WPC, 2HBX@ Z3|J (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)"5@^*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ*7777BD7TTxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/xTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxJxTxTxTxTxT\TxTxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TAxTf/fDxTxTxTxo7oD\A\AN:*KT7JTTTTT.3}}T2T}277JJT77TT7J72t7[[[[^[e*B`^.wRTTn[Cfx`xWlRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ7TJTT7\777JJ:T7A7xx*7TTTT!T7.T^7TB[227`K*723T}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx\TJJJJJJoJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTTTApple LaserWriter II NTXPT1APLAIINT.WRSC\  P6Q"oUP2. z3R3|J Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)ozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT):P28 `vb  ݌Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)Times New Roman (Bold Italic) (TT)  P6QXP2J=.X &J\  P6Q&P.2N=.X7&N4  pQ&CCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd S' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#XP\  P6QW XP##&J\  P6Q/&P#Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)Times New Roman (Bold Italic) (TT)Courier New (TT)2&vj p kPka8DocumentgDocument Style Style` ư a4DocumentgDocument Style Style  . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style ư a5DocumentgDocument Style Style ư 2mXvtaa2DocumentgDocument Style Style*    a7DocumentgDocument Style Style  ` ư BibliogrphyBibliography   ư a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8@    ư 22  @  a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers A@`  ` ư a3DocumentgDocument Style Style 0     a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers J` @  `  ư a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers S`  @  ư 2 d a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers \`  @h #h#ư a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numberse`  #h#@$$ #h#((ư a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn`  #h#((@** ((--ư a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw `  #h#((--@/p/ --2p2ư 2.l&Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleX!"T 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Ta1DocumentgDocument Style StyleF#$ ))  ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style&%&  . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style&'(  . 2`%a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style*)*    a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style'+,    a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style&-.    a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style4/$0     2"a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style&12  . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style&34  . Doc InitInitialize Document Style5Y6   T I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)TPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper78    X  y*dddyy*ddd`y H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   Ӄ2$e#pe#y# N$Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush Left9: Heading 1Centered Headingcal Style; <** à  Bullet ListIndented Bullet List=>` ưX HeadingChapter Heading 3?@   ׃  2'!%"%#^M&$d&Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers!<AB@   ưX SubheadingSubheading".CD  FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance#EFHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd$GH 2K*%A'&&('X((1)DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date%IJ X 8o`(#DRAFTă `(#"3 1, 4"ă  oDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off&DKL    HEADERHeader A - Appearance'MNLETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5(OP '3   2~.)1}**1++1,,n.LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5)QR 'A   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11*ST 3'   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14+UV A'   TITLETitle of a Document,WX ă2V0-X..//i/0d/FOOTERFooter A - Appearanced-YZBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented.[\HEADING 33rd Heading Level/]^ HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large0_` 2g51j0203E34V4HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored1 a bLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins2cd X  3'    3' II"n"Tv Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice3ef X, $0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format4gh   M E M O R A N D U M ă y<N dddy 2:5856867 88X9INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice5ij ,p, $00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro6kl p,p, $00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice7+mn   p,X 9   ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle8op2;9[4::[:;[:<[E;SMALLSmall Typestyle9qrFINEFine Typestyle:stLARGELarge Typestyle;uvEXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle<wx2>=[;>-<?|=@,>VERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle=yzENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header>+{| ,  X  , 8  `   footnote tex#?$}~ d@ a11I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')@8@   2AA>B?C/@D@a21I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')AA@`  `  a31I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')BJ` @  `   a41I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')CS`  @   a51I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')D\`  @#h# #h# 2DEAFBGKCHDa61I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Ee`  #h#@(( #h#(( a71I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Fn`  #h#((@-- ((-- a81I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Gw`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 Chapter?I@6HChapter Heading=(')8?I *')'0 ?I.EH0 ` CHAPTER 3  2FIqDJcbEKdEL)FReport Body@6HMain Text of Report8?I *')'0 ?I.EI  1, 2, 3,teNumbersotation"H('0\F H rW?I J 1.A, B,3,teUppercase LettersH('0\F H rW?I K .TitleNotesTitle Page NotesH('0\F H rW?I L$% Z X   Z X 2IMmFNiGOHPpHNotesTrianglee NotesH('0\F H rW?I MWorks CitedWorks Cited PageH('0\F H rW?I N)*       Page TitlePage Title PageH('0\F H rW?I O `  ĂDocument[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gP`  2KQq6IReISe JTqJDocument[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gQ  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gR  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gS  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gT*   2hMUp6KVKW8LXLDocument[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gU`  Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gV8@   Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gWA@`  `  Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gX0    2`PYMZ>N[N\ORight Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gYJ` @  `   Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gZS`  @   Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g[\`  @#h# #h# Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g\e`  #h#@(( #h#(( 2jS]P^ZQ_+R`RRight Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g]n`  #h#((@-- ((-- Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g^w`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g_F **  ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g`&  . 2UaSb!TcTdRUTechnical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O ga&  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gb*    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gc'   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gd&   2ceVfVgMWhH WTechnical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O ge4$     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gf&  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gg&  . MACNormalhL     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<  Ђ   :}P T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,0*ÍÍ,*Í,*Í .,., US!!!!!!!! :}P      X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<  Ђ   :}P ,0*ÍÍ,0*ÍÍ,*Í,*Í .,., US!!!!!!!! :}P 2pgiLcj{ckTWelfreferencei8 FxP itemizeX1j# F r FxP header2k`   Ђ  FxP  ĂCitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output Filelm d@  XX  FX $** $Ղ2imgneLhofhpliFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentmR XX    X\  d@ footnote reference#n footnote textoDefault Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Fontp 2nqlir!js jt l_Equation Caption_Equation Captionq endnote referenceendnote referencer11 Xx@  Xv@ toc 1toc 1s!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2t` !(#B` hp x (#2[wu 'ov 4qw Asx Nutoc 3toc 3u` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4v !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5wh!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6x!(#` hp x (#2!~ymwz w{ z| |toc 7toc 7y toc 8toc 8z!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9{!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1|` !(# ` hp x (#2F} S~~ `mmlڂindex 2index 2}` !(#B` hp x (#toatoa~!(# ` hp x (#captioncaption _Equation Caption1_Equation Caption1 2x Ia12:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O8@   a22:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OA@`  `  a32:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OJ` @  `   a42:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OS`  @   26(ކea52:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O\  `  @#h# #h# a62:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Oe  `  #h#@(( #h#(( a72:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*On `  #h#((@-- ((-- a82:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Ow`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 2Zbhlʉ 6C ӎSMALL s†NSMALL s†NORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC  ӆNORMAL¤ TNORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmpЋX` P hp x (#` hp x (#bly remains several bly remains several years \softline \softlheight276 awałX` hp x (#` hp x (#2+ l Technical 4¸ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpX` hp x (# ` hp x (#Technical 4Technical 4X` hp x (# ` hp x (#T 2 Ҷ TechnicaT 2 Ҷ Technical 7Ҳ Right Par 7z INVX` hp x (#` hp x (#ОC:\mw3022.tmpC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\C  2=Z]l # 0:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMP!"` hp x (#  P  ރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOCރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: # $~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , %& p x (#` hp x (#:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , '( p x (#` hp x (#2 o |  : , : , ,0)*` !(#B` hp x (#е ,  , ,0+,` !(# ` hp x (#:\mw3024.tmpt :\mw3024.tmpt C:\WINDOWS\MSAPPS\TEXTCONV\RTF_W-. !(# ` hp x (#wwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbwwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbbbwwwwbwwwwbwwwwbwbwwwbwbb/0` !(#B` hp x (#2lգA! *,,0kjH 1 2Default Para,6%Default Paragraph FontO7V -*g4çFM7VE8384 Xx@  d@ toa heading,6%toa heading4=(g4O7V 9*g4çFM7VE56!(# ` hp x (#_Equation Ca,6%_Equation Captiong4O7V ;*g4çFM7VE8788 Xx@  d@ 2ϩp$qeej2XwE~wKRn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@RH*G>FwE~wK\E9:`  3XwE~wKSn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@SH*G>FwE~wK\E; < . 4XwE~wKTn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@TH*G>FwE~wK\E => 5XwE~wKUn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@UH*G>FwE~wK\E ?@ 21p6XwE~wKVn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@VH*G>FwE~wK\E*AB   7XwE~wKWn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@WH*G>FwE~wK\ECD`  8XwE~wKXn6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\E8EF@   9XwE~wKYn6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EAGH@`  `  2cI10wE~wKZn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@ZH*G>FwE~wK\E0I J    11wE~wK[n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EJKL` @  `   12wE~wK\n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\ESMN`  @   13wE~wK]n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\E\OP`  @#h# #h# 2C114wE~wK^n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EeQR`  #h#@(( #h#(( 15wE~wK_n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EnST`  #h#((@-- ((-- 16wE~wK`n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EwUV`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 17wE~wKan6bDocument Style=(G>wK@aH*G>FwE~wK\EFWX *D*  ׃  2u18wE~wKbn6bTechnical Document StylewK@bH*G>FwE~wK\E&YZ  . 19wE~wKcn6bTechnical Document StylewK@cH*G>FwE~wK\E&[\  . 20wE~wKdn6bTechnical Document StylewK@dH*G>FwE~wK\E*]^    21wE~wKen6bTechnical Document StylewK@eH*G>FwE~wK\E'_`   20v&22wE~wKfn6bTechnical Document StylewK@fH*G>FwE~wK\E&ab   23wE~wKgn6bTechnical Document StylewK@gH*G>FwE~wK\E4c$d     24wE~wKhn6bTechnical Document StylewK@hH*G>FwE~wK\E&ef  . 25wE~wKin6bTechnical Document StylewK@iH*G>FwE~wK\E&gh  . 2ݹb 9Format Downln6bFormat Downloaded DocumentK@uH*G>FwE~wK\ERij XX    \\  d@ a127\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>F8kl@   a227\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FAmn@`  `  a327\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FJop` @  `   2r1a427\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FSqr`  @   a527\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>F\st`  @#h# #h# a627\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Feuv`  #h#@(( #h#(( a727\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fnwx`  #h#((@-- ((-- 2^+qmqa827\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fwyz`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 a2Agenda{|a1AgendaAgenda Items%}~))  a3Agenda2Dmmmjmheading 4heading 4  heading 5heading 5  heading 6heading 6  heading 7heading 7  2Imvm|P}heading 8heading 8  endnote textendnote text  head1 #$  a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf$ 2{4a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf/`  a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf:`   a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfE`   a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfP`  #h# 2pLa6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf[ a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrff a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfq 1t >.x(Dt—Document Style >f.RK+P—!t >f—+b`  2 `wWord222Null(Dt—Word222Null( >fWRK+P—!t >f—+b%% /x с /x NORMAL INDENDt—7!wB( >f`RK+P—!t >f—+b $4 <DL!T$ &n P  &n P enumlev1x(Dt—7!wB( >faRK+P—!t >f—+bp  N hp x (#a &n P 4` hp x (# &n P footnote refDt—footnote reference >fbRK+P—!t >f—+b; V P 2m<yBpage number(Dt—page number( >feRK+P—!t >f—+b26 >fx(Dt—footnote text >ffRK+P—!t >f—+b! ??USlist>gx(Dt—list7!wB( >fgRK+P—!t >f—+b!??endnote refeDt—endnote reference >fhRK+P—!t >f—+b;; XO P  c P 2c#line number(Dt—line number( >fjRK+P—!t >f—+b88 XO P  c P Highlightx(Dt—Middle Article HighlightlRK+P—!t >f—+b$$   \ (P Headlinex(Dt—Headline for newsletterfoRK+P—!t >f—+b$$   \ (P 2nd line HeaDt—2nd line headline >fqRK+P—!t >f—+b$$ b  \ (P 2w;Graphics heaDt—Headlines for graphics>frRK+P—!t >f—+b''  P  \ (P  Graphics bodDt—chart data ( >ftRK+P—!t >f—+b''  AlP  \ (P  Article headDt—Headline for new articlevRK+P—!t >f—+b'' r   \ (P  27 >x(Dt—Default Paragraph Font>fRK+P—!t >f—+bLL X}P  &sP 2HuHEADING 9x(Dt— 7!wB( >fRK+P—!t >f—+b04 <DL!T$ c P  c P a129f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P8@   a229f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PA@`  `  a329f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PJ` @  `   25Kma429f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PS`  @   a529f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P\`  @#h# #h# a629f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pe`  #h#@(( #h#(( a729f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pn`  #h#((@-- ((-- 2g8_a829f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pw`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 NORMAL INDENT $4 <DL!T$ &n P  &n P Style 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$ CP  )aP Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$ )^X  )aP 21l|Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced II )aP  dn  \#  [ b, oT9 ! )^X ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide    )^X Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j )^X    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988` Page  j )^X    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs )aP  n  ## b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsD CP  dd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font4 )aP  dn 22|RStyle 2Dutch Italic 11.5$ )^X Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point$$ Tp  )aP Style 7Swiss 11.5$$ )aP  )aP Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$ wP  )aP 2dkrwStyle 10oInitial Codes for Advanced )aP  dn   #  [ b, oT9 ! )^X ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide    )^X Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q )^X    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988` Page  Q )^X    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginningg )aP  dn  ## b, oT9  [  )^X ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide    )^X Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   j )^X    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988` Page  j )^X    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediate )aP  dn  ## b, oT9 Њ [  )^X ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide    )^X Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   j )^X    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.` Page  j )^X    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Module )aP  dn  ##  [ b, oT9 ! )^X ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide    )^X Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q )^X    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988` Page  j )^X    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2Jd#!)Bld/UnderlieBold and Underline Text  5Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FP #MA°:SMALL:@6MSMALL;% =(%L:h *%o-.:.ENORMAL:@6MNORMAL;% =(%L:h *%o-.:.EX` P hp x (#` hp x (#2N+|'@X bly remains @6Mbly remains several years \softline \softlheight276 awłX` hp x (#` hp x (# Technical@6M Technical 4% =(%L:h *%o-.:.EX` hp x (# ` hp x (#"5@^2BRdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BB!BBPRBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdBdBBBdNdz8zRdddBRoNoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddXy.C8*,gC\  P6QPY7PC2,W XP\  P6QXPZ2J=.,/&J\  P6Q&P.2N=.,&N4  pQ&==\\=\=7t=eeeeioo.Iji2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=.=\\\\(\=7\i=\Ie77=jc.=7<\\zzzzGGGGipf\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\e\ffff\f2@Z@@@"5@^.=K\\!==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33hhhRzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=R\R\R=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\RX%Xc.====IK=\\RRRRRzzRpRpRpRpR=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\R\\\\\f\\RRzRzRzRpRpRpR\\\\\\I\=\===\G\p3pK\\\z=zKfGfGN@.S\=R\\\\\39\7\7==RR\==\\=R=7t=ddddhdo.Iih3[\\xdCpi_w[dfdmoPpP~j_d~~tqo.=K\\!==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33hhhRzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=R\R\R=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\RX%Xc=\R\\=f===RR@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\h=\Id77=iS.=79\Rzpppp====hf\RRRRRRzRRRRR3333\\\\\\\d\\\\\\\Xy.C8*,gC\  P6QPY7PC2,W XP\  P6QXPZ2J=.,/&J\  P6Q&P.[2N=.,&N4  pQ&\0J=.,3V^&J*f9 xQ&X]P,%,J,\  P6QJPI(!,,(\  P6Q,PVVVVVV%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5@^.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=k\=\fRfR=\f3=f3f\ffRG=f\\\RH(H`.====IK=\f\\\\\RzRzRzRzRG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\\RRRzRzRzR\\\\ffIfGfG=Gf\fz3zKff\RRfGfGN@.c\=\\\\\\7<\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7t=ddddido.Iii3[\\xdCpi_w[dfdmoPpP~j_d~~tqo.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=k\=\fRfR=\f3=f3f\ffRG=f\\\RH(H`=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=.=\\\\(\=7\i=\Id77=ic.=7<\\zzzzGGGGipf\\\\\\RRRRR3333\f\\\\\d\ffff\f"5@^.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Rzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\R\R3\\33R3\\\\GG3\RzRRGI3Ic.====IK=\\p\p\p\p\p\zzRpRpRpRpR=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fRp\\\\fR\p\p\p\p\zRzRzRpRpRpR\\\\\\I\=\===\RzRf3fKz\z\\zpGpK\G\GN@.`\G\\\\\\39\7\7==ff\==\\=f=7t=dddd|do.Ii|3[\\xdCpi_w[dfdmoPpP~j_d~~tqo.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Rzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\R\R3\\33R3\\\\GG3\RzRRGI3Ic=\f\\=\===ff@\=G=zf.G\\\\3\=3\|=\Id77=i`.=79\\ppppppzpppp====z|fp\\\\\\\zRRRRR3333\\\\\\\d\\\\\R\2N"@@ #"5@^%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,-%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7OO7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7CC-O7O7O7bOI%I-=+=+N&27%177777"SS7!TT7S!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!t%<<<<>l[O6Wls[77TTTH_%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5@^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888-\HCCH=7HH!'H=YHH7HC7=HH^HH=!!/2!-2-2-!222N2222!'22H22-006!!!!()!22H-H-H-H-H-YCC-=-=-=-=-!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H-H2H2H2H2H272H2H-H-C-C-C-=-=-=-H2H2HH2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2==)H2H2H2YHC!C)7'7'N#-2!-22222KK2LL2K!!--2d!!22bd!-d!t!77778c7'- Appendix B List of Commenters   S(-  Appendix C Regulatory Flexibility Analysis"(, * *,,,"Ԍ S- Ù 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) A 1 a a.(1)(a) i) a)INTRODUCTION ă  S-  x1. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice") in this proceeding,[ {O- xԍ See Grandfathered ShortSpaced FM Stations in MM Docket 96120, 11 FCC Rcd 7245, 61 Fed. Reg. 33,474 (June 14, 1996). we proposed clarifications  x{and revisions to the rules for pre1964 grandfathered shortspaced FM radio broadcast stations to  S5- xstreamline the current method of proposing modifications to existing facilities.kX5"[ yO- xԍ Throughout this order, the term "grandfathered stations" refers only to those FM stations at locations authorized  xprior to November 16, 1964, that did not meet the separation distances required by the later adopted Section 73.207 and have remained continuously shortspaced since that time.k The Notice also responded  xkto a "Joint Petition" for rule making filed February 1, 1991, by the firms of Hatfield and Dawson; du  xTreil, Lundin and Rackley, Inc.; and Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C., ("Joint Petitioners"), proposing  S- xsimilar changes. In the Notice, we proposed revisions to our broadcast regulations to reexamine 47  xjC.F.R. 73.213(a), which currently sets forth how stations authorized prior to November 16, 1964, that  xdid not meet the separation distances required by 47 C.F.R. 73.207, and have remained shortspaced  S- x=since that time, may modify operating facilities. The Notice proposed changing three specific aspects of  S- xSection 73.213(a). The rules adopted in this Order permit the utmost in flexibility for this class of  xgrandfathered FM stations while maintaining the technical integrity of the FM band by preventing increased interference.  S -  x2. The proposals in the Notice generally received widespread support in the 29 comments and  S - xy22 reply comments received.g B[ yO-ԍ Appendix B contains a list of commenters and reply commenters.g  The Joint Petitioners generally support the rule changes for each Proposal  xand "applaud the Commission's proposal to consider interference areas rather than contour overlap." The  xAssociation of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers ("AFCCE") "strongly supports the concept  xzof replacing the awkward and difficult procedure in the present Rule...." The National Association of  xBroadcasters ("NAB") was generally opposed to the Joint Petitioners' original request. However, the  S- xNotice differed in several aspects from what the Joint Petitioners' proposed. In response to the Notice,  S- xNAB stated that the grandfathered shortspaced stations "deserve a longdelayed, but measured,  xyopportunity to modify and improve their own facilities," and that "...there are new dynamics in the radio  xMmarketplace, brought about by the Commission's newlyrevised ownership rules. Under this revised  xregulatory regime, group owners and independent licensees have new reason to review their current  S- xfacilities status under FCC rules." The majority of the remaining commenters either support or otherwise  S-address specific portions of the Notice.  S- SUMMARY OF NOTICE PROPOSALS ă>>  S-  S-  x3. On May 23, 1996 we initiated this proceeding through the adoption of the Notice setting forth  xNthe proposed rule changes, which were intended to eliminate unnecessary regulations and provide  xgrandfathered stations with increased flexibility to change transmitter location or modify their existing facilities. Specifically, we proposed to:   PXx(1) replace the current Section 73.213(a) restriction on extending the 1 mV/m contour with   straightforward interference showings based on the desired to undesired signal strength ratio ("D/U ratio") method for grandfathered cochannel and firstadjacent channel shortspaced stations;(#"E,l(l(,,t""Ԍ  ԙXx(2) eliminate both the second and thirdadjacent channel spacing requirements for grandfathered shortspaced stations; and,(#   #Xx(3) eliminate the need to obtain agreements by grandfathered stations proposing increased facilities.(#  S- U RESOLUTION OF INDIVIDUAL PROPOSALS ă  Q-   Rh- Proposal 1.  R-  ;x4. Replace the current Section 73.213(a) restriction on extending the 1 mV/m contour with  xs#interference showings based on the desiredtoundesired signal strength ratio ("D/U ratio") method for  S - x grandfathered cochannel and firstadjacent channel shortspaced stations.  The Notice proposed to  xrevise Section 73.213(a) to permit cochannel and firstadjacent channel grandfathered shortspaced  xstations to change transmitter location or station facilities, based on a showing that meets the following three criteria:   }Xx(1) there must be no increase in either the total predicted interference area or the associated  Sk-population;k[ yO-ԍ Total predicted interference is the sum of all interference caused and received, in terms of area and population. (#   Xx(2) there must be no increase in interference caused by the proposal to any individual grandfathered shortspaced station; and, (#   Xx(3) applicants must demonstrate that any new area predicted to lose service as a result of   interference has adequate service remaining. Adequate service is defined as reception from at  S-least five aural services.^X[ {O- x-ԍ Aural services consist of AM broadcast stations and FM broadcast stations. See Memorandum Opinion and  {O- xiOrder, Bay City, Brenham, Cameron, Centerville, Edna, Ganado, Giddings, Harker Heights, Hearne, LaGrange,  {O-Matagorda, New Ulm, Point Comfort, Rollingwood, Rosenberg, and Seadrift, Texas, 10 FCC Rcd 3337, 3337 (1995). (#  Sm-  x5. The areas of interference are to be determined using the desiredtoundesired (D/U) signal  xstrength ratio analysis and the standard F(50,50) and F(50,10) propagation curves contained in Section  S- x73.333 of our rules. The Notice proposed that cochannel interference would be predicted to exist at all  xlocations within the desired station's coverage contour where the undesired (interfering) F(50,10) field  xstrength exceeds a value 20 dB below the desired (protected) F(50,50) field strength, and that first xadjacent interference would be predicted to exist at all locations within the desired station's coverage  xcontour where the undesired (interfering) F(50,10) field strength exceeds a value 6 dB below the desired  S - x(protected) F(50,50) field strength. The Notice also sought comment on an alternative proposal that would require both interference caused and interference received to be individually maintained or reduced.  Sq- "q~,l(l(,,!"  S-Comments & Discussion:  S-  x6. General: Of the parties providing initial and reply comments on this proposal, most agree that  xthe current rule is too vague and restrictive, and that it should be replaced with an equitable rule that is  xeasily administered. The rule we adopt herein accomplishes this result. It allows maximum flexibility  xfor grandfathered stations, while maintaining or reducing interference, and provides a minimal filing  x=burden on applicants, accompanied by a minimal processing burden on Commission staff. Our new rule  S- xprovides greater flexibility to stations now thwarted by the current "no extension of the 1 mV/m contour"  x.rule in Section 73.213(a). The current rule in Section 73.213(a) has been proven to be overly restrictive,  xineffective in controlling interference, and difficult to administer. The requirements set forth in the new  x.rule section will potentially decrease areas of cochannel and firstadjacent channel interference, and lead  x.to more efficient use of the FM broadcast spectrum. Several commenters suggested slight modifications  S -to the original Proposal 1 as presented in the Notice. We discuss those suggestions below.  S8 -  !x7. Contour overlap vs. predicted interference. AFCCE and other commenters generally support  xreplacing the current standard in Section 73.213(a) with a requirement based on interference ratios. We  xconcur that the ratio method is the most appropriate method of determining areas of interference for 1964  xgrandfathered stations. We do not agree with Mullaney Engineering, Inc.'s ("Mullaney") assertion that  x{the grandfathered rules should be based upon contour overlap rather than interference predictions.  x]Contour overlap is an effective method to demonstrate compliance with rules aimed at preventing  xinterference, since lack of contour overlap is sufficient to demonstrate a lack of interference. However,  S- xit is not effective in controlling interference when prohibited overlap already exists. [ yO<- xKԍ By way of background, 47 C.F.R. 73.215 is typically used by nongrandfathered commercial stations that  xpropose shortspaced facilities. This rule section requires the complete absence of prohibited contour overlap,  x-thereby preventing the creation of new areas of interference. However, unlike the proposed Section 73.213(a), Section 73.215 is rarely used by stations currently causing interference. We remain  xconvinced that the practical effect on the listening public of interference between two shortspaced stations  Sn- xyis best evaluated in terms of interference (D/U ratio) rather than overlap.n[ {O- xԍ See Memorandum Opinion and Order, Board of Education of the City of Atlanta, 11 FCC Rcd 7763, Footnote 1. Therefore, we will require that  x[all interference showings for Proposal 1 be analyzed using the desiredtoundesired (D/U) signal strength ratio analysis.  S-  ]x8. Mullaney also suggests that we protect all classes of grandfathered stations to the 1 mV/m (60  xdBu) contour. The spacing requirements set forth in Section 73.207 generally provide protection to the  x/54 dBu contour for Class B stations, to the 57 dBu contour for Class B1 stations, and to the 60 dBu  xcontour for all other classes of stations. In addition, the Commission reaffirmed use of the 54 dBu  xcontour and the 57 dBu contour as the protected contours for all Class B and Class B1 commercial  S- xstations in MM Docket 87121, respectively. [ {OM"- xԍ See Report and Order, Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules to Permit ShortSpaced FM Station  {O#-Assignments by using Directional Antennas, 4 FCC Rcd 1681, 1687 (1989). Failure to provide this protection to Class B and Class B1  xcommercial stations could result in a disruption of service for some Class B and B1 stations. It would  x[also result in a grandfathered shortspaced station being protected to two different contours: the 60 dBu  x=contour with respect to all grandfathered shortspaced stations; and the 54 dBu or 57 dBu contour with  xrespect to all other shortspaced station. This would add unnecessary confusion and complexity with no apparent benefit. Therefore we will not implement this suggestion. "f ,l(l(,, "Ԍ S-  ԙx9. Interference areas. The Joint Petitioners agree that interference areas should be the main  xjconsideration for cochannel and firstadjacent channel modifications, and that interference caused should  xnot be increased. However, several commenters felt that the interference criteria set forth in Proposal 1  Sh- xin the Notice should be modified. The Joint Petitioners and AFCCE agree that we should allow minor  xincreases in received interference if it can be shown that there is no alternative to changing antenna site.  xCommunications Technologies, Inc. ("CTI") believes that considering an area where the proposed 60 dBu  xcontour exceeds the licensed 60 dBu contour as an area of received interference is illogical, since the  x=station will most likely achieve an increase in service in that direction. Therefore, CTI suggests the only consideration should be that of interference caused, not interference received.  S-  x 10. Our underlying presumption is that any increase in total interference, caused and received,  x=is not in the public interest. Interference caused and interference received are opposite sides of the same  x[coin. Both represent an inefficient use of the spectrum. Thus, we reject CTI's suggestion that we ignore  xinterference received beyond the current service contour of a proposal. We do recognize, however, that  x?there is a need for some flexibility. For this reason, we do not prohibit an increase in interference  S - xreceived, provided it is offset by a decrease in interference caused. In this way we maintain our public  xinterest objective of maintaining or reducing the total amount of interference between two or more existing  xgrandfathered shortspaced stations. There was no support for the alternative proposal set forth in the  Sm- x[Notice of requiring interference caused and interference received to be individually maintained or reduced,  S;-and we reject that alternative. See Notice, para. 16.  S-  |x 11. Z Spanish Radio Network, Inc. ("Z Spanish") suggests that slight increases in interference  S- xcaused should be permitted when a net reduction in interference occurs. However, subjecting other  xgrandfathered stations to an increase in interference, without offsetting factors, would be unfair. Allowing  xstations to increase interference caused would result in diminished service areas, and promote perpetual  xdegradation of the overall quality of FM service. Therefore, we will not allow for any increases in interference caused.  Sq-  0x 12. The Notice proposed that cochannel or firstadjacent channel grandfathered applicants must  x=demonstrate that any areas previously receiving interferencefree service that would lose service because  xof interference have at least five remaining AM and/or FM stations providing service. The Joint  xkPetitioners believe that demonstration of adequate remaining service is unnecessary, stating that most  xjinterference areas are small and most grandfathered stations are in wellserved areas. Although we would  xlgenerally agree that it is likely that several other broadcast services would exist near grandfathered  xstations, we nonetheless note that the areas of cochannel and firstadjacent interference can be quite large.  xIn the Northeastern United States and California, there are several cochannel and firstadjacent channel  xgrandfathered shortspaced stations that are predicted to cause or receive interference in areas in excess  xof 100 square kilometers. A lateral move by such a station could potentially result in new interference  xin populated areas previously receiving interferencefree service. By requiring the proposed showing, we  x[can assure a minimal effect on service to the public when interference is shifted from one area to another.  xAs most areas are likely to be well served, as noted by the commenters, the burden on the applicant  xshould not be onerous. Therefore, we will require that any application causing or receiving interference  xin an area that previously received interferencefree service must demonstrate the existence of at least five remaining aural broadcast services within that area.  S$-  x 13. Barnstable Broadcasting, Inc. ("Barnstable") suggests that any grandfathered station proposing  xMa modification that would potentially extend interference toward another station must make "special,  xformal notice of the proposed modification..." to the effected station. We do not believe this is necessary.  x?There is no such requirement for applicants filing under our current rules. We do not believe that  xparticipation by additional parties is necessary to reach a decision on whether proposals filed pursuant to"C',l(l(,,+"  S- xthe proposed rules should be granted. Modification applications are all given file numbers, entered into  xour databases, and released on public notice indicating the receipt of the application. This provides  xsufficient notice of the filing of an application. Generally there will be sufficient time between the date  xof the public notice and the grant of the application to permit the filing of informal objections. Therefore, we will not require stations to provide notification to a potentially affected station.  S-  x 14. Population considerations. Mullaney suggests that less emphasis should be placed on areas  xjof interference and more emphasis placed on the population affected by the interference. He asserts that  x=in many instances, the areas of concern may include swamps, marshes, or national forest. In opposition  xto this view, AFCCE does not favor including a population consideration into the rule. AFCCE states that  xthe present rule does not require any such consideration, and believes its inclusion in any adopted rule  xwould be an "additional complication." However, as stated above, our primary concern in the proceeding  xis providing flexibility while maintaining the technical integrity of the FM band. Failure to consider the  xNeffect of proposals on area and population would be imprudent. Each year, we receive numerous  xapplications proposing transmitter site changes by stations adjusting to population migrations in areas  xaround their service contours. By maintaining or reducing areas and populations receiving interference,  xwe can continue to promote an efficient broadcast service. Therefore, we will require applicants under Proposal 1 to include exhibits based on interference areas and the associated populations.  S8-  Ox15. CTI recommends that we suggest a specific methodology to be followed when calculating  xythe population affected by interference. We will continue to accept the widely used uniform distribution  S- xmethodology set forth in 47 C.F.R. 73.525(e) for calculating population.8 [ yO:- xԍ Section 73.525(e) specifically states that "the number of persons contained within the predicted interference  xarea will be based on data contained in the most recently published U.S. Census of Population and will be  xdetermined by plotting the predicted interference area on a County Subdivision Map of the state published for the  xMCensus, and totalling the number of persons in each County Subdivision ... contained within the predicted interference area."8 In addition, because the  xCensus Bureau recognizes the Block Centroid Method as a more accurate calculation method, we will also  Sl-accept this method. lx[ yO- xԍ Section 73.525(e)(2)(iv) states that "[a]t the option of either the NCEFM applicant or an affected TV Channel  xYstation which provides the appropriate analysis, more detailed population data may be used." We note that the U.S.  xCensus Bureau has verified that the block centroid retrieval methodology is a more accurate means of determining  {O- xpopulation within a given area than the uniform distribution method. See the October 9, 1992 Letter from Chief,  {O-Audio Services Division to Larry H. Will, reference No. 1800B3ESR. In resolving disputes, we will rely on the most accurate method presented.  S-  !x16. Additional suggestions. CTI suggests that any grandfathered applicant proposing to modify  xMits facilities or change transmitter site within 500 feet of its authorized site, should not be required to  xsubmit an interference analysis, assuming the average contour distance does not exceed that of its licensed  xfacility. CTI believes that this would provide latitude for site corrections anticipated from the new tower  x=registration procedures. We do not believe that such a rule would be appropriate. First, CTI's proposal  S- xwould contradict our conclusion in Appendix C of the Report and Order, In the Matter of Streamlining  S- xthe Commission's Antenna Structure Clearance Procedure, 11 FCC Rcd 4272 (1996), 61 FR 4359 (1996).  xzAppendix C stated that any modification of coordinates necessary as a result of the antenna structure  x\registration procedures would require the filing of a construction permit application, regardless of the  x\minimal nature of the change. The appendix also noted that situations requiring a change in operating  xparameters will be handled on a casebycase basis. We did not make special exceptions for any group  xof stations correcting authorized parameters. Additionally, our experience in dealing with grandfathered", ,l(l(,,"  xapplicants shows that modifications usually entail changes in several technical parameters and seldom  xinvolve only a relocation within 500 ft. of the previously licensed site. Thus, we are concerned that the  x[rule CTI proposes would cause confusion and unduly complicate the rule we are attempting to simplify.  x=We will, however, routinely grant requests for waiver of the interference analysis requirements specified  xin Sections 73.213(a)(1) and 73.213(a)(2) on a casebycase basis for applications specifying a site within 500 ft (152 meters) of the previously licensed site where no unusual circumstances are present.  S-  lx17. Z Spanish generally supports Proposal 1, adding that "some noncontroversial alternative" to  xthe standard contour prediction methods should be available when certain proposals require more accurate  xevaluation. We do not characterize alternative contour prediction methods as noncontroversial, nor do  xwe agree that alternative contour prediction methods should be used in calculating interference. Currently,  x[the Commission allows the use of alternate prediction methods provided for by 47 C.F.R. 73.313(e) to  x=demonstrate adequate coverage of the community of license, or to establish that the main studio location  xwould be within the principal community contour (70 dBu). However, such methods are not accepted  x?from fullservice stations for the purpose of demonstrating a lack of interference. Doing so could  xcomplicate the rule that we are attempting to simplify, with little benefit. The analysis of alternate  xprediction method calculations is resourceintensive and requires extensive expertise. The use of  x<supplemental studies often leads to disputes involving the use of competing methods or assumptions, along  xwith significant processing delays. Therefore, we will not permit alternate methods of contour prediction for interference showings.  S-  x18. Finally, several commenters suggest that one or more of the proposals in this proceeding be  xextended to other groups of shortspaced stations, such as stations that became shortspaced by the  x-revision of Section 73.207 in Docket 8090 (1983), or stations shortspaced pursuant to Sections 73.213(b)  S8- x& (c), 8[ yO- xԍ Stations covered under rule Sections 73.213(b) & (c) became shortspaced by grant of spacing waivers or rule changes after 1964. or stations shortspaced pursuant to Section 73.215,0 $8 [ yO- xԍ Stations that are authorized as "contour protection stations" pursuant to Section 73.215 became shortspaced  xafter October 2, 1989, and did so of their own volition. These stations were authorized only if no new contour  {O- xioverlap would be created with the shortspaced station. See Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules to  {OR-Permit ShortSpaced FM Station Assignments by Using Directional Antennas, 6 FCC Rcd 5356 (1989).0 or even "shortspaced" noncommercial  S- xeducational stations.s X [ yO- xԍ Section 73.509 does not set forth required spacings for cochannel and adjacent channel noncommercial  xeducational stations. Rather, it prohibits the overlap of certain pairs of signal strength contours. However, applicants sometimes refer to stations in violation of this rule as "shortspaced."s However, these comments are clearly beyond the scope of the proposed rule  S- xMrevisions. In developing the proposals set forth in the Notice, we identified a particular problem area  S- xwhere the rules were defective and difficult to administer. The Notice was specifically tailored to meet  x=the needs of this narrowly defined group of grandfathered stations. We did not address particular issues  xNapplying to other shortspacing circumstances. Therefore, we decline to enlarge the scope of this proceeding to include non pre1964 grandfathered shortspaced stations.  S-  x19. Conclusion. We believe that the current rules should be changed to allow for sufficient  xflexibility when cochannel and firstadjacent channel grandfathered stations seek to relocate. However,  xproviding this flexibility should not jeopardize another station's ability to serve its listeners. Accordingly,  S - xwe will adopt Proposal 1 as set forth in the Notice. All grandfathered stations will be permitted to change  x!transmitter location and increase or decrease facilities, subject to the rules adopted herein and the", ,l(l(,,"  xmaximum power and height requirements set forth in 47 C.F.R.  73.211. We note that any applicant  xproposing modifications under the Section 73.213(a) rules adopted herein must document its pre1964 grandfathered status.  S- Proposal 2.  S-  x20. Eliminate both the second and thirdadjacent channel spacing requirements for  Si- xgrandfathered shortspaced stations.  The Notice proposed to revise Section 73.213(a) to remove all  xspacing requirements for grandfathered second and thirdadjacent channel stations. This proposal would  xrestore the previous Section 73.213 rule used between 1964 and 1987, and would permit second and third x=adjacent channel grandfathered stations to implement maximum class facilities, and/or change transmitter  S - xsite with complete flexibility on secondadjacent channel and thirdadjacent channel shortspacings. [ {O - xԍ See Fourth Report and Order in Revision of FM Broadcast Rules, Particularly as to Allocation and Technical  {O -Standards, 40 FCC 868 (1964). The  Sk - x/Notice also proposed, as an alternative, a more restrictive standard that allowed limited flexibility for  xsecond and thirdadjacent grandfathered shortspaced stations proposing a new transmitter site. The more  xrestrictive standard would not permit prohibited contour overlap if prohibited contour overlap did not already exist.  Sm- Comments & Discussion:  S-  lx21. General support.  Of the parties providing initial and reply comments on this proposal, most  xmagree that we should completely eliminate second and thirdadjacent spacing requirements for  xgrandfathered stations. The Joint Petitioners fully support the original Proposal 2, and specifically reject  So- xLthe alternative proposal put forth in Paragraph 26 of the Notice. AFCCE supports the original Proposal  xK2, and states that it is "the most essential part of the simplified procedure." Mullaney supports the original  xyProposal 2. CTI fully supports Proposal 2, stating that today's receivers are seldom affected by second and thirdadjacent channel interference.  Sq-  x22. MediaCom, Inc. and Group M Communications, Inc. both support Proposal 2 and state that  xcurrent second and thirdadjacent channel restrictions have prevented grandfathered stations from  ximproving, or even maintaining existing service areas. Compass Radio of San Diego, Inc. ("Compass")  x.fully supports Proposal 2, stating that adoption would facilitate improvement of station facilities, along  xMwith eliminating a significant amount of unnecessary workload on the Commission's staff. Compass'  xcomments include specific examples of stations that have operated with second or thirdadjacent overlap,  xjwithout receiving interference complaints. NAB submitted comments supporting new requirements that  xwould allow for the relaxation, but not elimination, of second and thirdadjacent channel spacing  xrequirements for grandfathered stations. NAB states that "[w]ith full recognition of the generally negative  xposition taken by NAB in our 1991 comments...and in light of the historical, technical foundation of these  Ss- xearlier comments, NAB believes there may be ways that some grandfathered FM stations could be allowed  xyto modify facilities in a fashion that would not result in significant new interference nor would be at odds with related FCC policies applicable to such changes."  S!-  x23. Scope. The scope of this item is specifically limited to FM stations at locations authorized  xprior to November 16, 1964, that did not meet the separation distances required by Section 73.207 and  SC#- xhave remained continuously shortspaced since that time. The Notice specifically invited any parties to  xassist the Commission in identifying how many grandfathered stations exist so that they could be classified"$$,l(l(,,'"  xin the Commission's engineering database. NAB performed an analysis and submitted extensive  xdocumentation with regard to the number of second and thirdadjacent channel grandfathered stations.  x>NAB's comments state that the number of possible grandfathered second and thirdadjacent channel  xstations is 312, out of a total of 5,429 authorized FM stations (5.7%). As several commenters point out,  xthat number is too high, since many of these stations became shortspaced because of other reasons, such  xas BC Docket 8090, MM Docket 88375, the contour protection standards in Section 73.215, or spacing  x=waiver grants. The number of grandfathered second and thirdadjacent channel stations that may be able  xto change site will be further limited as a result of other cochannel or firstadjacent channel grandfathered  xshortspacings. Therefore, the number of grandfathered stations able to move with respect to a second and thirdadjacent channel station is extremely limited.  S-  Nx24. One of NAB's primary concerns is that the proposed rule not be applied beyond this limited  x>group of stations. NAB contracted engineering consultant Thomas Keller ("Keller") to report on the  xgeneral potential impact that secondadjacent channel shortspacings may have on the listening public.  xKeller's study included test results of two automotive receivers, two component receivers designed for  xstationary operation, and one portable "boom box" receiver. Keller's study concludes that two of the five  xzreceivers tested did not meet the "...interferencerejection assumptions embodied in the Commission's  xcurrent FM separation requirements." NAB states that "...refinements to radio receiver design do provide,  xin some cases, better rejection of second and thirdadjacent channel interference that should be considered  xhere. These developments might form the basis for granting some relief for some grandfathered short xspaced stations. However, and this must be emphasized, NAB believes that examination of such receiver  S- xcharacteristics should be limited only to the possibility of a revised regulatory approach to some  S-grandfathered, shortspaced FM stations, not to the FM medium as a whole."  S9-  x25. As stated in the Notice, we have "no intention of relaxing secondadjacentchannel and third xadjacent channel spacing requirements as allotment and application criteria." Proposal 2 only suggests  xreturning to the exact standard that was used between 1964 and 1987 for this very limited group of  xstations. Thus, our proposal remains aimed exclusively at this small universe of grandfathered stations.  S;-  x26. Additional Criteria. NAB agrees that second and thirdadjacent channel grandfathered  xstations are in need of relief from the current Section 73.213 rules. However, NAB believes that "... the  xtechnical integrity of the broadcast media must be preserved and enhanced." Both NAB and ElevenFifty  xzCorp. ("ElevenFifty") believe that second and thirdadjacent grandfathered shortspaced applicants  xshould be required to submit supplemental documentation demonstrating why a proposal should be  xapproved by the Commission. NAB proposed four criteria that grandfathered stations submitting modification applications would be required to satisfy:  S-   Xx(1) the modification would result in a net decrease in the number of listeners experiencing interference caused by the applicant to other FM stations; (#   Xx(2) the modification would result in a net decrease in the land area of interference caused by the applicant to other FM stations; (# Xx(3) any site change would not be to a location near a major thoroughfare; and/or (# Xx(4) any site change would be within a "buffer zone" around the current transmitter site. (#  xyThese criteria are designed to provide "tailored relief to grandfathered, shortspaced FM stations", and to  xassure that any proposal would not adversely affect the shortspaced station's service area. NAB believes  xthat these requirements would qualify an applicant for a "rebuttable presumption that grant of relief should  x.be provided," shifting the burden onto the potentially affected station to show why certain applications"@' ,l(l(,,+"  xshould not be granted, thereby preserving the technical integrity of the broadcast media. NAB further  xstates that the rights of the potentially affected grandfathered stations would be preserved by adhering to these criteria.  S4-  x27. NAB's proposed criteria are designed to prevent increases in "...the number of listeners  xexperiencing interference..." and "...the land area of interference caused by the applicant to other stations."  xmWe recognize there is a minimal risk of interference between second and thirdadjacent channel  xgrandfathered stations. However, such interference is in the immediate area of the transmitter and it is  xactually a substitution of service in that area. In the period between 1964 and 1987, when second and  xthirdadjacent channel grandfathered stations were able to modify facilities without spacing requirements,  xwe did not receive interference complaints resulting from such modifications. We believe that the small  xpotential for interference is outweighed by facilitating the ability of this small group of stations to change transmitter site or modify facilities.  S6 -  x28. NAB's proposal also included a requirement that a transmitter site change "would not be to  x\a location near a major traffic thoroughfare a site move that could create massive interference to the  xmobile radio audience." However, as stated above, Keller's limited test results on a small number of  xMreceivers would imply mobile receivers are typically able to reject unwanted secondadjacent channel  xinterference. In addition, Compass, Mt. Wilson, Infinity, and Odyssey all agree that NAB's proposed  xycriteria would hinder the result we are trying to achieve by promoting unnecessary appeals and litigation.  xCompass believes that NAB's proposed criteria have no reasonable technical basis. Infinity reasserts that  xthe FCC is simply proposing a previously used and tested rule. We believe that requiring a station to  xdocument its proximity to a "major thoroughfare" would increase the burden on applicants and the  x/Commission, and increase the processing time for each application. It is also unnecessary due to the  xrelatively small areas of interference caused by second and thirdadjacent channel stations. It would also  xjrequire the staff to establish rules to define what constitutes a major thoroughfare. Therefore, we decline to impose on this limited universe of stations the additional burdens suggested by NAB .  Sl-  x29. Conclusion. As the majority of the commenters in this proceeding agree, we believe that  xreinstatement of the pre1987 rules regarding second and thirdadjacent channel grandfathered stations  xwould best serve the public interest. We see little advantage to require additional exhibits from  xgrandfathered stations proposing site changes or facility modifications. The small risk of interference is  xfar outweighed by the improvement in flexibility and improved service. In addition, as stated in  Sn- xParagraph 25 of the Notice, we have no intention of relaxing secondadjacentchannel and thirdadjacent x!channel spacing requirements as allotment and assignment criteria for any group except pre1964  S - x.grandfathered stations. Therefore, we are adopting Proposal 2, as originally set forth in the Notice, only for this limited universe of stations.  Sq- Proposal 3.  S -  ix30.  Eliminate the need to obtain agreements between grandfathered shortspaced stations  S - xwproposing increased facilities. The Notice proposed to revise Section 73.213(a) to eliminate the need for  xgrandfathered stations to obtain agreements to modify facilities pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 73.4235. The  Ss"- xNotice stated that the 1975 Public Notice ("Agreement Notice") is rarely used today for its original purpose  SA#- xof allowing mutual increases.A#[ {O%- xxԍ Agreement Public Notice, Commission Reaffirms Policy With Respect to Agreements Between ShortSpaced  {Os&-FM Stations, 35 RR 2d 1063, 57 FCC 2d 1263, [47 C.F.R. 73.4235](1975). The Agreement Notice is now typically used to justify unilateral modifications."$ $,l(l(,,'"Ԍ S-ԙ Comments & Discussion:  S-  x31. Of the initial and reply comments on this proposal, several parties agree that agreements  xshould be eliminated, while a few parties disagree with the adoption of this proposal. The Joint  xPetitioners "agree that such agreements are unnecessary and would simply frustrate the intent of these  xproposed rules." AFCCE also supports the elimination of agreements. Compass "enthusiastically supports  xthe Commission's Proposal 3 to eliminate the need to obtain agreements by grandfathered shortspaced  xstations...." John J. Davis and Chagal Communications support adoption of Proposal 3, while several parties are generally supportive of all three Proposals, without specific mention of Proposal 3.  S-  x32. In opposition to Proposal 3, Mullaney suggests that we should retain the agreement policy  x/and require a "higher level" of public interest to justify grant of an application. Kelsho Radio Group  x("Kelsho") suggests that the Commission has "no good reasons to discard the entire mutual agreement  xpolicy." Odyssey Communications, Inc. ("Odyssey") opposes eliminating the Agreement Policy and  xbelieves it will have a harmful effect on stations and the public interest. Odyssey suggests retention of  x=the policy for its intended purposes of promoting mutual increases. Finally, Z Spanish Radio Network,  x[Inc. ("Spanish") avers that agreements that "improve service and reduce interference should be permitted and encouraged by the Commission."  S7-  x 33. Conclusion. The provisions set forth in the Agreement Notice required all grandfathered  xstations increasing facilities pursuant to an agreement to submit a detailed public interest showing. The  S- xAgreement Notice stated that the public interest showing must include areas and populations which would  xreceive new service, along with those receiving interference, assuming both stations fully implemented  xjthe mutual increase agreement. This is very similar to what we are adopting in Proposal 1 for cochannel  S:- xand firstadjacent channel stations. The Agreement Notice also stated that the agreement provisions did  S- xjnot apply to changes in transmitter location. Furthermore, the Agreement Notice is rarely used today for its original purpose of providing for mutual increases by grandfathered stations.  Sp-  x!34. Under the rules adopted herein, most applicants will be able to achieve the same facilities  xusing Proposals 1 and 2 above, that in the past required a written agreement from another grandfathered  xmstation. Second and thirdadjacent channel grandfathered stations will be exempt from spacing  xyrequirements and cochannel and firstadjacent stations will be able to implement transmitter site changes  S- xjthat weren't previously permitted under the Agreement Notice. The exhibits we are requiring under these  xProposals are aimed at establishing that each proposal would serve the public interest. However, in the  xpast, affected parties were notified of another applicant's proposed modification by way of an agreement.  x\Since we are eliminating the requirement for agreements, certain potentially affected parties would no  xlonger be involved in the modification process for proposals that may have an effect on their service area.  xyTherefore, we will require that a copy of any application for cochannel or firstadjacent channel stations  xproposing predicted interference caused in any areas where interference is not currently predicted to be  xcaused must be served upon the licensee(s) of the affected shortspaced station(s). This will enable  xzpotentially affected parties to examine the proposal and provide them an opportunity to file informal  xobjections against such applications. The proposed rules will allow more flexibility than if we were to  xcontinue to require agreements along with public interest showings. Often times, requiring an applicant  xto obtain an agreement from another shortspaced station is tantamount to holding its application hostage  SA#- xby another broadcaster. As stated in the Notice, we find that the requirement for agreements no longer  xserves its original purpose and can be eliminated without any harmful effect on applicants, other stations, or the public. Therefore, we will eliminate the requirement for these applicants to obtain agreements.  Sv&- "v& ,l(l(,,0*"  S-C" CONCLUSION  S-  x"35. We believe that the modified procedures and related rule revisions adopted herein will  xprovide this group of grandfathered stations with significantly greater flexibility in making transmitter site  xchanges and other facility modifications, while preserving or improving the overall technical integrity of  xthe FM band. Our experience working with the current rule guides us to adopt these changes in our  xgrandfathered shortspacing rules. Cochannel and firstadjacent channel grandfathered stations will be  x=able to make modifications and improvements using straightforward interference calculations. This will  x=enable us to more accurately predict and control interference. Eligible grandfathered stations will be able  x to propose facility modifications without regard to existing grandfathered second and thirdadjacent  xkchannel shortspacings. Finally, grandfathered stations will no longer need to obtain agreements from other grandfathered stations before proposing modifications.  Si -  1x#36. Accordingly, to the extent provided herein, we amend Section 73.213(a) of our Rules and  S6 - xdelete Section 73.4235. As set forth in the Notice, the Commission will process any such waiver requests  S -which remain pending as of the effective date of this Order in accordance with the revised rule. [ yOl- xԍ The Mass Media Bureau has identified several pending applications which seek waivers of the current rule  {O4- xKbut which may comply with Section 73.213(a) as modified in this Order. We direct the staff to reconsider these  xapplications under the revised standards adopted herein and delegate to the Chief of the Mass Media Bureau  {O- xwauthority to waive Section 73.213 prior to the effective date of this Order where the public interest would be served.  {O- xAny Section 73.213 waiver granted by staff prior to the effective date of the Order shall be subject to the final  xoutcome in this proceeding. We also are aware that there is now one application before the Commission which  xrequests a Section 73.213 waiver and remand this application to the Mass Media Bureau for reconsideration  {O- x=consistent with this delegation. See File No. BPH910612ID, Oceanside, CA. We remind all parties that all  {O-contested applications retain their restricted status following adoption of the Order.   S -0 ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S9-  @x$37. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i),  x303(r), and 307(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 C.F.R. Part 73 IS AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A below.  Sm-  x%38. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the requirements and regulations established in this Report  S;- xand Order WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register,  S - x=or upon receipt by Congress of a report in compliance with the Contract with America Advancement Act  S-of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104121, whichever date is later.  Sr-  x&39. For further information contact Jim Bradshaw of the Audio Services Division, Mass Media  S?-Bureau at (202)4182740, or by email at jbradsha@fcc.gov. ` ` D ` D` x` `  hFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hWilliam F. Caton x` `  hActing Secretary" ,l(l(,, "     S- *APPENDIX A ă 47 C.F.R. Part 73 is revised as follows: PART 73 RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303 2. Section 73.213 is revised to read as follows:  S - 73.213 Grandfathered shortspaced stations.  x(a) Stations at locations authorized prior to November 16, 1964 that did not meet the separation distances  xrequired by 73.207 and have remained continuously shortspaced since that time may be modified or  xrelocated with respect to such shortspaced stations, provided that (i) no area previously receiving  xinterferencefree service would receive cochannel or firstadjacent channel interference as predicted in  xjaccordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section, or that (ii) a showing is provided pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section that demonstrates that the public interest would be served by the proposed changes.   !Xx(1) The F(50,50) curves in Figure 1 of 73.333 of this part are to be used in conjunction with the   proposed effective radiated power and antenna height above average terrain, as calculated pursuant   to 73.313(c), (d)(2) and (d)(3), using data for as many radials as necessary, to determine the   Olocation of the desired (service) field strength. The F(50,10) curves in Figure 1a of 73.333 of   |this part are to be used in conjunction with the proposed effective radiated power and antenna   ^height above average terrain, as calculated pursuant to 73.313(c), (d)(2) and (d)(3), using data   for as many radials as necessary, to determine the location of the undesired (interfering) field   strength. Predicted interference is defined to exist only for locations where the desired (service)   |field strength exceeds 0.5 mV/m (54 dBu) for a Class B station, 0.7 mV/m (57 dBu) for a Class B1 station, and 1 mV/m (60 dBu) for any other class of station.(#  ` XxX` ` (i) Cochannel interference is predicted to exist, for the purpose of this section, at all  ` locations where the undesired (interfering station) F(50,10) field strength exceeds a value  ` 20 dB below the desired (service) F(50,50) field strength of the station being considered  ` o(e.g., where the protected field strength is 60 dBu, the interfering field strength must be 40 dBu or more for predicted interference to exist).(#`  ` _XxX` ` (ii) Firstadjacent channel interference is predicted to exist, for the purpose of this section,  ` Bat all locations where the undesired (interfering station) F(50,10) field strength exceeds  ` 4a value 6 dB below the desired (service) F(50,50) field strength of the station being  ` 2considered (e.g., where the protected field strength is 60 dBu, the interfering field strength must be 54 dBu or more for predicted interference to exist).(#`   Xx(2) For cochannel and firstadjacent channel stations, a showing that the public interest would   Nbe served by the changes proposed in an application must include exhibits demonstrating that the   total area and population subject to cochannel or firstadjacent channel interference, caused and"=' ,l(l(,,+"   }received, would be maintained or decreased. In addition, the showing must include exhibits   "demonstrating that the area and the population subject to cochannel or firstadjacent channel   interference caused by the proposed facility to each shortspaced station individually is not   increased. In all cases, the applicant must also show that any area predicted to lose service as a   result of new cochannel or firstadjacentchannel interference has adequate aural service   remaining. For the purpose of this Section, adequate service is defined as 5 or more aural services (AM or FM).(#   Xx(3) For cochannel and firstadjacentchannel stations, a copy of any application proposing   interference caused in any areas where interference is not currently caused must be served upon the licensee(s) of the affected shortspaced station(s). (#   Xx(4) For stations covered by this rule, there are no distance separation or interference protection   ?requirements with respect to secondadjacent and thirdadjacent channel shortspacings that have existed continuously since November 16, 1964.(# N * * * * * 3. Section 73.4235 is deleted. "8,l(l(,,"     S- *APPENDIX B ă  Sg- List of Commenters Initial Comments  Sh-Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers("AFCCE")  S5-Barnstable Broadcasting, Inc.h("Barnstable")  S-Brown Broadcasting Service, Inc.h("Brown")  S-Chagal Communicationsh("Chagal")  S -Communications Technologies, Inc.h("CTI")  Si -Compass Radio of San Diego, Inc.h("Compass")  S6 -John J. Davis` `  h("Davis")  S -ElevenFifty Corp. h("ElevenFifty")  S -Gallagher & Associatesh ("Gallagher")  S -Group M Communications, Inc.h("Group M")  Sj-Harvard Radio Broadcasting Co., Inc.h("Harvard") Hatfield & Dawson; duTreil, Lundin & Rackley;  S-xCohen, Dippell & Everisth("Joint Petitioners")  S-Jarad Broadcasting h("Jarad")  S-KALIFM, Inc. h("KALI")  Sk-Kelsho Radio Group, Inc.h("Kelsho")  S8-Liberman Broadcasting, Inc.h("Liberman")  S-Livingston Radio Companyh("Livingston")  S-MediaCom, Inc.  h("MediaCom")  S-Mullaney Engineering, Inc.h("Mullaney")  Sl-E. Harold Munn, Jr. h("Munn")  S9-National Association of Broadcastersh("NAB")  S-Odyssey Communications, Inc.h("Odyssey")  S-Renard Communications Corp.h("Renard")  S-Taxi Productions, Inc. h("Taxi")  Sm-WPNT, Inc.` `  h("WPNT")  S:-WTBOWKGO Corporationh("WTBO")  S-WTUC, Richard L. Harveyh("WTUC")  S-WYCQ, Inc.` `  h("WYCQ")  S-Z Spanish Radio Network, Inc.h("Z Spanish") ";,l(l(,,G"" Reply Comments  Sg-Alpeak Broadcasting Corporationh("Alpeak")  S4-Barden Broadcasting, Inc.h("Barden")  S-Barry Broadcasting Companyh("Barry")  S-Berkshire Broadcasting Corporationh("Berkshire")  S-Compass Radio of San Diego, Inc.h("Compass")  Sh-Educational Information Corporationh("EIC")  S5-Greater Media Radio Companyh("Greater")  S-Infinity Broadcasting Corporationh("Infinity")  S-Kelsho Radio Group, Inc.h("Kelsho")  S -Livingston Radio Companyh("Livingston")  Si -MediaCom, Inc.  h("MediaCom")  S6 -Metro TV, Inc. h("Metro")  S -Mt. Wilson FM Broadcasters, Inc.h("Mt. Wilson")  S -National Association of Black Owned Broadcastersh("NABOB")  S -National Association of Broadcastersh("NAB")  Sj-Odyssey Communications, Inc.h("Odyssey")  S7-Paxson Communications Corporationh("Paxson")  S-Pinnacle Southeast, Inc.h("Pinnacle")  S-Carl E. Smith` `  h("Smith")  S-WTBOWKGO Corporationh("WTBO")  Sk-WTUC, Richard L. Harveyh("WTUC")  S8-WYCQ, Inc.` `  h("WYCQ") ",l(l(,,"  S-   + APPENDIX CX(#P  PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENTTP  S- xThis Report and Order contains new or modified information collections subject to  S-the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ("PRA"). It has been submitted to the Office of Management  S-and Budget ("OMB") for review under the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other federal agencies  Sk-are invited to comment on the new or modified information collections contained in this proceeding.  S-  FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS ă  S -xAs required by the Regulatory Flexibility ActE  yO -ԍ See 5 U.S.C. 603.E (RFA), the Commission considered regulatory  Sl -flexibility issues in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding, Grandfathered Short S: -Spaced FM Stations.: X {O2-ԍ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 96120, 61 Fed. Reg. 33,474 (1996). #d6X@`7 .@#Ѱ The Commission sought written public comments on the proposals in the  S -Notice. The Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in this Report and Order  S -conforms to the RFA as amended.    yO`- xyԍ See 5 U.S.C. 604. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq. has been amended by the  x,Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II  xiof the CWAAA is the "Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996" (SBREFA). We note that the Notice was issued prior to enactment of the amendments to the RFA in the SBREFA.   S=- A. Need For and Objectives of the Rules:  S- xThe Commission's Rules currently require pre1964 grandfathered shortspaced stations proposing transmitter site changes or facility modifications to demonstrate that the proposed 1 mV/m field strength contour is not extended toward the 1 mV/m field strength contour of any station to which it is shortspaced. This rule was found to be overly restrictive, and open to multiple interpretations. The Commission therefore proposed revisions to its broadcast regulations to replace the current rule with a simple rule based on straightforward interference prediction methods, and to eliminate spacing requirements for second and thirdadjacent channel grandfathered stations. ` ` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency after  x-consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public  xhcomment, 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.m 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  S-any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).Yxf yO-ԍ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632 (1996). Y According to the SBA's regulations, entities engaged in radio broadcasting (Standard Industrial Classification ("SIC") Code 4832 for radio) may have a maximum of $10.5 million in annual receipts in order to qualify as a  Sj -small business concern. 13 C.F.R. 121.201. This standard also applies in determining whether an entity is a small business for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. xPursuant to 5 U.S.C.  601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the SBA and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of  S8-the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register." 8f yO- xԍ We tentatively conclude that the SBA's definition of "small business" greatly overstates the number of radio  x,and television broadcast stations that are small businesses and is not suitable for purposes of determining the impact  {Op- xof the proposals on small radio and television stations. However, for purposes of this Report and Order, we utilize  xthe SBA's definition in determining the number of small businesses to which the proposed rules would apply, but  xwe reserve the right to adopt a more suitable definition of "small business" as applied to radio and television  {O- xbroadcast stations or other entities subject to the rules adopted in this Report and Order and to consider further the  xissue of the number of small entities that are radio and television broadcasters or other small media entities in the  {O\- xZfuture. See Report and Order in MM Docket 9348 (Children's Television Programming), 11 FCC Rcd 10660,  {O&- xx1073738 (1996), citing 5 U.S.C. 601 (3). In our Notice of Inquiry in GN Docket No. 96113B, In the matter of  {O- xZSection 257 Proceeding to Identify and Eliminate Market Entry Barriers for Small Businesses, 11 FCC Rcd 6280  xx(1996), we requested commenters to provide profile data about small telecommunications businesses in particular  xservices, including television and radio, and the market entry barriers they encounter, and we also sought comment  xas to how to define small businesses for purposes of implementing Section 257 of the Telecommunications Act of  x<1996, which requires us to identify market entry barriers and to prescribe regulations to eliminate those barriers.  {O"- xAdditionally, in our Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 9616, In the Matter of Streamlining  xBroadcast EEO Rules and Policies, Vacating the EEO Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amending Section 1.80 of  {Ol$- xithe Commission's Rules to Include EEO Forfeiture Guidelines, 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996), we invited comment as  xto whether relief should be afforded to stations: (1) based on small staff and what size staff would be considered  {O%- xKsufficient for relief, e.g., 10 or fewer fulltime employees; (2) based on operation in a small market; or (3) based on operation in a market with a small minority work force. While we tentatively believe that the foregoing definition of "small business" greatly overstates the number of radio broadcast",l(l(,," stations that are small businesses and is not suitable for purposes of determining the impact of the new rules on small business, we did not propose an alternative definition in the Regulatory Flexibility  S-Analysis. Accordingly, for purposes of this Report and Order, we utilize the SBA's definition in determining the number of small businesses to which the rules apply, but we reserve the right to adopt a more suitable definition of "small business" as applied to radio broadcast stations and to consider further the issue of the number of small entities that are radio broadcasters in the future. Further, in this FRFA, we will identify the different classes of small radio stations that may be impacted by the  S-rules adopted in this Report and Order.  S7-Commercial Radio Services: xThe rules and policies adopted in this Order will apply to radio broadcasting licensees and potential licensees. The SBA defines a radio broadcasting station that has no more than $5 million in  Sk -annual receipts as a small business.qk f yO -ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC 4832.#d6X@`7 .@#q A radio broadcasting station is an establishment primarily  S8 -engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.8 Xf {O0- xԍ Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, supra note 78,  yO-Appendix A9.#d6X@`7 .@# Included in this industry are  S -commercial religious, educational, and other radio stations.2 f {OW-ԍ Id.2 Radio broadcasting stations which primarily are engaged in radio broadcasting and which produce radio program materials are similarly  S -included.2 Df {O-ԍ Id.2 However, radio stations which are separate establishments and are primarily engaged in  Sl-producing radio program material are classified under another SIC number.2lf {O-ԍ Id.2 The 1992 Census indicates that 96 percent (5,861 of 6,127) radio station establishments produced less than $5 million in  S-revenue in 1992.h f yO- xxԍ The Census Bureau counts radio stations located at the same facility as one establishment. Therefore, each colocated AM/FM combination counts as one establishment. Official Commission records indicate that 11,334 individual radio stations were  S-operating in 1992.S f yO3-ԍ FCC News Release No. 31327, Jan. 13, 1993.S As of March, 1997, official Commission records indicate that 12,128 radio  S-stations were operating.zP f yO -ԍ FCC News Release No. 64958, Sept. 6, 1996.#d6X@`7 .@#z xIt is estimated that the proposed rules will affect about 450 radio stations, approximately 432  S-of which are small businesses.Nf yO$- xԍ We use the 96% figure of radio station establishments with less than $5 million revenue from the Census data  yOO%-and apply it to the 12,088 individual station count to arrive at 11,605 individual stations as small businesses. #d6X@`7 .@#N These estimates are based on cursory studies performed by the staff and may overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figures on which they are based do not include aggregate revenues from nonradio affiliated companies. "8,l(l(,,B"Ԍ S-ԙ Alternative Classification of Small Stations xAn alternative way to classify small radio stations is the number of employees. The Commission currently applies a standard based on the number of employees in administering its Equal  S4-Employment Opportunity Rule (EEO) for broadcasting. |4f yO- xԍ The Commission's definition of a small broadcast station for purposes of applying its EEO rules was adopted  xprior to the requirement of approval by the SBA pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  x632(a), as amended by Section 222 of the Small Business Credit and Business Opportunity Enhancement Act of  x 1992, Public Law 102366, 222(b)(1), 106 Stat. 999 (1992), as further amended by the Small Business  xJAdministration Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 1994, Public Law 103403, 301, 108 Stat. 4187 (1994).  {O - x-However, this definition was adopted after the public notice and the opportunity for comment. See Report and  {ON -Order in Docket No. 18244, 23 FCC 2d 430 (1970), 35 FR 8925 (June 6, 1970). Thus, radio stations with fewer than five  S-fulltime employees are exempted from certain EEO reporting and record keeping requirements.! f yO - xjԍ See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. 73.3612 (Requirement to file annual employment reports on Form 395 applies to  {Ou - xlicensees with five or more fulltime employees); First Report and Order in Docket No. 21474 (Amendment of  {O?- xBroadcast Equal Employment Opportunity Rules and FCC Form 395), 70 FCC 2d 1466 (1979), 50 FR 50329  x(December 10, 1985). The Commission is currently considering how to decrease the administrative burdens imposed  {O- xby the EEO rule on small stations while maintaining the effectiveness of our broadcast EEO enforcement. Order  x=and Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket 9616 (Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rule and Policies,  xiVacating the EEO Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amending Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules to Include  {O+- xEEO Forfeiture Guidelines), 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996), 61 FR 9964 (March 12, 1996). One option under  xyconsideration is whether to define a small station for purposes of affording such relief as on with ten or fewer employees. We estimate that the total number of grandfathered broadcast stations with 4 or fewer employees is  S-approximately 120."f yO- xԍ Compilation of 1994 Broadcast Station Annual Employment Reports (FCC Form 395B), Equal Opportunity Employment Branch, Mass Media Bureau, FCC.  S5- D. Projected Compliance Requirements of the Rule: xApplicants filing a modification application will be required to provide similar exhibits to those currently required for a construction permit. This information may consist of an interference analysis showing that no area previously receiving interferencefree service would receive cochannel or firstadjacent channel interference using the desired to undesired signal strength ratio interference calculation method. xAlternatively, for cochannel and firstadjacent channel applicants, a showing that the public interest would be served by the changes proposed in an application must include exhibits demonstrating that the total area and population subject to cochannel or firstadjacent channel interference, caused and received, would be maintained or decreased. In addition, the showing must include exhibits demonstrating that the area and the population subject to cochannel or firstadjacent channel interference caused by the proposed facility to each shortspaced station individually is not increased. In all cases, the applicant must also show that any area predicted to lose service as a result of new cochannel or firstadjacentchannel interference has adequate aural service remaining. For these purposes, adequate service is defined as 5 or more aural services (AM or FM). Finally, any applicant proposing interference caused in an area where interference is not caused must serve its"",l(l(,," application upon the licensee(s) of the affected shortspaced station(s). The abovelisted requirements are similar to the interference exhibits required by the previous rule section. xSecondadjacent and thirdadjacent channel grandfathered stations will no longer be required to submit interference exhibits, therefore reducing the filing burden. xThe information required with a modification application generally is the minimum necessary for the Commission to verify compliance with its rules and regulations. In most instances, the new procedures will reduce the time and expense required to implement certain modifications to grandfathered broadcast stations. Most permittees and licensees retain professional consulting engineers or legal counsel, or both in preparing construction permit applications. We do not expect this to change significantly by the adoption of the new rules and procedures. However, the time needed for the preparation of the simplified applications will be reduced as a result of fewer necessary waiver requests, translating into time and money savings for the broadcast applicant. x  S - E. Significant Alternatives Considered Minimizing the Economic Impact on Small Entities and  S -Consistent with the Stated Objectives:  Sj- x The burdens on cochannel and firstadjacentchannel grandfathered applicants will be similar to the requirements under the previous rule section. The burden on secondadjacent and thirdadjacent grandfathered applicants will be reduced. Modification applications will typically require that lesser amounts of information be submitted to the Commission as compared to an application submitted under the previous rules. The rule and policy changes will have a positive economic impact, as eligible entities, including small entities, will be able to increase their service or make transmitter site changes that were previously inhibited by the rules. All entities will still be able to file informal objections against a modification application, just as they may do now. In addition, any applicant proposing to cause interference in an area previously receiving interference must serve its application on the licensee(s) of the affected station(s).  S9- F. Report to Congress  S-The Secretary shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis along with this Report  S-and Order in a report to Congress pursuant to Section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, codified at 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this RFA will also  S<-be published in the Federal Register.