[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33892-33901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16514]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73 and 74

[MM Docket No. 98-93; FCC 98-117]


1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Streamlining of Radio Technical 
Rules

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission seeks comment on proposals that would change 
fundamentally the way it evaluates proposals that would create 
interference in the FM band. It also seeks comment on whether the 
contingent application rule should be modified to permit coordinated 
facility modifications among broadcasters. The Commission proposes a 
signal propagation methodology that more accurately takes into account 
terrain effects to better predict where interference would not occur; 
adoption of this methodology would permit certain applicants to obtain 
greater service improvements. The Commission also proposes other 
changes to promote greater technical flexibility in the FM service and 
to streamline and expedite the processing of applications to modify 
existing facilities in several services.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before August 21, 1998. Reply 
comments are due September 21, 1998. Written comments by the public on 
the proposed information collections are due on or before August 21, 
1998.

ADDRESSES: All comments and reply comments should be addressed to the 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Copies of these pleadings also 
should be sent to the Mass Media Bureau, Audio Services Division (Room 
302), 1919 M St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, and the Office of 
General Counsel (Room 610), 1919 M St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. 
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any 
comments on the information collections contained herein should be 
submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 
1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to 
[email protected] and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--
17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503 or via the Internet to 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Doyle, Dale Bickel or William 
Scher, Audio Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2780. For 
additional information concerning the information collections contained 
in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Document) contact Judy Boley at 
(202) 418-1214, or via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 98-93 and FCC No. 98-117, 
adopted June 11, 1998 and released June 15, 1998. The complete text of 
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available for inspection and 
copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 
239), 1919 M St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 and may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800 (phone), (202) 857-3805 
(facsimile), 1231 20th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

I. Negotiated Interference in the FM Service

A. Introduction/Background

    1. The Commission frequently has used the term ``negotiated 
interference'' to describe agreements between or among stations to 
accept new or increased interference within their protected service 
contours, typically in connection with proposals to expand service by 
one or several stations. The Commission generally has rejected attempts 
by applicants to negotiate interference levels on a case-by-case basis, 
holding that the selection of interference standards is a non-delegable 
Commission responsibility. Nevertheless, the Commission has concluded 
that the public interest would be served by modifying the contingent 
application rule and AM cut-off procedures to facilitate coordinated 
technical changes between AM stations. No parallel changes have been 
adopted for FM applications, with the exception of certain 
grandfathered short-spaced stations. Thus, the Commission has condoned 
the use of agreements to promote service improvements in the 
technically more difficult AM service, as well as agreements between 
stations that operate, axiomatically, at spacings substantially less 
than current new station requirements, while consistently rejecting the 
use of these same agreements between fully-spaced FM stations where 
interference concerns generally would be less. In short, current 
Commission policy provides the least flexibility for technical facility 
improvements in mid-sized major markets where FM broadcasters face the 
greatest technical constraints to undertake such improvements.

B. Specific Proposals

i. Agreements Involving Applications for Coordinated FM Station Changes
    2. Background. Section 73.3517 prohibits the filing of contingent 
applications in the FM broadcast services.1 As stated above, 
the Commission permits the filing of contingent applications to 
facilitate interference reduction and service improvements by either 
separately or commonly owned AM stations. The Commission has received 
similar requests from FM stations that have entered into agreements 
that propose ``coordinated'' or ``interrelated'' facility

[[Page 33893]]

relocations, modifications, and ``one-step'' upgrades and 
downgrades.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rule does not differentiate between major and minor 
changes. Amendment of Sections 1.517 and 1.520, 61 FCC 2d 38 (1976).
    \2\ The commercial FM ``one-step'' processing rules were 
designed to facilitate improvements by eliminating the necessity for 
a petition for rulemaking in instances where licensees seek upgrades 
on adjacent and co-channels, modifications to adjacent channels of 
the same class, and downgrades to adjacent channel. One-step 
applications are processed as minor change applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Discussion. We propose to allow the filing of contingent minor 
change FM construction applications on a limited basis. We would 
require that such applications be filed on the same date, and that each 
include a copy of the agreement covering all related applications. 
These related minor change applications would be processed and if 
grantable, granted simultaneously. The construction permits would be 
conditioned as necessary to allow an orderly implementation of non-
interfering service. If any application in the group could not be 
approved, we propose to dismiss all applications filed as an 
interrelated group. We would reject any coordinated agreement that, in 
our determination, would not serve the public interest. We seek comment 
on each aspect of this proposal.
    4. We also propose to permit the filing of contingent proposals 
that include one-step upgrade and downgrade applications. We 
tentatively conclude that this change is consistent with the rationale 
underlying the one-step policy. The ``opportunity'' for filing 
competing proposals in this context is wholly dependent on two stations 
reaching agreement on the coordinated facility changes. However, 
stations are reluctant to pursue coordinated facility changes where 
there is a possibility that a competing application could be filed. We 
tentatively conclude that the potential preclusion of competing 
allotment and minor change proposals is consistent with the public 
interest, and that the proposed procedures are consistent with section 
307(b) of the Act.
    5. In addition, we tentatively conclude that contingent 
applications should be limited to four related, simultaneously filed 
applications. We seek comment on this limitation and whether a 
different policy should apply where some or all proposals involve 
stations under common ownership.
    6. We also propose additional requirements when the coordinated 
changes include cancelling an NCE FM station license. In 1990, the 
Commission decided against establishing a specific local transmission 
service floor with respect to our public interest evaluation of 
contingent arrangements that propose to terminate AM facilities. 
Instead we adopted guidelines that permit case-by-case evaluation of 
such applications. We propose to apply AM interference reduction 
principles to NCE FM agreements proposing the cancellation of an NCE FM 
station license. Thus, proposals could not create white or gray 
areas.3 In addition, agreements to terminate a community's 
only local transmission service would be considered on a case-by-case 
basis and would take into account the availability of other services 
and the possibility of restoring local service with either an AM or FM 
station. We seek comment on whether to establish a ``local service 
floor'' to ensure that the granting of contingent applications does not 
result in a loss of service that would be detrimental to the public 
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``white'' area receives no full-time aural service, a 
``gray'' area receives one full-time aural service. We note that 
case law suggests that the Commission is precluded from allowing the 
creation of any white or gray areas. See, e.g., West Michigan 
Television v. FCC, 460 F.2d 883 (D.C. Cir. 1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Agreements Involving Applications That Would Cause New or Increased 
Interference
    7. Background. The Commission has been extremely reluctant to 
permit the creation of interference within a station's protected 
service contour, particularly where none currently exists. We have been 
concerned that this policy would lead to further clustering of stations 
in urban areas in contravention of section 307(b) of the Act. We also 
have opposed such proposals on spectrum efficiency grounds and because 
grant of interference-creating applications could effectively foreclose 
facility improvements by stations receiving new interference. 
Nevertheless, we believe that this technical streamlining initiative 
provides an opportunity to reconsider our policy options in the context 
of the technically simpler NCE FM and commercial FM services. Radio is 
truly a mature service. Congestion in the FM band provides a major 
technical impediment to the further ``urban clustering'' of stations. 
Moreover, a station's core obligation to serve its community of license 
will continue to limit transmitter relocations and service area 
modifications. As a result, measures designed to give broadcasters 
additional flexibility may raise lesser concerns at this time regarding 
the ``fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio service * * 
*.'' 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 47 U.S.C. 307(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. There are additional reasons to reconsider these policies at 
this time. The financial and management sophistication of the radio 
broadcast industry has grown dramatically in recent years, spurred by 
fundamental changes in local ownership and the elimination of national 
ownership restrictions. Moreover, both Congress and the Commission are 
committed to relying to the greatest extent possible on competitive 
communications markets rather than resource-intensive regulatory 
policies to safeguard the public interest. In this environment, we seek 
comment on whether it is possible to provide broadcasters some 
additional flexibility under our technical rules to expand service 
while at the same time establishing requirements to ensure that 
negotiated interference agreements are limited to situations where 
service gains would outweigh service losses and the creation of new 
and/or expanded areas of interference.
    9. Discussion. We seek comment on whether we should amend 
Secs. 73.215(a) and 73.509 to permit applications that would result in 
prohibited overlap and, therefore, interference based on the following 
four criteria:
    (1) Total interference received by any station from all interfering 
stations must be no greater than five percent of the area and 
population within each affected station's protected service contour;
    (2) Total service gain must be at least five times as great as the 
increase in total interference, in terms of both area and population. 
Service gain would be defined as the difference between the current 
service contour area and population, and the proposed service contour 
area and population. Total service gain would be the sum of all service 
gains for all stations included in the agreement. Interference increase 
would be defined as the difference between the current interference 
area and population, and the proposed interference area and population. 
Total interference would be the sum of all interference increases and 
decreases received by all affected stations and applicants, in terms of 
area and population. Interference calculations would include 
interference received by a proposal even if it occured beyond that 
station's current service contour. If interference calculations made in 
accordance with this criterion established that total interference 
would be decreased, an applicant would be exempt from any service gain 
requirement;
    (3) No predicted interference can occur within the boundaries of 
any

[[Page 33894]]

affected station's community of license; and
    (4) Any application causing or receiving interference in an area 
that previously received interference-free service would be required to 
demonstrate the existence of at least five remaining aural services 
within each interference area.
    We request comment on each of these factors, including whether the 
interference cap and gain/loss ratio strike an appropriate public 
interest balance. Should the Commission adopt additional or fewer 
restrictions? Should the Commission adopt separate service floor 
requirements for commercial and NCE FM stations?
    10. If a rule change is adopted, applicants would be required to 
file coordinated facility modifications on the same date and clearly 
cross-reference all associated applications. A copy of the written 
consent of all stations receiving interference within their protected 
service contour as a result of proposed facility modification(s) would 
be submitted with the applications. Under this approach, we would amend 
Form 301 to require applicants to certify compliance with these 
negotiated interference standards and to submit supporting materials in 
exhibit form. We believe that careful review of interference-creating 
proposals filed pursuant to novel procedures would be particularly 
warranted. We seek comment on this conclusion and whether the 
Commission should rely on applicant certifications without supporting 
exhibits. All non-reserved band applications would be required to 
satisfy the less stringent Sec. 73.215(e) spacing requirements and all 
construction permits granted to FM non-reserved band applicants would 
be granted as Sec. 73.215 proposals. In addition, we would amend 
Sec. 73.509 to prohibit second- and third-adjacent channel NCE FM 
stations from proposing transmitter sites within an affected station's 
63 dBu contour. This would prevent interference areas deep within a 
station's service contour, and assure minimum distance separations 
between stations, thus promoting fair and equitable distribution of 
stations as required by section 307(b) of the Communications Act. We 
seek comment on whether this NCE FM restriction is necessary to prevent 
a deluge of modification applications that would shift service away 
from less well-served areas. All construction permits granted pursuant 
to these procedures would be conditioned on the simultaneous 
implementation of all related proposals. We invite comment on each 
aspect of this proposal.
    11. To the extent that these procedures would result in the 
favorable consideration of applications that propose new areas of 
caused interference, they would also support changes in the way we 
treat interference received. New areas of received interference can 
result from a station's unilateral proposal to extend its own service 
contour so that it overlaps the interfering contour of an authorized 
station. In effect, such a proposal reflects a station's determination 
that increased potential listenership outweighs a certain amount of 
interference within its (expanded) service area. Typically, the new 
area of interference affects potential listeners who were not predicted 
to receive service previously. We seek comment on whether we should 
permit such modifications provided that an applicant demonstrates 
compliance with each of these requirements. However, no consent from 
any other station would be required where the proposal would not result 
in interference occurring within the service contour of any reserved 
band station, any Sec. 73.215 station or any station operating with the 
equivalent of maximum class facilities. Applicants that propose a 
short-spacing to any other type of station would have to obtain consent 
from such affected station to receive interference. If the affected 
station chooses not to increase power simultaneously to a full-class 
facility as part of the agreement with the applicant, the affected 
station must request reclassification as a Sec. 73.215 licensee/
permittee. This ``Sec. 73.215 condition'' on the affected station's 
authorization effectively would limit that station to its current 
facilities (with regard to the applicant's proposal) and would prevent 
subsequent unilateral increases by the affected station resulting in 
interference caused to the applicant's improved facilities.
    12. We seek comment on whether we should follow the methodology 
adopted in the recent grandfathered short-spaced FM station proceeding 
to determine areas of interference using the desired-to-undesired 
signal strength ratio analysis and the standard F(50,50) and F(50,10) 
propagation curves. Grandfathered Short-Spaced FM Stations, Report and 
Order, 62 FR 50518, September 26, 1997. As noted therein, the ratio 
method is the most appropriate method for determining areas of 
interference. We seek comments on this view. Cochannel interference 
would be predicted to exist at all locations within the desired 
station's coverage contour where the undesired (interfering) F(50,10) 
field strength exceeds a value 20 dB below the desired (protected) 
F(50,50) field strength. First-adjacent channel interference would be 
predicted to exist at all locations within the desired station's 
coverage contour where the undesired (interfering) F(50,10) field 
strength exceed a value 6 dB below the desired (protected) F(50,50) 
field strength. Second- and third-adjacent channel interference would 
be predicted to exist at all locations within the desired station's 
coverage area where the undesired (interfering) F(50,10) field strength 
exceeds a value 40 dB above the desired (protected) F(50,50) field 
strength. We invite comment on these standards and the use of this 
methodology.
    13. We believe that consideration is warranted in this document of 
the standards that would apply to waiver requests of the interference 
rules proposed herein. Section 73.215 codifies a relief mechanism for 
applicants to specify sub-standard spacings provided that certain 
criteria are met. If an applicant cannot meet these standards, then 
Sec. 73.207 distance separation requirements must control. We propose 
to continue to follow this same procedure with regard to any 
interference-related rule changes adopted pursuant to this document. 
Specifically, in analyzing a request for waiver of Sec. 73.215(e), we 
propose to measure the short-spacing in accordance with Sec. 73.207 and 
to apply the traditional threshold three-part and public interest tests 
developed in Sec. 73.207 jurisprudence. Similarly, with regard to 
interference-creating proposals between or among consenting 
broadcasters, the Commission would consider prohibited overlap in 
accordance with established precedent. In no event would such an 
applicant be entitled to a presumption that creating any interference--
much less five percent--within any station's protected service contour 
would be in the public interest. We seek comment on these proposed 
waiver policies.
    14. A broadcaster's obligations to accurately prepare each facility 
application, to truthfully complete each application certification, to 
construct and operate facilities in accordance with its authorization, 
and, generally, to adhere to the Commission's technical rules become 
particularly significant where stations may create small amounts of 
interference and where several facility modifications may be mutually 
interdependent. We are fully committed to exercising our plenary 
enforcement powers against applicants that enter into negotiated 
interference

[[Page 33895]]

agreements where we find that application showings and/or 
certifications have fallen short of Commission standards, regardless of 
the time at which the application errors are brought to the 
Commission's attention. In the event we adopt negotiated interference 
procedures for FM stations, we propose to publish, as necessary, 
decisions that explain or clarify these new procedures. We believe that 
a program that combines strict enforcement and broad information 
dissemination would promote full and candid disclosure of material 
technical information in applications and compliance with our rules and 
policies. We seek comment on this enforcement approach for negotiated 
interference agreements. We also request that commenters identify 
specific enforcement procedures that the Commission should follow and 
the sort of sanctions that it should impose where an applicant provides 
false or incomplete information in its application or where 
construction is at variance to an authorization.
    15. We seek comment on whether this proposal to permit small 
amounts of interference in limited circumstances would protect service 
to a station's community of license and would help preserve an adequate 
service floor for all listeners. In particular, we invite public 
comment on the following issues to help develop a better record on the 
technical and policy issues that these proposals raise: (1) Would these 
negotiated interference procedures sufficiently protect the interests 
of listeners and licensees not party to an agreement?; (2) Could this 
proposal result in service losses to smaller communities and/or less 
desirable demographic audiences?; (3) Should negotiated interference 
agreements between commercial stations be treated differently from 
agreements between noncommercial educational stations?; (4) How might 
this proposal affect the development and implementation of in-band on-
channel (IBOC) digital radio systems?; (5) Is there a danger that 
negotiated interference agreements over time may lead to less 
flexibility to make future changes when, for example, a transmitter 
site is lost and a station must relocate?; (6) Is there reason to 
believe that the accumulation of negotiated interference agreements 
over a period of years could lead to a general degradation of FM 
service in the United States?; (7) Is this negotiated interference 
proposal consistent with section 307(b) of the Communications Act?; (8) 
To what extent should the Commission rely on applicant certifications 
to ensure compliance with negotiated interference agreement 
requirements?; (9) Should the Commission require licensees to maintain 
negotiated interference agreements in their local public inspection 
files? Should they be filed with the Commission?; (10) Should the 
Commission limit agreements to one or several license terms? Should an 
agreement be terminable following the transfer of a station that 
previously consented to interference within its service contour?; (11) 
What remedies should the Commission and affected licensees have if a 
station breaches its negotiated interference agreement?

II. Other Proposals To Give Stations Greater Technical Flexibility

A. The Point-to-Point Prediction Methodology

    16. Background. Interference between FM stations is defined in 
terms of protected and interfering contours. Because of the limited 
length (3 to 16 kilometers) of the radials used to determine antenna 
height above average terrain, the Commission's standard propagation 
methodology does not accurately account for all terrain effects. In 
1975, the Commission adopted a limited correction factor to measure 
``terrain roughness'' to overcome the effects of terrain beyond 16 
kilometers.5 However, the Commission later stayed the 
general use of the terrain roughness factor (contained in Sec. 73.313 
(f) through (j) and Figures 4 and 5 of Sec. 73.333) because of 
difficulties with ``atypical terrain configurations.'' 6 
Presently, the Commission does not accept supplemental terrain analyses 
to determine predicted interference between FM stations. Thus, 
applications proposing new or expanded service may be precluded 
unreasonably where interference is predicted although, in fact, 
unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Field Strength Curves, Report and Order in Dockets 16004 and 
18052, 53 FCC 2d 855, 863 (1975).
    \6\ Temporary Suspension of Certain Portions of Sections 73.313, 
73.333, 73.684, and 73.699, FCC 75-1226, 56 FCC 2d 749 (1975), stay 
extended indefinitely, 40 Rad. Reg. 2d 965 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Discussion. In Appendix B of this document, we set forth a 
supplemental point-to-point (``PTP'') prediction model which under many 
circumstances would provide for a more accurate prediction of 
interfering contours. We propose that an applicant may use the PTP 
method to calculate interfering contours for the purpose of 
demonstrating compliance with the Commission's various overlap/
interference requirements.7 Such showings would be limited 
to the relationships between the PTP predicted interfering contours and 
the affected station's standard F(50,50) curve predicted protected 
service contour. We also propose to permit the use of PTP methodology 
to demonstrate compliance with the interference area and population 
limits set forth above for negotiated interference agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Specifically, we refer to interfering contours calculated in 
association with the Commission's overlap requirements for FM 
commercial, NCE FM, and FM Translator stations (47 CFR 73.215, 
73.509, 73.1204, respectively); overlap of the interfering contours 
of intermediate frequency (IF) grandfathered short-spaced stations 
(Sec. 73.213(b)); and the interfering contours utilized in showings 
that involve undesired- to-desired (U/D) signal ratios in 
conjunction with FM to TV Channel Six interference showings 
(Sec. 73.525) and public interest showings related to pre-1964 
grandfathered short-spaced stations (Sec. 73.213(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. We tentatively conclude that applicants should be permitted to 
use the PTP methodology for certain other purposes. All commercial FM 
stations must demonstrate compliance with the community of license city 
grade coverage requirements of Sec. 73.315. Since the PTP methodology 
more accurately incorporates the effects of terrain into the prediction 
of coverage, we propose to permit the use of PTP calculations by both 
applicants and objectors to resolve any questions raised regarding 
compliance with Sec. 73.315 and to treat the PTP calculations as 
controlling. We propose to require applicants to submit a PTP contour 
study where terrain between a transmitter site and a community of 
license could put in issue either the use of the standard methodology 
or the station's compliance with city grade coverage requirements. 
Existing stations that currently cover their community based on the 
standard prediction method, but fail to satisfy the PTP methodology, 
would be exempt from a PTP determination provided they do not propose 
to relocate transmission facilities or withdraw coverage towards the 
community of license. Additionally, we propose to allow PTP methodology 
in two specific instances that require the calculation of 3.16 mV/m 
coverage: (1) compliance with main studio requirements of Sec. 73.1125; 
8 and (2) demonstration that an allotment, when

[[Page 33896]]

considered at maximum Class facilities, would comply with Sec. 73.315 
with respect to the community of license (if use of a supplemental 
method is warranted consistent with existing precedents). We seek 
comment on these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The staff currently entertains alternate prediction methods 
in the context of main studio locations. However, in order to 
warrant study, current commercial FM processing policy requires that 
such showings may be submitted if they alter the 3.16 mV/m contour 
by at least ten percent when compared to the standard prediction 
method. In contrast, the staff can efficiently confirm that an 
applicant has properly used the PTP methodology. Accordingly, we 
propose to eliminate the ten percent method for PTP contour studies 
that establish compliance with the Commission's main studio location 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19.The PTP methodology is proposed in this document for the primary 
purpose of demonstrating that the standard prediction method overstates 
the area encompassed by a station's interfering contour. Thus, we 
propose to prohibit the use of the PTP methodology to extend 
interfering contours beyond the standard F(50,10) predicted curves for 
the purpose of demonstrating harmful interference received. PTP 
showings are not permitted in any of our international agreements and 
thus could not be used to demonstrate compliance with international 
requirements. We also propose not to permit the use of this methodology 
to calculate protected service contours for the purposes of 
demonstrating: (1) the lack or existence of overlap; or (2) compliance 
or non-compliance with contour limitations for boosters, fill-in 
translators, or auxiliary facilities. In addition, we propose not to 
consider PTP showings in the context of demonstrating compliance with 
the multiple ownership requirements of Sec. 73.3555. We seek comments 
on each aspect of this proposal regarding the adoption and use of the 
PTP methodology.
    20. As noted above, we stayed the terrain roughness provision 
because of difficulties with atypical terrain configurations. However, 
this adjustment and the PTP prediction method would provide a more 
sophisticated and not unduly burdensome method of assessing the effects 
of a variety of terrain anomalies. Therefore, we propose to delete the 
long-stayed terrain roughness provisions from Sec. 73.313(f) though (j) 
and Figure 4 of Sec. 73.333 from the Commission's rules as they apply 
to FM broadcast stations. We seek comment on these proposals.

B. Commercial FM Technical Requirements: Amendments to Sec. 73.215

i. Reduced Minimum Separation Requirements in Sec. 73.215(e) for 
Second-and Third-Adjacent Channel Stations
    21. Background. In 1989, the Commission adopted Sec. 73.215 to 
afford FM applicants some additional flexibility in locating potential 
transmitter sites. In response to concerns of spectrum overcrowding, 
the Commission retained minimum but lesser spacing requirements for 
Sec. 73.215 applicants. For second- and third-adjacent channel 
stations, Sec. 73.215(e) generally limits the amount of relief from 
Sec. 73.207 minimum distance separation requirements to no more than 
three kilometers and in some cases provides no relief.9 As a 
result, stations with second-and third-adjacent channel spacing 
problems have, in many cases, less flexibility to relocate facilities 
under Sec. 73.215(e) than under the former Sec. 73.207 waiver policies 
that permitted the staff to grant spacing waivers of up to six 
kilometers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Specifically, out of 28 possible combinations between the 
second-and third-adjacent channel stations, Sec. 73.215 provides 10 
km relief to Class B1--C stations, and 9 km relief to Class C2-C 
stations. In addition, four combinations have 3 km of relief, 14 
combinations have 2 km of relief, five combinations have 1 km of 
relief, and three combinations have no relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Discussion. We propose to revise the Sec. 73.215(e) spacing 
table to afford all FM commercial stations a minimum of 6 kilometers of 
relief from the applicable Sec. 73.207(a) standards. We also propose 
that grants under this proposal would continue to be listed as a 
contour protection construction permit. We seek comment on these 
proposals.
ii. Additional Flexibility for Stations in Puerto Rico and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands
    23. In 1993, the staff granted a request for waiver of 
Sec. 73.215(a)(1) to permit an alternate method to define the protected 
and interfering contours of certain stations in the Virgin Islands and 
Puerto Rico.10 We propose revising Sec. 73.215 to 
incorporate the actual protected and interfering contours for Class A, 
B1 and B stations set forth in St Croix Wireless Co. The proposed 
modifications take into account the higher HAAT limits specified in the 
rules for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, while affording stations 
additional site location flexibility. We believe that this revision 
would protect other stations from interference in excess of that which 
may occur under our spacing rules. We seek comment on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See St. Croix Wireless Co., Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 7329 (1993). In 
St. Croix Wireless, Co., the permittee requested a waiver of 
Sec. 73.215 as it defined the protected contour of a Class B station 
as the 54 dBu contour. The permittee demonstrated that use of the 54 
dBu contour for Class B stations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin 
Islands produced an anomalous result, affording vastly more 
protection than the spacings provide. Instead, the permittee showed 
that given the spacings and maximum facilities permitted in this 
region, the normally protected contour of such stations is the 63 
dBu contour, and the use of this contour for Caribbean stations 
produces a result equivalent to that on the mainland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. New Class C Height Above Average Terrain Requirements

    24. Background. A recent staff study reveals that many Class C 
stations operate with facilities that are significantly less than 
maximum. Specifically, the study reveals that 519 of the 863 FM 
stations presently occupying Class C assignments, or approximately 60 
percent, operate with facilities less than 450 meters HAAT. The fact 
that such a large percentage of Class C stations are operating more 
than 150 meters below one-half the maximum antenna height limitation of 
600 meters HAAT indicates that the Commission's present allotment 
structure overprotects a substantial number of Class C stations and, 
therefore, may unnecessarily preclude proposals to introduce new and/or 
expand existing services.
    25. Discussion. We propose to create an additional intermediate 
class of stations between Class C and Class C1, to be designated Class 
C0 (Class C zero). Class C0 stations would have a maximum height 
limitation of 450 meters HAAT and a minimum antenna height requirement 
of 300 meters HAAT. Both classes of stations would be required to 
maintain a power level of 100 kW, the present value for Class C 
stations. Under this proposal, Class C stations would be required to 
operate at a minimum antenna height of no less than 451 meters HAAT. We 
would amend the FM distance separation tables to include the reduced 
spacing requirements for the new station class. In order to provide a 
reasonable opportunity for existing Class C stations not operating at 
the proposed antenna height minimum to maintain their full Class C 
status, we propose a three-year transition period to obtain a 
construction permit specifying an antenna HAAT of at least 451 meters. 
During the three-year period, each such station would be renewed on a 
conditional basis. If the station has not obtained the necessary 
authorization within the three-year period, then the station would be 
reclassified as a Class C0 station. We seek comments regarding this 
proposal, including comments that may shed light on the additional 
service the proposed additional station class could create, the effect 
of the loss of primary service areas for reclassified Class C0 
stations, and whether creation of a temporary ``buffer zone'' to 
protect the ability of existing Class C stations to upgrade during the 
three-year transition period would be appropriate.

[[Page 33897]]

D. Streamlined Application Processing Changes

i. Extending First Come/First Served Processing to AM, NCE FM and FM 
Translator Minor Change Applications
    26. Background. Under our present rules, minor change applications 
for non-reserved FM band broadcast stations are subject to ``first 
come/first served'' processing, whereby a first-filed application cuts 
off the filing rights of subsequent, mutually exclusive proposals. 
Minor changes for AM, reserved FM band and FM translator stations do 
not receive such cut-off protection, but remain subject to competing 
proposals until the staff disposes of the applications. This policy 
imposes significant uncertainty and delay on minor change applicants in 
these services: at any time during the pendency of an application, a 
conflicting proposal may be filed that could halt further processing of 
the application and necessitate a technical amendment, settlement 
between the parties or designation of the mutually exclusive 
applications for comparative hearing.
    27. Discussion. We propose to extend application of the first come/
first served processing system to AM, NCE FM and FM translator minor 
change applications. We believe that the unlimited exposure to 
conflicting applications and the concomitant expense and delay under 
the current policy is both inequitable and inconsistent with our 
treatment of minor changes for FM commercial band stations. We 
anticipate that this proposal would effectively remedy the uncertainty 
and delay presently associated with AM, NCE FM and FM translator minor 
change applications. We invite comment on this proposal.
ii. Revisions to the Definition of ``Minor'' Change in AM, NCE FM, and 
FM Translator Services
    28. Background. Under our present rules, a proposed change in the 
facilities of an existing commercial FM band station is classified as a 
major change only if it involves a change in community of license and/
or certain changes in frequency and/or class. For AM, NCE FM and FM 
translator stations, however, various other facility changes also are 
classified as major changes: (1) for AM stations, most proposed 
increases in power; (2) for NCE FM stations, any proposed change of 50 
percent or more in the station's predicted 1 mV/m (60 dBu) coverage 
area; and (3) for FM translators, any proposed change or increase of 
over 10 percent in the 1 mV/m coverage area. Accordingly, facility 
modification applications in these services may be subject to 
additional administrative procedures.
    29. We propose to expand the definition of minor change for the AM, 
NCE FM and FM translator services to conform to the commercial FM 
``minor change'' definition. Thus, only applications to change 
community of license and to change to a non-mutually exclusive channel 
and class would be classified as ``major'' changes.11 To 
prevent NCE FM and FM translator stations from abandoning their present 
service areas, however, we propose to require these stations to 
continue to provide 1 mV/m service to some portion of their presently 
authorized 1 mV/m service areas in order for their applications to be 
classified as minor changes. We tentatively conclude that this proposal 
would eliminate the present inconsistent treatment of proposed 
facilities increases for different radio services without undermining 
the administration of any Commission rule or policy. We invite comment 
on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ We propose to continue to treat AM applications to change 
from Class B to Class D as ``minor'' changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Coordinate Corrections by Single Application for Licensed Stations
    30. Background. Presently, broadcast stations seeking to correct 
coordinates must file a construction permit application, and after 
grant, a license application.12 Coordinate corrections, 
however, are generally considered to be minor changes to broadcast 
facilities because they do not involve physical changes to the 
facilities or a change in licensed parameters. We believe that for many 
coordinate corrections the two-application procedure is unduly 
burdensome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 47 CFR 73.1690(b)(2) and 73.3536.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. Discussion. We propose to adopt new provisions in Parts 73 and 
74 to allow corrections of coordinates for broadcast facilities, where 
no other licensed parameters are changed, via a single license 
application. We also propose to require the applicant to certify that 
all licensed parameters not altered in the license application would 
remain unchanged. Under our proposal, the applicant would not be 
required to file a separate construction permit. We propose to make 
this procedure available where the correction would be less than 3 
seconds latitude and 3 seconds longitude, provided that the applicant 
has sought FAA clearance and antenna structure 
registration.13 We seek comment on this proposal and whether 
an alternative standard should be adopted. We also propose to continue 
our policy of issuing public notices announcing the receipt of the 
application, and the processing of the coordinate correction as if it 
were a routine minor change application. However, in the event the 
coordinate correction establishes a violation of our technical rules, 
the Commission would retain a full range of options including the 
designation of the license application for hearing and the issuance of 
an order to show cause why the construction permit should not be 
revoked. We propose to require any permittee that discovers an antenna 
structure coordinate error to file an application to modify its 
outstanding construction permit. We tentatively conclude that the 
Commission may adopt this change in licensing procedures pursuant to 
section 319(d) of the Communications Act. We seek comment on these 
proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In 1996, the Commission received comments in response to 
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 96-58 requesting that 
a rule be adopted to allow a coordinate correction in a modification 
of license application, thereby eliminating the requirement for a 
construction permit. See Certain Minor Changes in Broadcast 
Facilities Without a Construction Permit, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 61 FR 15439, April 8, 1996. The Commission denied the 
request stating that the proposed one-step procedure could invite 
abuse by applicants ``correcting'' coordinates to a short-spaced 
transmitter site or a site involving prohibited contour overlap. By 
retaining the construction permit process, the Commission indicated 
that the safeguards against abuse inherent in the construction 
permit process would be not be lost. See Certain Minor Changes in 
Broadcast Facilities without a Construction Permit, Report and 
Order, 62 FR 51052, September 30, 1997. We now believe that limiting 
one-step license application coordinate corrections to situations 
involving less than 3 seconds of longitude and latitude would 
provide adequate safeguards. We seek comment on this conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. FM Translator and Booster Station Power Reductions by Single 
Application
    32. Background. We have found when reviewing license renewals that 
many FM translator and booster stations are actually operating at a 
power less than that specified in their license. In order to authorize 
the reduced power operation, we now require licensees to go through the 
two-step process. In addition, FM translator licensees may resolve an 
interference complaint by a reduction in power. In this instance, the 
two-step process delays the resolution of the interference problem.
    33. Discussion. In order to expedite FM station license 
modifications in these circumstances, we propose to eliminate the two-
step application process for FM translator and booster stations seeking 
to decrease ERP. We tentatively conclude that recent changes

[[Page 33898]]

in section 319 of the Communications Act permit the Commission to adopt 
this one step licensing procedure.14 We seek comment on this 
view. In these instances, we would permit licensees to decrease their 
ERP after the filing of a license application proposing the power 
decrease. We seek comment on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In 1996, Congress amended section 319 of the Act to 
authorize the Commission to waive the requirement for a construction 
permit for minor changes in the facilities of authorized broadcast 
stations. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 
Sec. 403(m), 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Relaxed NCE FM and Translator Technical Requirements

i. Second-Adjacent Channel Interference Ratios for Predicting 
Prohibited Overlap in the Reserved Band
    34. Background. The Commission's commercial FM station interference 
protection standards require stations operating on the same channel or 
any of the first three adjacent channels to meet certain minimum 
distance standards. Like commercial FM stations, NCE FM stations are 
protected from interference by stations operating on co- and the first 
three adjacent channels under the rules. The NCE FM rules do not 
specify minimum distance separation requirements. Actual, rather than 
maximum class facilities are used to calculate whether prohibited 
contour overlap would occur. Thus, the location of a station's service 
and interfering contours determines the preclusionary impact of such 
stations on other potential cochannel and adjacent channel facilities. 
Although both commercial and NCE FM interference standards are derived 
from a common methodology, the commercial rules use a less preclusive 
100 dBu interfering contour to calculate minimum distance separations 
for stations operating on second-adjacent frequencies.
    35. Discussion. We propose to eliminate the inconsistency between 
the commercial and NCE FM station interference protection standards. 
Specifically, we propose to modify Secs. 73.509 and 74.1204(a) to 
specify a 100 dBu interfering contour for second-adjacent channel NCE 
FM and FM translator stations.15 We seek comment on this 
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The 97 and 94 dBu interfering contours will be specified 
for second-adjacent channel FM translator stations protecting class 
B1 and B stations in the reserved band, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Minimum Coverage of the Community of License by NCE FM Stations
    36. Background. The Commission's rules do not require NCE FM 
stations operating in the reserved band (Channels 201 to 220) to place 
a minimum field strength signal over their communities of license, 
unlike their commercial counterparts. The Commission enacted this 
policy based on the fact that many NCE FM stations operate at low power 
levels and simply could not provide coverage to the entire area within 
the legal boundaries of its community of license. The Commission also 
recognized that NCE FM stations are generally dependent on listener 
support, and may not have the financial resources to construct 
facilities that serve the entire community of license. However, public 
interest concerns are raised where an NCE FM station covers no portion 
of its community of license with its 60 dBu contour. The association of 
a broadcast station with a community of license is a basic tenet of the 
Commission's allocation scheme for broadcast stations.
    37. Discussion. We propose to delete the Note to Sec. 73.315(a) and 
to add a provision requiring NCE FM stations to provide 60 dBu (1 mV/m) 
service to at least a portion of the community of license. We believe 
this proposal would give NCE FM applicants significant flexibility to 
locate technical facilities, consistent with the Commission's statutory 
licensing requirements. We seek comment on this proposal and on the 
percentage of the population and/or area of the community that should 
be covered. In the event that an NCE FM community coverage standard is 
adopted, we propose to apply the rule only to new station and 
modification applications filed after the effective date of this new 
rule. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.
iii. Revisions to Class D Rules
    38. Background. The Commission created a low power NCE FM Class D 
service in 1948, as an inexpensive means of encouraging the FM 
broadcasting service and as a substitute for the ``campus broadcasting 
systems'' then in use. By 1976, however, the demand for NCE FM licenses 
had increased dramatically, prompting the Commission to initiate a rule 
making proceeding to determine how to foster the most effective use of 
NCE FM spectrum. The Commission concluded that Class D stations 
constituted an inefficient use of spectrum, and adopted measures to 
minimize their negative impact on the development of the NCE FM radio 
service. Specifically, the Commission encouraged Class D stations to 
upgrade to Class A status. It required Class D stations that did not 
upgrade to migrate to a commercial FM channel or Channel 200, where 
they would have secondary status. Those stations unable to migrate 
would be required to move to the reserved band channel with ``the least 
preclusionary impact on other potential stations[.]'' In addition, the 
Commission ended Class D stations' protection against interference and 
imposed a permanent freeze on applications for new Class D 
stations.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This notice neither makes nor proposes any change to this 
permanent freeze policy. We note that the Commission has requested 
public comment on two rulemaking petitions to establish a low power 
or microbroadcasting service. See Public Notice, Report No. 2254 
(released February 5, 1998) (RM # 9208); Public Notice, Report No. 
2262 (released March 12, 1998) (RM # 9242) (erratum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39.The Commission remains committed to promoting the full use of 
the NCE FM channels. Congestion in the reserved band has increased 
during the past twenty years, and demand for NCE FM licenses remains 
high. Furthermore, a recent staff study reveals that a number of the 
remaining Class D stations with reserved band authorizations are 
causing interference to full service NCE FM stations.17 We 
believe, therefore, that certain modifications to our Class D policies 
are appropriate. We anticipate that the changes proposed herein would 
serve the Commission's original objective while avoiding the 
unnecessary cancellation of Class D licenses. In addition, we believe 
that the proposed changes would simplify and expedite Class D station 
licensing and renewal procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The study reveals that 38 of the 70 Class D stations with 
reserved band licenses are causing interference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. Discussion. Under Sec. 73.512(a), Class D stations are required 
with each renewal cycle to migrate to an available commercial channel 
or Channel 200, or demonstrate the unavailability of such channels. We 
do not believe the administrative burdens these requirements impose on 
both licensees and the Commission staff are warranted where an existing 
Class D station is operating on an NCE FM channel without objectionable 
interference. Accordingly, we propose to permit Class D stations to 
operate on any channel where no interference (as defined by 
Sec. 73.509(b)) would be caused to any broadcast station, and to 
eliminate the requirement that Class D licensees with reserved band 
authorizations demonstrate the unavailability of any commercial FM 
channel or Channel 200 in their license renewal applications. Under 
this proposal, the staff would handle channel location issues as they 
arise rather than addressing them as license renewal issues. 
Furthermore, whereas the current rules require Class D stations to 
migrate to available

[[Page 33899]]

commercial channels or Channel 200 and contain no provision for such 
stations to move back to the reserved band, the proposed new rules 
would allow existing Class D stations to relocate to any available 
interference-free reserved or nonreserved channel in order to avoid 
receiving interference from full power FM stations, or for any other 
reason.
    41. With regard to Class D stations that are causing or are 
predicted to cause interference (as defined by Sec. 73.509(b)) on their 
current channel, we propose to apply the following standards: first, 
stations would be required to move to an available interference-free 
channel; second, if no interference-free channel is available, stations 
would be required to move to an NCE FM channel that would result in 
only second- and/or third-adjacent channel contour overlap; 
18 and third, if no channel is available that would be 
either interference-free or create only second-and/or third-adjacent 
channel interference, the station would be required to obtain the 
consent of each affected NCE FM station subject to co- or first-
adjacent channel interference as a condition for continued operation. 
Should there be a number of potential channels for an existing Class D 
station in this situation to choose from, we propose to require 
applicants to adhere to the following frequency selection criteria: 
first, we would prefer overlap beyond an affected station's community 
of license to overlap within the licensed community; second, we would 
prefer third to second adjacent channel overlap; and third, we would 
prefer overlap involving the smallest percentage of population in a 
station's coverage area, so that there would be the least possible 
adverse impact on the affected station. In conjunction with these 
changes, we also propose to eliminate the ``least preclusion'' 
requirement, which is inadequately defined in the existing rules and 
has proved impracticable. With regard to Class D stations presently 
causing second or third adjacent channel overlap in the NCE FM band, we 
invite comment as to whether such stations should be allowed to remain 
on their present channels absent actual complaints of interference or 
required to move in accordance with the standards proposed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The current rules define Class D stations operating in the 
non-reserved band as ``secondary,'' and we propose no change in this 
definition. See 47 CFR 73.506(a). For purposes of this Class D 
channel displacement discussion, Channel 200 is treated as an NCE FM 
channel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. A recent staff study reveals that every Class D station 
authorized to operate on a reserved band frequency has available at the 
present time an NCE FM channel on which it could operate free of co- or 
first-adjacent channel contour overlap. However, in the event that 
changes in NCE FM authorizations create a situation where no channel 
free of co- and first-adjacent channel interference is available, we 
propose to require the Class D station to obtain the consent of the 
affected NCE FM station(s) as a condition for continued 
operation.19 In the event that no agreement is reached, the 
Class D station would be required to cease operation when program tests 
for the affected station commence, and would have up to one year to 
obtain the required consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ We would allow Class D licensees to obtain such consent not 
only for the channel they are currently operating on but for any NCE 
FM channel or Channel 200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. Revise Class D Definition Based on Transmitter Power Output. 
The current rules define Class D stations as stations with transmitter 
power output (``TPO'') of 10 watts or less. Higher class NCE FM 
stations, however, are defined by their predicted 1 mV/m (60 dBu) 
contour distances, as determined by power and antenna height in 
accordance with Sec. 73.211(b). We propose to conform the definition of 
Class D stations to that of higher class NCE FM stations, by 
eliminating the TPO restriction and instead defining Class D stations 
as stations with predicted 60 dBu contour distances not exceeding five 
kilometers, as determined in accordance with Sec. 73.211(b). We are 
aware of five Class D stations with predicted 60 dBu contour distances 
exceeding the proposed five kilometer restriction. We propose to 
grandfather such ``superpowered'' Class D facilities, permitting them 
to continue to operate as Class D stations at their present power and 
antenna height and to modify their facilities provided they do not 
extend their predicted 60 dBu contour distances.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In this regard, we also propose to grandfather 
``underpowered'' Class A facilities: Class A stations authorized 
prior to the adoption of the Class A minimum power and antenna 
height requirements in Sec. 73.511 which do not meet such 
requirements. 47 CFR 73.211(a)(3). In practice, such stations 
currently are treated as Class A facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. Classify Construction Permit Applications as Minor Changes. 
Certain Class D construction permit applications, including those 
proposing operation on a new channel, are treated as major change 
applications. We propose to consider all Class D facility applications 
as minor change applications that would be processed under our more 
efficient ``first come/first served'' procedures. In light of the 
unprotected status of Class D stations, only other Class D applications 
would be affected by this proposal, and mutually exclusive Class D 
applications are extremely unlikely due to the low power and relatively 
small number of Class D stations. By eliminating the 30-day public 
notice period for Class D permit applications, we anticipate that this 
proposal would expedite processing of such applications, conferring an 
important benefit on displaced Class D stations.21 
Consistent with the above, we propose to permit Class D stations to 
propose changes of licensed community or of 50 percent or more of the 
area within their predicted 1 mV/m contour areas provided their 
applications demonstrate that they would maintain continuity of service 
to their core audience. The present rules prohibit such changes in 
order to prevent the establishment of ``new'' Class D stations. We seek 
comment on these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ We invite comment as to whether an application by a Class D 
station proposing to upgrade to Class A status should be classified 
as a major change. Arguably, a Class D to A upgrade should be 
classified as a major change because it would confer protected 
status on the subject station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. Revise Contour Protection Requirements for Class B and B1 
Stations. Section 73.509(b) requires Class D stations to protect the 1 
mV/m (60 dBu) contour of all other broadcast stations, regardless of 
class or location on the FM band. Commercial Class B and B1 FM 
stations, however, traditionally have received greater protection to 
their 0.5 mV/m (54 dBu) and 0.7 mV/m (57 dBu) contours, respectively. 
Accordingly, we propose to modify Sec. 73.509(b) to require Class D 
stations to protect commercial Class B and B1 stations, as well as NCE 
FM Class B and B1 stations operating on commercial channels, to their 
respective 54 dBu and 57 dBu contours. We invite comment as to whether 
Class D stations that currently are required to protect the 60 dBu 
contours of Class B or B1 stations but would not comply with the 
proposed new standard should be permitted to continue to operate at 
their present powers and antenna heights absent actual interference 
complaints.
    46. We invite comment on these Class D station proposals. Are they 
warranted in the interest of improved NCE FM channel use? Would they 
promote more efficient use of NCE FM channels? Should we apply to Class 
D stations the ``actual interference'' standard applicable to FM 
translators? Would the proposed changes sufficiently protect the 
ability of Class D stations to continue to operate?

[[Page 33900]]

III. Procedural Matters

    47. Paperwork Reduction Act. This Notice proposes rule and 
procedural revisions that may contain information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. It has been submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for review under Sec. 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the 
general public and other federal agencies are invited to comment on the 
information collection requirements proposed in this proceeding. Public 
and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments in this 
Notice; OMB comments are due August 21, 1998. Comments should address: 
(a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including 
whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy 
of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the 
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology. In addition to filing comments 
with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information 
collection requirements proposed herein should be submitted to Judy 
Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, 
N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected] and 
to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--17th Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].
    48. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding will be treated as a ``permit-
but-disclose'' proceeding subject to the ``permit-but-disclose'' 
requirements under Sec. 1.1206(b) of the rules. 47 CFR 1.1206(b), as 
revised. Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in 
accordance with Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda 
period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally 
prohibited. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded 
that a memorandum summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of 
the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the 
subjects discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence description of the 
views and arguments presented is generally required. See 47 CFR 
1.1206(b)(2), as revised. Additional rules pertaining to oral and 
written presentations are set forth in Sec. 1.1206(b).
    49. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected 
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in this Notice. Written public comments are requested on the 
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be 
filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice.

A. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules

    50. This rulemaking proceeding is initiated to obtain comments 
concerning the Commission's proposed amendment of certain technical 
rules and policies governing the radio broadcast services.

B. Legal Basis

    51. Authority for the actions proposed in this Notice document may 
be found in sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 308, 309, and 310 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303, 
308, 309, and 310.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    52. RFA generally defines the term ``small entity `` as having the 
same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' 
and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act.22 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). A small 
organization is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
``Small governmental jurisdiction'' generally means ``governments of 
cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or 
special districts, with a population of less than 50,000.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition 
of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the 
RFA, 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.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3). While we 
tentatively believe that the SBA's definition of ``small business'' 
greatly overstates the number of radio broadcast stations that are 
small businesses and is not suitable for purposes of determining the 
impact of the proposals on small radio stations, for purposes of 
this document, we utilize the SBA's definition in determining the 
number of small businesses to which the proposed rules would apply, 
but we reserve the right to adopt a more suitable definition of 
``small business'' as applied to radio broadcast stations subject to 
the proposed rules in this document and to consider further the 
issue of the number of small entities that are radio broadcasters or 
other small media entities in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    53. The proposed rules and policies will apply to radio 
broadcasting licensees and potential licensees. The Small Business 
Administration defines a radio broadcasting station that has no more 
than $5 million in annual receipts as a small business. A radio 
broadcasting station is an establishment primarily engaged in 
broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. As of January 31, 
1998, official Commission records indicate that 12,241 radio stations 
were operating, of which 7,488 were FM stations. Thus, the proposed 
rules will affect some of the 12,241 radio stations, approximately 
11,751 of which are small businesses. These estimates may overstate the 
number of small entities since the revenue figures on which they are 
based do not include or aggregate revenues from non-radio affiliated 
companies.
    54. In addition to owners of operating radio stations, any entity 
who seeks or desires to obtain a radio broadcast license may be 
affected by the proposals contained in this item. The number of 
entities that may seek to obtain a radio broadcast license is unknown. 
We invite comment as to such number.

D. Description of Projected Recording, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    55. In addition to enhancing opportunities for improvement of radio 
broadcast technical facilities and service, a number of the measures 
proposed in this notice document would reduce the reporting required of 
prospective and current applicants, permittees and licensees.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

    56. This notice document solicits comment on a variety of 
alternatives discussed herein. These alternatives are intended to 
enhance opportunities for improvement of technical facilities and 
service and eliminate unnecessary administrative burdens and delays 
associated with our radio broadcast licensing processes. Any 
significant alternatives presented in the comments will be considered.

[[Page 33901]]

F. Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict With the Proposed 
Rules

    57. None.

Ordering Clauses

    58. Accordingly, it is ordered, that pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 308, 309 and 310 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303, 
308, 309 and 310, this Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order is 
adopted.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 73
    Radio, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

47 CFR Part 74

    Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16514 Filed 6-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P