 FCC Rcd at 3546 n. 6 (denying spacing waiver request based on
disturbances to FM reception caused by changing atmospheric conditions
faced by numerous FM broadcast stations in the Gulf Coast region). Thus,
favorable action on Greater Media\'s waiver request would change
fundamentally the Commission\'s policy with regard to spacing waiver
requests based on substandard service by suburban stations to nearby
urban areas, and could severely impair the staff\'s ability to enforce
the spacing rules, which are of central importance to the integrity of
the entire FM assignment plan.

17\. Greater Media further contends that the Bureau erred by measuring
the proposed short-spacing to WJRZ as approximately 20 kilometers based
on the Section 73.207 spacing table, rather than as 12 kilometers based
on the Section 73.213(c)(1) spacing table, for purposes of comparing
Greater Media\'s waiver request to prior requests for waiver of Section
73.207.[^19] The Commission has not resolved whether Section
73.213(c)(1) or Section 73.207 is the appropriate measure in situations
like the present one, where the spacing requirements for the two
stations involved are grandfathered under Section 73.213(c)(1).[^20] We
need not decide this issue here, however, because it is of no decisional
significance. Even if we treat the proposed short-spacing as 12
kilometers, Greater Media is not excused from the threshold showing,
which it has failed to satisfy.

18\. Turning to the other component of Greater Media\'s Section 73.215
waiver request, the Commission indicated in the *Reconsideration Order*
that waiver of the directional antenna requirements of Section 73.215(a)
would be appropriate only in \"a very small number of cases\" where,
among other things, such waiver is demonstrated to be necessary to allow
use of a multiplexed or multi-user transmitting antenna that cannot be
directionalized for individual frequencies. *Reconsideration Order*, 6
FCC Rcd at 5360 and n. 26-27. Greater Media\'s proposal, however,
involves a single-user antenna that can be directionalized to protect
co- and adjacent-channel stations. Indeed, the record is devoid of any
showing that the proposed antenna cannot be directionalized to avoid
creation of new predicted interference to WPLY in violation of the rule.
Accordingly, waiver of prohibited contour overlap under Section
73.215(a) is not justified. *Id.* at n. 27.

19\. Greater Media contends that adherence to the contour protection
standard is arbitrary here because fully-spaced stations under Section
73.207 may have equal or greater contour overlap than is prohibited
between WPLY and WJRZ under Section 73.215(a).[^21] This argument
impermissibly mixes distinct FM interference standards. The contour
protection standard takes into account the variability of terrain
surrounding stations, and permits no overlap between the predicted
interfering and protected contours of short-spaced stations. 47 C.F.R. §
73.215(a). Section 73.207 spacing requirements, on the other hand,
accord interference protection \"solely by the mileage separation,
power, and antenna height limitations set forth in the Commission\'s
rules, without regard to the concept of protected and interfering
contours.\" *Florissant Broadcasting Co., Inc.*, 63 FCC 2d 1041, 1043
(1977); *see Contour Protection Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 1685 (\"the
separation requirements are based on average terrain assumed to be equal
in all compass directions. . . . Obviously, this failure to account for
variations in the height of terrain means that the separation
requirements sometimes overprotect, and sometimes underprotect, FM
service.\"). The amount of theoretical contour overlap permitted under
Section 73.207 is irrelevant to a Section 73.215 waiver request. *Cf.
Florissant*, 63 FCC 2d at 1043 (lack of interference based on
noncommercial FM standards irrelevant to Section 73.207 waiver request).
In sum, therefore, we conclude that Greater Media has failed to make a
compelling showing in support of its Section 73.215 waiver request. *See
Stoner*, 49 FCC 2d at 1012.

20\. *Additional Arguments Presented by Greater Media*. We turn next to
Greater Media\'s many (and sometimes contradictory, *see, e.g., infra*
n. 24) arguments in support of the contention that the Bureau erred by
holding that public interest considerations do not warrant waiver of the
spacing rules here. As we already have stated, Greater Media has wholly
failed to demonstrate that the licensed WPLY site is unsuitable, a
threshold requirement for waiver under Section 73.215(e). Moreover, this
is not a multiplex antenna proposal that could justify a Section
73.215(a) waiver. We emphasize that in these circumstances, we need not
consider the alleged public interest benefits advanced by Greater Media.
Nevertheless, we briefly address Greater Media\'s arguments and conclude
that the Bureau properly rejected them.

21\. Greater Media repeats its masking argument regarding predicted new
interference to WPLY from WJRZ and to WFMZ from WPLY, *see supra*, para.
4 and n. 6, contending that the Commission accepted a masking argument
similar to Greater Media\'s in granting a spacing waiver in *Golden West
Broadcasters*, 11 FCC Rcd 3377 (1995). The Commission specifically
stated that its holding in *Golden West* was based on the \"unique
circumstances\" involved there. *Golden West*, 11 FCC Rcd at 3383.[^22]
Furthermore, the conclusion that there would be no actual interference
in that case was based on field strength measurements demonstrating a
complete absence of coverage by the affected station,[^23] rather than
the propagation curves predicting interference upon which Greater Media
relies. *Id.* The Commission more recently rejected a masking argument
similar to Greater Media\'s, demonstrating that the Bureau\'s reasoning
here was consistent with precedent. *See* *Board of Education of City of
Atlanta*, 11 FCC Rcd 7763, 7766 (1996) (\"Adding an interfering signal
to the area will clearly diminish the probability of satisfactory
reception in this area.\").

22\. Although Greater Media did not specifically rely on WPLY\'s
proposed relocation to Roxboro antenna farm as a ground supporting the
construction permit application, it now argues that the Bureau erred by
failing to consider this factor. Location at a *de facto* antenna farm
is \"a positive factor to be weighed in requests in FM spacing
waivers,\" but it is not a sufficient basis for waiver of the spacing
rules. *Beasley*, 100 FCC 2d at 109 n. 6 (granting waiver of Section
73.207 where, *inter alia*, applicant showed that station only provided
70 dBu coverage to 48% of its city of license). Greater Media argues
that location at an antenna farm was a determinative factor in *WTCN
Television, Inc.*, 14 FCC 2d 870 (1968). That case is distinguishable,
however, because it involved extraordinary aeronautical safety issues
not present here. *See id.* at 889-890; *see also Amendment of Parts 1,
17, and 73 to Provide for the Establishment and Use of Antenna Farm
Areas, Report and Order*, 8 FCC 2d 559, 566 (1967) (\"if extraordinary
reasons of aeronautical safety indicate that a particular antenna
structure should be located within the antenna farm, the Commission may
authorize a short spacing to accommodate a particular antenna.\").
Accordingly, assuming *arguendo* that the Bureau did not consider the
antenna farm factor in its decision, we conclude that its error was of
no decisional significance.

23\. Finally, Greater Media contends that the overall benefits of
increased service under its proposal outweigh the detriments of new
predicted interference. Specifically, it argues that (1) its proposal
would result in a net increase in service to an area of 169.1 square
kilometers with a population of 149,930, based on subtraction of the
area and population of increased interference to WFMZ from the areas and
populations of reduced and eliminated predicted interference to WHTZ and
WBIG under the proposal;[^24] (2) the Bureau gave excessive weight to
new predicted interference to WPLY from WJRZ under its proposal because
such interference would affect only a small population in an area
outside of WPLY\'s city of license;[^25] (3) reduced interference to
co-channel station WBIG under its proposal should have outweighed
predicted new interference to second-adjacent-channel station WFMZ
because co-channel interference is more significant than
second-adjacent-channel interference, relying in part on the
Commission\'s proposal, which was subsequently adopted in *Grandfathered
Short-Spaced Stations,* 12 FCC Rcd at 11840, to eliminate
second-adjacent-channel protection criteria under Section
73.213(a);[^26] and (4) the Bureau gave insufficient weight to weigh
proposed service increases outside of WPLY\'s community of license but
within WPLY\'s 70 dBu contour. Even assuming that total service gains
exceed losses under Greater Media\'s proposal, however, service gains do
not necessarily offset the creation of new prohibited interference.
\"\[W\]hen faced with a choice between increased coverage with increased
interference received on one hand, and lesser but adequate coverage
without prohibited interference on the other, the Commission favors the
latter.\" *Board of Education of City of Atlanta*, 82 FCC 2d 125, 127
(1980).[^27] In any event, as we already have made clear, the Commission
will not waive the spacing rules for the purpose of allowing a station
to improve coverage unless its present site is unsuitable, regardless of
whether the proposed move results in a net increase in service. *See
Stoner*, 49 FCC 2d at 1012 (\"a mere increase in population served is
not sufficient to warrant waiver when the area is presently neither
unserved nor underserved.\").[^28]

# June 16, 1999 Pleading

24\. On June 16, 1999, Greater Media filed an \"exhibit\" styled as a
\"Supplement to Application for Minor Change in Facilities.\" This
filing purports to present an \"alternative approach\" to its Section
73.215(e) waiver request. Specifically, Greater Media proposes that the
Commission waive Section 73.210 to permit the reclassification of WPLY
as a Class C2 station. Alternatively, it asks the Commission to amend
its rules to permit the equivalent of Class C2 facilities in Zone II, an
argument previously raised by Greater Media in its comments and reply
comments in the radio technical rules streamlining proceeding. *See 1998
Biennial Regulatory Review \-- Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in
Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission\'s Rules, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Order* in MM Docket No. 98-93, 13 FCC Rcd 14649 (1998).
Each of these alternatives has the same goal \-- to permit WPLY to
demonstrate compliance with Section 73.215 distance separation and
contour overlap protection requirements on the basis of the station\'s
60 dBu contour, rather than on the basis of its more expansive, and
therefore more preclusive, 54 dBu contour.

25\. As a preliminary matter, Greater Media\'s filing, an exhibit
submitted by Greater Media\'s counsel, is patently defective. Any
\"supplement\" to its application must be in the form of an amendment
and signed by an officer of the corporate applicant. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
73.3513. Regardless of Greater Media\'s characterization of the filing,
however, the supplement is, in fact, a further supplement to its
application for review. It advances new legal arguments to show that the
staff erred in denying Greater Media\'s Section 73.215 waiver requests,
and therefore, that Commission review of the Bureau\'s decision is
warranted. Thus, the filing continues Greater Media\'s pattern of
disregarding basic procedural requirements. *See supra*, n. 1. Moreover,
it relies on questions of law upon which the Mass Media Bureau has been
afforded no opportunity to pass and it is dismissed on this basis. *See*
n. 11 and accompanying text.

26\. Nevertheless, we wish to make certain observations about these
arguments. Greater Media\'s \"alternative approach\" is merely a request
to substitute one unprecedented waiver request for another, specifically
to waive Section 73.210 which permits the authorization of Class B (but
not Class C2) stations in Zone II where the proposed WPLY transmitter
would be located. For the reasons set forth in paragraph 16, we are
reluctant to entertain such requests on a case-by-case basis. In any
case, we believe that Greater Media has wholly failed to adduce either
unique or compelling facts that would justify a waiver of foundational
broadcast technical rules. We emphatically reject its view that we
should entertain requests for lesser station protection levels where
stations receive interference within currently protected contours from a
number of other, short-spaced stations. We believe that such a policy,
if accepted, would fundamentally and inevitably threaten the
Commission\'s efforts to manage the radio spectrum.

27\. Plainly, Greater Media\'s proposal is more appropriately considered
in the context of a rulemaking. In this regard, we note that the
Commission explicitly rejected in the Docket 80-90 proceeding the option
of adopting a 60 dBu protected service contour for Class B stations.
*Modification of FM Broadcast Station Rules to Increase the Availability
of Commercial FM Broadcast Assignments, Report and Order,* 94 FCC 2d
152, 174-75 (1983) (subsequent history omitted). It observed that the 54
dBu contour was adopted in 1963 to promote wide-area service to the
large and sprawling metropolitan communities of the Northeast. The
Commission also recognized that adopting a 60 dBu standard would have a
substantial impact on the primary service areas of existing Class B
stations. Interestingly, the Association for Broadcast Engineering
Standards, Inc. (\"ABES\") contended in comments in that proceeding that
a 60 dBu Class B protected contour standard would exacerbate the precise
problems on which Greater Media relies for the requested waiver. ABES
claimed that adoption of a Class B 60 dBu service contour would result
in \"unlistenable\" signals from mobile receivers used on highways in
the spectrum-congested cities of the Northeast, including Philadelphia,
where stations now operate with \"limited coverage and myriads of
interference.\" *Id.*

28\. For the foregoing reasons, we find that Greater Media has failed to
make the requisite compelling showing in support of its Section 73.215
waiver request and, therefore, the Bureau properly denied the
construction permit application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That the
Supplement to Application for Minor Change in Facilities filed on June
16, 1999 IS DISMISSED and the Application for Review filed September 23,
1996 IS DENIED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

## Joint Dissenting Statement of Commissioners Powell and Tristani

Re: Application of Greater Media Radio Company, Inc. File No.
BPH-940513IB

We respectfully dissent from this decision denying Greater Media's
request to relocate the transmission facilities of station WPLY(FM),
Media, Pennsylvania. As noted below, we would give greater consideration
to the public interest benefits that could accrue from a grant of this
waiver.

As an initial matter, we note that today's decision seems inconsistent
with the thrust if not the letter of the Commission's recent *Report and
Order in* *Grandfathered Short-Spaced FM Stations*, 12 FCC Rcd 11840
(1997) (*Grandfathered Short-Spaced* *Rulemaking)*. In the
*Grandfathered Short-Spaced* *Rulemaking,* we took actions designed to
provide grandfathered FM stations with greater flexibility to change
their transmitter locations and modify their existing facilities.
Indeed, as today's opinion recognizes at footnote 10, the action in the
*Grandfathered Short-Spaced* *Rulemaking* plainly would "militate in
favor" the Section 73.213(a) waiver originally requested by Greater
Media. And, although the *Grandfathered Short-Spaced* *Rulemaking* did
not eliminate the need for Greater Media to obtain a waiver of the FM
spacing rule in Section 73.215, a fair reading of that order suggests
that the Commission has shifted its approach to FM spacing issues. The
staff decision affirmed in this opinion was adopted before the
*Grandfathered Short-Spaced* *Rulemaking* and did not take this shift
into account. As a result, it utilizes, in our opinion, an excessively
narrow waiver standard. In today's radio marketplace, we do not believe
that such a narrow standard is appropriate.

More specifically, we believe that the Commission should have given full
consideration to all of Greater Media's arguments and greater weight to
the public interest benefits of granting the waiver request. In various
places, the order declines to address arguments presented by Greater
Media. See, e.g. paras. 8 and 23 and footnote 11. It seems unnecessarily
rigid to us not to look carefully at all reasonable arguments presented
by the applicant in this case. Thus, we would not, for example, discount
Greater Media's showing that allowing it to relocate would reduce the
amount of interference WPLY currently causes to stations in Washington,
D.C. and Newark. Similarly, we would give greater credence to the
applicant's showing of its need to reduce interference and increase
service outside its immediate community of license as well as the
environmental value of moving WPLY's antenna to an antenna farm.
Consideration of all the public interest benefits in this case would, in
our minds, tip the balance in favor of granting Greater Media's
requested waiver. For these reasons, we respectfully dissent.

[^1]:     ^?^ The Application for Review is 41 pages in length, with an
    additional 29 pages of attachments. This length exceeds the 25-page
    limit imposed by Section 1.115(f)(1) of the Commission\'s rules.
    Despite Greater Media\'s failure to request leave to exceed the
    limit, we will address the merits of its Application. *See* *Michael
    Steven Levinson*, 9 FCC Rcd 3018 n. 1 (1994). In the future,
    however, we will seriously consider dismissing any application for
    review with similar procedural defects.

    In addition, on December 8, 1997, Greater Media also submitted a
    17-page Supplement to Application for Review with approximately 78
    pages of additional attachments. This supplement was submitted
    without request or authorization by the Commission and, therefore,
    in violation of Section 1.45(c) of the Commission\'s rules.
    Accordingly, we will not consider the Supplement.

[^2]:     ^?^ The Roxboro site is a *de facto* antenna farm comprised of
    a number of towers at which the transmission facilities of a number
    of FM and television stations in the Philadelphia market are
    clustered. *See* *Beasley Broadcasting of Philadelphia, Inc.*, 100
    FCC 2d 106, 108 (1985).

[^3]:     ^?^ RITOIE is a type of interference created when strong
    signals from two stations interact within a receiver to generate a
    signal on a third frequency. This receiver-generated signal may
    disrupt reception of any station operating on this third frequency.
    *See WKLX, Inc.*, 6 FCC Rcd 225, 228 n. 2 (1991).

[^4]:     ^?^ According to Greater Media, interference to WBIG would be
    eliminated as a result of increased distance separation between it
    and WPLY, and interference to WHTZ would be reduced by the use of a
    directional antenna. Additionally, interference to WFMZ would be
    reduced because the proposed WPLY transmitter site and technical
    facilities would result in the elimination of an existing overlap
    area of 33.6 square kilometers of WFMZ\'s 54 dBu contour by WPLY\'s
    94 dBu contour, and any resulting overlap would be completely
    encompassed by the existing 94 dBu signal of second-adjacent channel
    station WBEB-FM, Philadelphia. Therefore, WFMZ will lose the
    interference presently caused by WPLY, but lose no service because
    any new overlap will be in an area where WFMZ already receives 94
    dBu overlap from WBEB-FM. Thus, Greater Media treats the elimination
    of the existing WFMZ/WPLY overlap area as a net reduction in
    interference caused to WFMZ.

[^5]:     ^?^ The Bureau correctly concluded that the allegation
    regarding increase of WQIC\'s power was insufficiently supported
    without a detailed engineering analysis, and Greater Media has not
    challenged this conclusion in its Application. In addition, Greater
    Media no longer claims that its proposal will enable WJRZ to
    increase its power to full Class A facilities; rather, it contends
    in the Application that WJRZ cannot increase from its current
    operating power of 3,000 watts because it is already short-spaced to
    three stations.

[^6]:     ^?^ Greater Media\'s \"masking\" argument may be summarized as
    follows: predicted new interference to station A from station B is
    inconsequential where, even in the absence of such interference,
    existing interference from station C would prevent reception of
    station A\'s signal in areas where interference to A from B is
    predicted.

[^7]:     ^?^ WPLY is already short-spaced to WJRZ pursuant to Section
    73.213(c)(1). *See infra*, para. 17. As the Bureau noted, the
    proposed increased short-spacing between WPLY and WJRZ does not meet
    Section 73.213(c)(1) spacing requirements. The Bureau evaluated the
    proposed short-spacing under Section 73.215 because Greater Media
    requested such evaluation and proposed contour protection.

[^8]:     ^?^ The Bureau measured the proposed short-spacing to WJRZ as
    20.1 kilometers, based on the spacing requirements of Section
    73.207. *See infra*, para. 17.

[^9]:     ^?^ Media is approximately seven miles west of Philadelphia.
    In its Application for Review, Greater Media simply stated that a
    site west of Media would not alleviate the RITOIE and multipath
    interference problems.

[^10]:     ^?^ We note that, since the filing of the instant
    Application, the Commission has revised Section 73.213(a) to, among
    other things, (1) permit co- and first-adjacent-channel
    grandfathered short-spaced stations to change transmitter location
    based on a public interest showing and (2) eliminate second- and
    third-adjacent-channel spacing requirements for grandfathered
    short-spaced stations. *Grandfathered Short-Spaced FM Stations*,
    *Report and Order* in MM Docket 96-120, 12 FCC Rcd 11840 (1997)
    (\"*Grandfathered Short-Spaced Stations*\"). These revisions
    eliminate the need for a Section 73.213(a) waiver to move WPLY
    closer to second-adjacent-channel WFMZ(FM) and, given the Bureau\'s
    analysis, *see supra*, para. 6, would militate in favor of a Section
    73.213(a) waiver to move WPLY closer to co-channel WHTZ(FM). *See*
    *Grandfathered Short-Spaced FM Stations*, 12 FCC Rcd at 11851 n. 16
    (directing that revised standards be applied to pending
    applications). These developments are of no decisional significance,
    however, in light of our conclusion that the Bureau properly denied
    Greater Media\'s request for waiver of Section 73.215.

[^11]:     ^?^ The following arguments in the Application for Review
    improperly rely on questions of fact and law not presented to the
    Bureau: (1) the Bureau placed undue emphasis on adherence to the
    spacing rules because WJRZ cannot upgrade from its current operating
    power to its maximum permitted power of 6,000 watts, as it is
    already short-spaced to three stations (rather than contending that
    WJRZ cannot upgrade, Greater Media urged the Bureau that one of its
    proposal\'s benefits was to enable WJRZ to upgrade without receiving
    interference from WPLY, *see supra*, para. 4); (2) the spacing rules
    do not promote a fair and equitable distribution of FM service in
    the Philadelphia area, because the reallotment of WJRZ to Manahawkin
    from Ship Bottom, New Jersey in 1979 deprived Ship Bottom of local
    service and increased the short-spacing created by the current
    proposal; and (3) predicted new interference to WPLY from WJRZ under
    Greater Media\'s proposal is insignificant because the area of
    interference is presently served by numerous other FM stations.

    Two additional arguments in the Application for Review were
    considered and rejected in the contour protection rule making: (1)
    the \"next lower class\" limits in Section 73.215(e) are arbitrary,
    *see* *Reconsideration Order*, 6 FCC Rcd at 5359; and (2) predicted
    new interference to an area that is outside a station\'s current
    service contour (such as interference to WPLY from WJRZ under
    Greater Media\'s proposal) is not a public interest detriment. *See
    id.* at 5361.

[^12]:     ^?^ Greater Media, Inc. is not affiliated with Greater Media
    Radio Company, Inc., the licensee of WPLY, a point stressed in the
    Application for Review because the Bureau apparently attributed the
    former\'s comments in the *Contour Protection Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at
    1683, to the latter. *See* *Bureau Letter* at 6. This attribution
    was of no decisional significance.

[^13]:     ^?^ To the extent that it suggests otherwise, we hereby
    overrule the Bureau\'s statement in *ECI License Company, Inc.
    (KNRK)*, 11 FCC Rcd 1797, 1799 (M.M.Bur. 1996), which was cited in
    the Bureau\'s underlying decision here, that \"\[*t*\]*he former §
    73.207 threshold criteria are not applicable to requests for waiver
    of*

    *§ 73.215(e)*.\" *Id.* (italics in original).

[^14]:     ^?^ We note that Greater Media\'s reliance on *Sarkes
    Tarzian, Inc.*, 6 FCC Rcd 2465, 2467 (1991), is misplaced. In that
    case, the Commission waived the spacing standards of Section
    73.610(d) where, among other things, the proposed operation would
    provide a first service to over 40,000 people outside of the
    television station\'s community of license but within its Grade B
    service contour. *Id.* Here, in contrast, Greater Media has not
    demonstrated that the areas of improved service within WPLY\'s 70
    dBu contour are either unserved or underserved.

[^15]:     ^?^ Greater Media also argues that WPLY is the County\'s only
    licensed radio station, that Media is the County seat, that Greater
    Media serves the entire County\'s interest in planning and
    presenting WPLY\'s public affairs programming, and that Media is a
    tiny municipality with a population of only 5,957, whereas the
    population of the County is 547,651.

[^16]:     ^?^ Elsewhere in the Application, Greater Media also
    challenges the Bureau\'s conclusion that it did not demonstrate that
    the Roxboro antenna farm was the least short-spaced suitable site
    available, arguing that the only way to correct RITOIE and
    interference to WPLY\'s signal from the Roxboro antenna farm is by
    relocating WPLY\'s transmitter to the Roxboro site, not by moving it
    further west of Philadelphia. This argument fails because, as noted
    above, a site\'s suitability is determined by service issues within
    a station\'s community of license, not other areas within its
    service contour. Greater Media\'s contention that it cannot
    \"shoehorn\" service into the Philadelphia market because WPLY
    already serves that market fails for the same reason.

[^17]:     ^?^ We need not address Greater Media\'s related contention
    that the Bureau\'s reliance on *WKLX, Inc.*, 6 FCC Rcd at 225, was
    misplaced. *See supra*, para. 7. Regardless of whether the alleged
    RITOIE and multipath interference to WPLY\'s signal involve mobile
    or non-mobile receivers, they occur in areas outside of Media that,
    based upon the record before us, are neither unserved nor
    underserved. Thus, they do not render WPLY\'s present site
    unsuitable. *See Stoner*, 49 FCC 2d at 1012.

    The foregoing analysis establishes that even if Greater Media\'s
    allegations of RITOIE and multipath interference are accepted as
    true, controlling Commission precedent fully supports the Bureau\'s
    decision. We also note that the Greater Media RITOIE showing is both
    factually and legally deficient. Greater Media\'s RITOIE showing
    consists of (1) a handful of listener complaints, (2) an audio tape
    of WPLY\'s signal made while driving along a stretch of highway near
    the Roxboro antenna farm, and (3) a study analyzing *potential*
    sources of RITOIE, terrain obstacles between WPLY and the Roxboro
    antenna farm, and WPLY\'s signal strength in the 95-square kilometer
    area within which WPLY\'s signal allegedly suffers significant
    RITOIE-based service disruptions. Greater Media has made no effort
    to contact the likely RITOIE contributors to resolve the handful of
    listener complaints in the record. *See WKLX, Inc.*, 6 FCC Rcd at
    226 (Commission\'s established policy for resolving RITOIE
    complaints is to require newcomer licensees to resolve them on a
    complaint-by-complaint basis). The audio tape demonstrates only that
    the particular receiver Greater Media used was susceptible to
    RITOIE, because RITOIE is a receiver-based phenomenon. *See id.* at
    227. Generally, the Commission has rejected measurements or tape
    recordings taken at preselected points because this type of analysis
    permits applicants to \"cherry pick\" observation points. A
    statistically valid survey must use data acquired at points evenly
    spaced throughout the area of alleged service disruptions. We are
    certainly unprepared to reach any conclusion about reception
    difficulties either along one portion of one highway or within
    significant portions of Philadelphia on the basis of this single,
    unmonitered test. With regard to (3), the Commission rejects the
    premise of Greater Media\'s study that RITOIE necessarily occurs
    where the signal strengths of other stations exceed 100 dBu. In
    fact, staff experience with RITOIE interference issues has shown
    that there is no reliable methodology for predicting accurately the
    locations where this receiver-specific signal disruption would
    occur. *Id.* at 227.

[^18]:     ^?^ Specifically, Greater Media contends that: (1) every FM
    station in the Philadelphia area is already short-spaced, and none
    (other than WXTU, the station involved in *Beasley*) provide contour
    protection by use of a directional antenna, as will WPLY; (2) the
    proposed move will not preclude future allotments in the area
    because every possible allotment has already been made; (3) no
    community will be deprived of service as a result of the proposed
    move; and (4) the proposed move will actually reduce spectral
    crowding because the increased antenna height at the Roxboro antenna
    farm will enable WPLY to reduce its effective radiated power.

[^19]:     ^?^ The Bureau used the Section 73.207 spacing table because
    of the Commission\'s holding in *WYUU* that a proposed Section
    73.215(e) short-spacing cannot be compared directly with prior
    Section 73.207 short-spacing waivers, as in most cases the Section
    73.215(e) table affords substantial relief from the Section 73.207
    spacing requirements. *See WYUU*, 11 FCC Rcd at 3546, n. 4 (where
    Section 73.215(e) table afforded 12 kilometers of relief from
    Section 73.207 spacing requirements, proposed 5.1 kilometer Section
    73.215(e) short-spacing should be compared to Section 73.207 waiver
    cases involving 17.1 kilometer short-spacings).

[^20]:     ^?^ The Section 73.213(c)(1) spacing table preserves the
    former, less restrictive Section 73.207 spacing requirements for
    stations that became short-spaced as a result of the Commission\'s
    increase of Class A spacing requirements in conjunction with its
    Order permitting six kilowatt Class A stations. *See* *Amendment of
    Part 73 of the Rules to Increase the Maximum Transmitting Power for
    Class A FM Stations, Second Report and Order*, MM Docket 88-375, 4
    FCC Rcd 6375 (1989), *aff\'d in relevant part*, 6 FCC Rcd 3417
    (1991).

[^21]:     ^?^ Specifically, Greater Media contends that, based on
    average terrain, there will be 11.6 kilometers of overlap between
    fully-spaced, first-adjacent Class B and Class A stations under
    Section 73.207, whereas under its proposal there will be 10.6
    kilometers of overlap between WPLY and WJRZ.

[^22]:     ^?^ Specifically, waiver was granted based upon the
    applicant\'s submission of evidence that \"terrain barriers will
    preclude actual, as opposed to theoretical, resultant increases in
    interference to other stations, there are mutual facilities increase
    agreements with all potentially affected stations, there is an
    acknowledged lack of ample city grade coverage of KLIT\'s community
    of license, and a grant of Golden West\'s application will not open
    the floodgates to a spate of similar requests.\" *Golden West*, 11
    FCC Rcd at 3383. Greater Media\'s argument elsewhere in the
    Application that, based on *Golden West*, the Commission allows
    \"shoehorning\" despite its clear policy to the contrary, is
    specious. *Cf.* *WYUU*, 11 FCC Rcd at 3546 (one purpose served by
    Section 73.215(e) spacing table is to prevent \"shoehorning\").

[^23]:     ^?^ The Commission stressed that, as a general rule, such
    measurements may not be considered in analyzing FM spacing waiver
    requests. *See Golden West*, 11 FCC Rcd at 3384; *see also Board of
    Education of City of Atlanta*, 11 FCC Rcd 7763, 7766 (1996)
    (rejecting offer to submit field strength measurements).

[^24]:     ^?^ This argument ignores the predicted new interference to
    WPLY from WJRZ under the proposal. *See* *infra*, n. 25. It also
    contradicts Greater Media\'s argument elsewhere in the Application
    that 54 dBu coverage of an urban area is by definition inadequate to
    provide quality reception. *See* Application for Review at 10. Under
    the logic of this argument, the Bureau should have ignored reduced
    interference to WBIG, as the area of reduced interference is urban
    and receives \"inadequate\" 54 dBu coverage from WBIG.

[^25]:     ^?^ Greater Media revised its statement of the population of
    the area in question without explanation from 20,329 in the
    construction permit application to 12,044 in the Application. We
    note that Greater Media\'s contention that the Bureau erred by
    stating that the benefits of reduced interference to WBIG under its
    proposal were \"outweighed by the . . . increase in interference
    presented to . . . WJRZ-FM\[,\]\" *Bureau Letter* at 10, lacks
    merit. A fair reading of the Bureau\'s decision clearly demonstrates
    its awareness that interference to WPLY from WJRZ, not the reverse,
    was at issue. S*ee* *id.* at 5-7.

[^26]:     ^?^ This argument misrepresents the nature of the Bureau\'s
    decision, which clearly did not consist of a simple weighing of
    reduced interference to WBIG against predicted new interference to
    WFMZ. Furthermore, we note that the Bureau did not err by
    considering predicted new interference to WFMZ under Greater
    Media\'s proposal, because at the time of its decision the
    Commission\'s proposal to eliminate second-adjacent-channel
    protection criteria for grandfathered short-spaced stations had not
    been adopted. *See, e.g.*, *Palm Beach Cable Television Co.*, 78 FCC
    2d 1180, 1183 (1980) (until such time as a Commission policy has
    been modified or changed, it must be applied according to its
    terms). As stated earlier, the Commission\'s revisions to Section
    73.213(a) do not affect our decision in this matter: Greater
    Media\'s failure to meet the threshold requirements for waiver of
    Section 73.215(e), or to justify a Section 73.215(a) waiver, are
    determinative here. *See supra*, n. 10.

[^27]:     ^?^ We note that the Commission has proposed a standard for
    allowing unilateral proposals involving received interference, such
    as that involved here, where the applicant demonstrates, among other
    things, a total service gain at least five times as great as the
    increase in total interference, in terms of both area and population
    served. *1998 Biennial Review \--Streamlining of Radio Technical
    Rules, Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in MM Docket No. 98-93, 13
    FCC Rcd 14849 at para. 20 (1998). Our examination of the record
    suggests that Greater Media\'s proposal would not satisfy this
    criterion. In any event, Greater Media\'s application would not be
    grantable under the proposed standard because it does not comply
    with the Section 73.215(e) spacing table. *See id.*

[^28]:     ^?^ Greater Media\'s argument that the Bureau improperly
    considered each of its public interest reasons individually rather
    than as a whole is without merit. Examination of the Bureau\'s
    decision reveals that it did consider Greater Media\'s showing \"as
    a whole\[.\]\" *Bureau Letter* at 9. This statement, as well as the
    Bureau\'s specific discussion of the Section 73.213(a) waiver
    request to move closer to WHTZ, also refutes Greater Media\'s
    contention that the Bureau failed to consider alleged reduced
    interference to WHTZ.