Document text
868 Federal Communications Commission Reports
FCC 64-919
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS. COMMISSION
Wasurneton, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Revision or FM Broapcasr RuLes, PARTICU-
LARLY AS TO ALLOCATION AND TECHNICAL
STANDARDS
Docket No. 14185
Fourrs REPORT AND ORDER
By tee COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER Cox ABSENT. es
1. The Commission has under consideration its Third Further
Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FCC 64-70) issued in this pro-
ceeding on February 3, 1964 and the comments, data, and reply com-
ments filed in response thereto. The purpose of this Notice was to set
forth proposed rules concerning increased facilities for. existing FM
short-spaced stations and to propose specific Table of Assignments
for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the territories. The final notice
of proposed rule making on the remaining matter to be concluded in
this overall FM proceeding, rules governing the educational channels,
will be issued in the near future.
2. The time for filing comments was specified as March 27, 1964
and for reply comments as April 10, 1964. In an Order issued on
March 25, 1964 (FCC 64-240) these dates were extended to May 11,
1964 and May 26, 1964, respectively. In addition, this Order included
a request for comments on a proposal advanced by the engineering
firm of Kear and Kennedy concerning provision for site changes for
existing short-spaced stations, and for the use of high antenna
heights. Comments were filed on behalf of about 90 existing FM sta-
tions and a number of organizations and networks. Careful considera-
tion has been given to all the comments and data submitted by all
interested parties. Many comments included engineering showings
which were particularly helpful.
Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico and the Territories
8. Appendix A to the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making contained proposed Tables of Assignments for Hawaii,
Alaska, Puerto Rico and the Territories. It was proposed to consider
Hawaii, Alaska and Guam in Zone II and Puerto Rico and the Vir-
gin Islands in Zone I. No oppositions were filed to the proposals for
Hawaii, Alaska and Guam and these will be finalized. Comments
were filed in support of the proposed assignments in Arecibo, Ponce
and Fajardo in Puerto Rico. All existing stations in Puerto Rico
which commented supported the assignments of their channels and
40 F.0.0.
FM Broadcast Rules et al. 869
stated that any modification of the outstanding authorizations for
the stations would require a hearing in light of the requirements of
Section 316 of the Communications Act.
4, American Colonial Broadcasting Corp., an applicant for a new
FM station in San Juan, proposes a completely different allocation
table for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, which in part proposes
11 assignments for San Juan, American urges that virtually the
entire area of Puerto Rico is enclosed within a 25-mile area from the
four cities of San Juan, Ponce, Mayaguez and Arecibo and that the
assignment of 11 channels to San Juan, with a population of 542,156,
is a fair distribution of available facilities since it represents about
one-half the population of Puerto Rico and would receive one-half
of the assignments to the other cities. The plan which American pro-
poses contains 5 assignments more than the Commission’s plan. It
contains 5 additional assignments in San Juan and one additional in
Arecibo and Ponce, but does not provide for a number of cities in the
Commission’s Table. The price paid for these additional assignments
is in our judgment too high. This is so because assignments are not
made to the following cities; Caguas (with a population of 32,000),
Coamo (12,000), Manati (9700) and Humacao (8,000). In addition,
Class A assignments are substituted for Class B assignments in
Fajardo (pop. 12,000), Guayama (19,000), San German (7800) and
Utuado (9900). The difference in the number of possible assignments
is further reduced since under the Commission’s plan at least one
Class A channel can be added. For example, in the event a need arises
for an assignment in Vieques, Channel 221A may be assigned to that
community. Another drawback to the Table proposed by American is
the rather close spacings in a number of assignments such as those of
Channels 236 and 266 to Ponce, which may seriously limit the avail-
ability of good antenna sites.
5. Central Broadcasting Corporation, permittee of radio Station
WUPR(AM) opposes that portion of the American proposal insofar
as it would substitute Channel 221A for 286 at Utuado. Central urges
that this city of 9,870 is located in a barrio with a population of
40,449, that its principal industry is agriculture, that the terrain is
irregular, that the population is sparse and the available revenues are
small, and as a result there is a need for a Class B assignment rather
than a limited-area station as proposed by American. It states that it
plans to file an application for a new FM station at Utuado. San
Juan Broadcasting Corp., and Continental Broadcasting Corp., both
prospective applicants for a new FM station in San Juan, support
the American allocation plan for Puerto Rico, especially insofar as it
assigns 11 channels to San Juan, for the reasons given by the propo-
nent of the plan.
6. The San Juan area (including Rio Piedras and Bayamon) has
9 existing FM stations. The American proposal would add 5 addi-
tional assignments to this city. We are of the view that disadvantages’
of the proposal outweigh the advantages of the additional assign-
ments in San Juan and the other two large cities. One of the chief
values in an assignment table is the ability to reserve assignments for
future use in smaller communities, which may not be ready for the
construction of stations but which may well ultimately need them
40 B.C.0,
279-022—70——57
870 Federal Communications Commission Reports
for local expression, and to prevent the concentration of all the avail-
able facilities in the larger metropolitan areas. For the above reasons
we are not adopting the American proposal.
7. This party also suggests that the minimum power for Class B
stations in Puerto Rico be lowered from 5 kilowatts to 3 and that
the maximum antenna height be raised to 1000 feet rather than 500
feet. It argues that lowering the power minimum will encourage the
establishment of new stations and that raising the antenna ceiling
will not unduly curtail service where sites are used at elevations in
the order of 1000. feet and more, as would the 500 foot limitation.
8. Radio Americas Corp., licensee of Station WORA-FM, Maya-
guez, supports the Zone- Í- spacings for Puerto Rico but urges that
Zone II facilities (100 kilowatts power and 2000 feet antenna height)
be authorized. Radio Americas submits a study of the Commission’s
proposed assignment table for Puerto Rico and points out the follow-
ing: that there are no co-channel or first adjacent channel assign-
ments in Puerto Rico; that the only first adjacent channel separations
between Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands conform to the Zone IT
spacings; that 9 of the 22 second adjacent channel spacings meet the
Zone TI requirements with the lowest spacing 43 miles; and that 6
of the 10 third adjacent channel spacings meet the requirements of
Zone IT with the lowest being 40 miles. Illustrations are presented to
show the effects on interference for two stations 40 miles apart with
Zone II facilities and on both second and third adjacent channel
assignments. In the case of the stations two channels removed the area
of interference occurs around the transmitter site and represents
about 16% of the area gained by the first station. In the case of the
stations three channels removed the area of interference is shown to
be negligible since it extends only about 2 miles around the site of the
interfering station. :
9. We are aware of the special terrain situation which exists in
Puerto Rico, with large mountains running throughout the central
portion of the Island and the communities located at low levels
mostly along the periphery. We also recognize that the best sites for
many of these cities are on the high elevations inland. However, we
are not convinced that this Island should be considered Zone II for
the purpose of permitting all stations to operate with the higher
powers and antenna height, especially since we are retaining the Zone
Í spacings in order to make sufficient facilities available. At the pres-
ent time only one FM station (that of Radio Americas) has an
antenna height of over 1000 feet above average terrain. Of the 11
pending applications, only. 2 have specified antenna heights over 1000
feet. Nonetheless, in order to encourage the use of suitable high
antenna sites without unduly restricting the authorized power, and in
order to thke advantage of the favorable assignment situation on the
Island, we believe we would be justified in making an exception to
the power reduction necessary for antenna.heights above 500 feet in
Zone Y. We will therefore permit a power of 25 kilowatts (14 dbk)
2These comments were filed on May 14, 1964, three days after the specified time for
such filings. Radio Americas stated that due to an inadvertence they were not submitted
on May 11 even though they had been prepared before that time, and requests that they
be considered. These comments are accepted and are being considered herein.
40 B.C.C.
FM Broadcast Rules et al. 871
for antenna heights up to 2000 feet above average terrain and the
equivalent of these facilities (as determined by the same distance to
the 1 mv/m contour) for heights above 2000 feet.2 We do not believe
that the minimum power requirement should be lowered from 5 kw to
3 kw. This difference should not represent a hardship for applicants
in view of the small difference it represents.
~ 10. V.I. Industries, Inc., licensee of radio Station WSTA, St.
Thomas, supports the proposal to establish a.Table of Assignments
for the Virgin Islands and states that it will file for an FM. station
on channel 250 if it is adopted. V.I. Industries contends that three
channels are not warranted for Charlotte Amalie, which has a popu-
lation of less than 18,000; nor is a total of 6 channels warranted for
the Virgin Islands, which has a population of about 40,000 persons.*
It therefore recommends that a total of 4 assignments be made to
the Virgin Islands. Two parties point out that two of the Virgin
sland assignments are on Class A channels. We do not believe there
is any need to mix the assignments here. In view of the showing made
by V.I. Industries we are assigning 4 channels to the Islands, two
each at Charlotte Amalie and Christiansted.
11. In view of the foregoing, we are adopting the tables for
Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam as outlined in the attached
Appendix.* The other required changes in the rules, such as the Zone
designation, also appear in the Appendix.
Existing Short Spaced Stations
12. With respect to existing FM short-spaced stations (authorized
prior to August 1, 1962) and in recognition of the needs for increased
facilities for such stations, especially those which are moderately
short-spaced and those which.could have increased their facilities
under the old rules, the Commission invited comments on alternative
methods to obtain these ends. It was stated that it could adopt some
variation of one of the plans discussed without further notice of rule
making. It also discussed the possibility of eliminating or improving
short spacings by means of channel shifts or site changes.
18. The great majority of the comments favored one or the other
principal methods for authorizing increased facilities for existing
short-spaced stations. Some recommended variations or modifications
of these plans. While parties were divided as to which alternative (or
modified alternatives) should be adopted by. the Commission, with
very few exceptions they were all in agreement that some relief from
the present rule which “freezes” all short-spaced stations to the equiv-
alent of their existing facilities, should be granted by the Commis-
sion. The National Association of FM Broadcasters concludes that at
the present time there is not enough information available to deter-
mine which of the Commission’s alternative solutions, if any, is best
designed to accomplish the desired goal. They urge the establishment
. 2In Zone I a station would be authorized 1.6 Kw for an antenna height of 2000 feet.
3 According to the U.S. 1960 Census the population-of Charlotte Amalie is 12,880 and
that_of the Virgin Islands ‘is 32,099. á `
4 Channels 281 and 286 have been switched between Ponce and Utuado to avoid an
I.F. difference problém in Ponce. = i : .
oO 40 F.C.
872 Federal Communications Commission Reports
of an Industry Committee to work with the Commission in gathering
data and in recommending a particular course. We do not believe that
delaying a decision in this matter or establishing a committee as pro-
posed would serve any useful purpose. National Broadcasting Com-
pany submits that a further notice should be issued because the
notice “does not provide .a concrete basis for meaningful study
because of the undesignated possible channel shifts; allocation of new
stations, if any; possible power increases on a case-by-case basis; and
possible variations of the plan presented in the Notice, which the
Commission indicates it may adopt without further notice of rule
making.” It urges that the Commission issue a further notice with
specific proposals which “lend themselves to significant evaluation.”
We do not believe the NBC suggestion is feasible. It is not possible to
submit the type of detailed information it seeks since this would
depend on the applications and requests filed by licensees after the
adoption. of a set of rules. As to the alternatives presented by the
Commission and the variations discussed, we are of the view that they
do form a basis for significant evaluation, as has been done by many
other parties. The variations of the principal alternatives were
described in sufficient detail to indicate their effects. Thus, the Com-
mission in the Notice stated in connection with the horizontal increase
alternative, “This could include spacings below which no increases
would be permitted or horizontal increases to values below the present
maximums”. We therefore do not believe that there is any necessity
for a further notice of proposed rule making.
Alternative One: General Horizontal Increase
14. The first alternative advanced by the Commission was one
which would permit all short-spaced stations to increase facilities up
to the maximums authorized in the rules for the Class of station and
the Zone involved, without regard to claims of interference by any
existing station. It was pointed out that three major benefits would
flow. from this approach: that there ultimately would result a high
degree of competitive equality among stations of the same class, that
on an overall basis, more people would gain new or improved service
than under any plan, and: that this plan would be the least burden-
some both for the Commission and the applicants seeking improved
facilities for their stations. The disadvantages recognized in such a
plan were that a hardship would result to licensees who cannot afford
to increase facilities at the time one or more stations to which there
is a short spacing file for such increases, that stations having the
greatest facilities prior to a horizontal increase may lose “interfer-
ence-free” service areas in the direction of others which previously
had very limited facilities, and that Class A stations may lose sub-
stantial service areas from the increases in Class B or C stations,
particularly when these latter stations operated previously with lim-
ited facilities, 5
15. A. large number of parties supported the horizontal increase
plan. In most cases engineering showings were submitted which
revealed that the plan would result in greatly increased service areas
for all the stations involved with little or no interference caused. In
40 F.C.C.
FM Broadcast Rules et al. 873
those cases where increased interference was cdused it was greatly
outweighed by the increased coverage and the improved service
within the former service range, due to the greater signal strength
available from the greater power and antenna heights. Some argued
that this method was the least restrictive and therefore should be
adopted. Others gave evidence of the advantages listed by the Com-
mission for this method. Some conceded that there may be cases
where some interference would result within the 1 mv/m contour of
other stations, but urged that since the across-the-board ‘plan treats
all the same way and has other advantages, there is no reason to
return to the “protected contour” concept. A group of parties sup-
ported this alternative but urged that increases be permitted up to
the maximums only provided that mutual interference would not
occur within the 64 dbu contour. They recommended that the power
or height be limited to prevent this interference unless the stations
involved agree to accept such interference. The significance of the 64
dbu is as follows. Under the old maximums for former Area I (20
kw and 500 feet) the protected contour of 1 mv/m (60 dbu) extends
28 miles. Under the new maximums for Zone I (50 kw and 500 feet)
at this same distance the predicted contour would be 64 dbu. Thus, no
interference would occur within the old 1 mv/m contour (60 dbu) or
the new 64 dbu contour if the proposal were to be adopted. In all the
engineering examples given by these parties there was no interference
to the old 60 dbu (1 mv/m) with a few minor exceptions. A. Earl
Cullum, Jr., one of the proponents of this amended horizontal plan,
made a showing involving the short spacings of 6 existing stations. In
only 3 of 14 short spacings would there be an invasion of the new 64
dbu contour if all the stations were to go to the maximums permitted
in the rules. It was somewhat worse in the two examples given for
Zone If.
16. A number of disadvantages were pointed out concerning Alter-
native I. Some parties stated that under the old rules parties selected
facilities which were related to the economics and general needs of
the areas, and as a result of the disproportionate nature of the power
increases which could result from this plan many highly urbanized
areas would suffer loss of service. Some urged that stations which
came into being at a late date accepted less than maximum facilities
in order to prevent or minimize interference, and that this plan
would be unfair to the former stations. Some showed. that inter-
ference could occur within the existing 1 mv/m contour: For example,
WTAD-FM in Zone I (Quincy, Illinois) has facilities slightly above
the maximum for Zone I and so cannot get greater facilities. This
station showed that in the event another station in Zone IT were to go
to the maximum facilities for that Zone there would be an invasion
of its existing Imv/m contour. It urged therefore that a Class © sta-
tion should be restricted to facilities no greater than permitted by
alternative TI in the direction of a Class B station. Several. parties
urged that if the horizontal plan is adopted it should be modified to
permit only proportionate increases, i.e., by the same ratio. Columbia
Broadcasting System suggested that no applications for increases be
accepted for a period of three years except those in which the sta-
40 F.C.C.
874. Federal Communications Commission Reports
tions concerned have reached an agreement. It was urged that after
that period applications should be accepted in which the increase of
power at the actual antenna height is no more than 8 times for a
Class A station or 244 times for a Class B station. These multipliers
are proportionate to the increase in maximum power for the classes
of stations under the new rules as against the old rules,
17. Some stations were concerned with the situation where Class
A stations were already within the 1 mv/m contours of other stations,
generally those on channels two or three channels removed. They
argued that this plan would only aggravate the existing interference
situation. Another disadvantage for Alternative F is that it does not
accommodate changes in site location.
Simultaneous Increases by Mutual Agreement
18. The Notice proposed as an alternative to the horizontal increase
plan one which would permit simultaneous increases of facilities by
linked groups of short-spaced stations by mutual agreement among
the affected stations. The Notice recognized that this plan would have
limited utility because of the need for reaching agreement among the
stations and the existence of rather long chains of stations. Another
difficulty pointed out was the cases where different classes of stations
are involved or where there is a great disparity between the existing
facilities of stations, Most. of the comments were opposed to this plan.
The parties argued that any one station in a chain could hold up all
the others involved; that very often this would be done purposely
since, as one party put it, stations are “competitive and intrinsically
unable to sacrifice their individual self interest”. Others asserted that
experience with the standard broadcast Class ITEA and Class IV
power increases indicates that reliance on this plan is impractical.
everal parties pointed out that typical chains in Zones I and IT
included about 24 stations. These chains did, however, break up into
smaller ones of 7 in a group and less, in the event the shortages on
the second and third adiacent channels are ignored as proposed by a
large number of parties.
19. The comments submitted on this alternative plan convince us
that we should not adopt it as the sole means for permitting existing
short-spaced stations to improve their facilities. We will consider,
however, any such requests on the basis of the showing made by the
parties as to how the public interest would be served thereby.
Alternative Two: Protection of a Specified Contour
20. Alternative Two proposed in the Notice was a method which
would require no agreement among stations and which would permit
increases in facilities very nearly like those which would have been
allowed under the old “protection method”. The two differences are
that the station with the greater facilities had to assume the other
station had facilities equal to its own, in order to affect a more equal
set of facilities. The second difference was that the powers and an-
tenna heights were to be obtained from various Tables rather than
from propagation curves.
40 FCC.
FM Broadcast Rules et al. 875
21. A number of parties preferred this alternative over that of the
horizontal increase. They submitted that this plan would provide ade-
quate increases while at the same time assuring that no adverse effects
are caused to any stations which cannot for economic or other reasons
increase their facilities. They contended that this plan recognizes all
the matters which affect transmission such as terrain, power, and
antenna systems. Finally, they urged that this method would permit
stations latitude in making changes in station sites as a result of
changes in zoning, nearby construction etc. In some of the showings
submitted in support of this proposal, it is shown that the maximum
facilities for the Class of stations can be obtained under this plan
as well as under alternative one, and therefore some of the parties
supported both alternatives. A number of parties, while supporting
this plan, also requested that it be modified in some respects in the
event it is adopted by the Commission. For example, some urged that
the antenna height to be used should not be that of the average above
terrain but that it should be for the particular directions involved.
Others urged that we should disregard the second and third adjacent
channel spacings. More will be said about this later.
22. There were a number of objections to this second alternative
and several problems raised in connection with its operation. Some
pointed out that there is a distinct advantage to the party which files
first. Kear and Kennedy submit a theoretical arrangement of stations
at typical short spacings and show that in Zone I there could be a
difference of as much as 3 db (ratio of twice in power) depending on
the. order of filing. An example in Zone IT reveals that there could
be a difference of about 5 db (3.16 to one power ratio) in the power
authorized for a particular station depending again on the order of
filing for the theoretical case depicted. There is a problem of what
one assumes for stations which are in different Zones or where one
station is a Class A and the others are Class B or Class C. One sug-
gestion made was that the smaller station be assumed to be at the
maximum facilities for its class. Another suggestion was that the
smaller station be assumed to have at least the minimum facilities for
its class. Some parties pointed out that where two stations are two
channels removed at short spacings, many times the first one can go
up sometimes to the maximum and the second then cannot increase at
all. The same thing can occur in the case of a Class B or C station,
two or three channels removed from a Class A station, where the
former often can increase its facilities while the latter cannot. There
are instances where two stations are 400 ke/s apart and neither one
can seek an increase because each is within the 1 mv/m contour of the
other, Another situation exists where two stations which have small
facilities—the one which requests an increase first may obtain a large
facility station, while the second station gets a disproportionately
small increase. In all these situations, actual examples are given
which are not just theoretical considerations.
23. While Kear and Kennedy support alternative one and oppose
the adoption of alternative two, they suggest a variation of this Jatter
plan in the form of a Table which indicates the power and antenna
height to be authorized depending on the separation between the sta-
40 F.C.C.
876 Federal Communications Commission Reports
tions. The Tables submitted are based upon a protected contour but
do not involve the power of the short-spaced stations. They point out
that this method is a separation method, protects existing stations by
mileage rather than power, and does not give any advantage to the
party filing first. The general purpose behind -the method is very
similar to that which we are adopting herein. It is our view that the
method adopted is more simple and so is to be preferred. Somewhat
similar in effect, in a limited context, is the plan proposed by Ellis F.
Jones, Jr., licensee of WEMG (FEM), Gallatin, Tennessee. This party
proposed an expanded Table of Separations which included a sub-
maximum Class C station, i.e., a station in Zone If which would be
authorized the facilities of a Class B station if it met the spacing of
the Class B station and not those of the Class C.
Miscellaneous Comments
94, A few parties filed comments on matters not directly before us
in this proceeding. For example, Williams FM Service, among other
things, suggested that when stations presently at facilities above those
authorized for their class are transferred, their facilities should be cut
back to the authorized maximums. Gerity Broadcasting and Pacifica
Foundation replied that this matter was disposed of in an earlier
phase of this proceeding and that Willianis submitted no basis for
reopening this subject. We agree with these parties that this matter
is beyond the scope of this particular proceeding. This is also true of
suggestions which have been filed requesting the assignment of Class
B channels with facilities limited to Class A facilities. This matter,
too, was considered and denied in previous phases of this overall pro-
ceeding. A few parties suggested that proportional power increases
be permitted for short-spaced stations in a particular chain either
with mutual consent or irrespective of such consent. No mention is
made of how site changes or changes in antenna height are to be
handled. These plans have some substantial problems and defects in
them. Insofar as mutual consent would be required, the drawbacks
are the same as has been mentioned before. In addition, these pro-
posals would still leave unsolved the matter of location of site and an-
tenna height changes. They would be very difficult to administer as
ven Pa these reasons, the proportional power. suggestions are
enied.,
Adoption of an Alternative
25. The selection of a particular method for permitting existing
short-spaced FM stations to increase their facilities is a difficult one,
as evidenced by the almost even division of opinion among the parties
filing comments and data. On an overall basis there is not very much
difference in the total service which results from the horizontal in-
crease, the protected contour, or the Kear and Kennedy modified pro-
tected contour plans. This can be seen from Figures 10 through 18
and Figures 16 through 19 in the Kear and Kennedy comments. The
principal difficulty with Alternative One, as may also be seen in these
same figures and the showings of other parties, is the interference
40 F.C.
FM Broadcast Rules et al. 877
which can result to stations within their present 1 my/m contour.
While as mentioned, numerous parties showed that in their own situ-
ation little interference would result, it is also apparent that the addi-
tional interference could result in the loss of existing service and the
displacement of listening habits in many communities. On the other
hand. the second alternative proposal also has its drawbacks. A numa-
ber of these have been enumerated above. From the point of view of
processing by the Commission and filing applications by the stations,
this method could be cumbersome, especially where a large number
of stations file at the same time (a yery likely possibility since sta-
tions have been frozen at their present facilities since August 1962)
or where parties file on the basis of other stations’ existing facilities
only to find these stations have been granted changes in the meantime.
The often large differences in authorized facilities, depending on the
order of filing, also disturbs us. While there is no ideal solution to
this problem we believe a method which is simple, would not require
prior agreement among stations affected, would not destroy existing
service (at least within the 1 mv/m contour), and would permit
changes in station location is to be the preferred method. We believe
a modification of the horizontal method could obtain the desired
objectives. Such a system would provide for various powers and
antenna heights depending on the spacings between the stations. Such
a plan would have many of the advantages of the standard spacing
plan and allocation table adopted for standard spaced stations but
with smaller and potentially equal service ranges depending on the
spacings. Before discussing this table further however, we cover two
important matters first.
Class A stations
26. A number of parties urged that short-spaced Class A stations
be permitted to go to the maximum for that class, (3kw and 300 feet
antenna height) regardless of what is permitted for other classes of
stations. In a series of charts for what is believed to be the worst cases
of first, second, and third adjacent channel spacings between a Class
A and Class B or C stations, Kear and Kennedy show that the impact
on the interference to the higher powered station is very small while
the Class A station improves its service throughout the old area and
extends in service range as well. In the case of a second channel sepa-
ration between a Class A station and a Class B station of only 15
miles (Figure 3) the increase in the radius of interference to the
Class B station is only in the order of less than 14 mile with both
stations going to the maximum facilities.
27. A few parties, mostly stations with facilities greater than pres-
ently authorized for the standard spaced stations, objected to any
increase for these Class A stations, One party argued that they
should not have been granted in the first place. We are, however, )
faced with an existing situation in which some Class A stations need, /
additional power to adequately cover the community intended to bé
served. In another objection to increased power for Class A: stations
a showing is made as to the increased interference to the high-pow-
ered Class B station. This increase however occurs in an additional
radius of about 0.7 of a mile.
40 F.C.C.
878. Federal Communications Commission Reports
28. After careful consideration ofall the data submitted in this
proceeding relative to short-spaced Class A stations we conclude that
an increase up to.the maximum for this Class of station is warranted
and would ‘serve the public interest. We will therefore permit any
short-spaced Class -A station- which desires to increase facilities to
apply for such increases up to 3 kw and 300 feet or the equivalent of
this combination, except insofar as co-channel situations between
Class A stations are involved. (There are no first or second adjacent
combinations. between Class A stations possible under the FM chan-
nel arrangement.)
29. Trans America Broadcasting Corp., licensee of KTYM-FM,
Inglewood, California, requests permission to increase its power to
40 kilowatts. Tt urges that itis only 23 miles from second adjacent
channel: stations KBIG and KGLA, both on Mount Wilson, Los
Angeles, and both with power and antenna height greater than the
maximum now provided by the rules. It argues that it needs this
power in order to-obtain the “equivalent coverage” of a maximum
Class A station in the absence of interference. It avers that it does not
serve the entire community of Inglewood and that listeners have
reported difficulty in tuning to the station in the presence of the
strong signals from KBIG and KGLA. KTYM-FM presently oper-
ates with 390 watts and an antenna height above average terrain of
390 feet. This party is, in effect, asking us to make a special case of
a particular Class A station and'to permit it to operate with 40 kw
power or almost the same as a Class B facility, even though it is only
about one half the required separation. This we cannot do. However,
we are of the view that the relief offered herein to short-spaced sta-
tions will help this station in improving its signal and coverage in
the community of Inglewood, since it could under the rules increase
its power to about 1.6 kilowatts instead of its present 390 watts.
Second and Third Adjacent Channel Problem -
30. There are'a number of short-spaced FM stations on second and
third adjacent’ channels (400 and 600 ke/s removed). Most of those
on second. adjacent channels. are Class A’s near large metropolitan
areas such as Los Angeles, San’ Francisco, New York, Chicago and
Philadelphia. In a number of these instances the Class B’s are “super-
maximum”, with the Class A located within the 1 mv/m contour of
the large station. The Class A stations could increase their facilities
under the horizontal increase proposal but not under the alternative
proposal which requires protection of the Class B station’s 1 mv/m
contour (or protection of a service radius of 40 miles when the 1
mv/m contour is further out than that). Under the former plan the
interference to the large station would normally increase a fraction
of a mile around the Class A transmitter. There are also a few Class
B and Class C stations removed by two channels and at less than the
40 or 65 miles required. All of these could benefit under the horizon-
tal proposal; some, though by no means all, could benefit under the
other alternative. Most of the stations which are short-spaced at third
40 F.C6.
FH Broadcast Rules et al. 879
adjacent channel separations (600 kc/s) are near large cities in the
crowded sections of the northeast; Washington-Annapolis, Provi-
dence-Framingham, Baltimore-Havre de Grace, Hartford-Spring-
field. A few exist in Zone IT. In most of these cases, either proposal
would be of benefit to the stations involved and to the public.
31. With very few exceptions, all the parties recommend that short-
spacings on second and third adjacent channels be disregarded in any
proposal which is adopted. It was pointed out that this interference
is usually very small, occurs around the transmitter site of‘the station
causing the interference, and that in any event the small amounts of
interference caused are more than offset usually by the advantages of
power increases for all stations. One party likened this type of inter-
ference to a blanket area problem. Kear-and Kennedy in Figures 6
and 7 of their material depict situations between Class B stations
with spacings as low as 25 miles, These figures show the interference
area to be a small portion of the entire service area. Earl Cullum in
reply concedes that the area of interference is small. However, he
points out that in the case of a smal] station causing interference to a
large station, the increase in such interference may mean that the
entire community may be lost to the larger station. This is an impor-
tant factor and. has led us to require that standard spaced stations
on second and third adjacent channels be located beyond the expected
service range of the assigned stations in the Table of Assignments.
However, the situations we are dealing with here are existing ones in
which some interference already exists. And as has been shown fur-
ther, the increase in interference is only in a small ring around the
station, in the order of a few miles to less than 14 mile depending on
the relative facilities of the stations involved. Another great difficulty
with taking into account such assignments is this: in the event a sta-
tion is eńcompasséd by the 1 mv/m contour of another station either
under its existing or expanded facilities, the station cannot improve
its facilities in any direction, and is thus frozen at its present facili-
ties. In the case of co-channel and first adjacent channel separations
this situation cannot occur and a station can usually obtain an in-
crease in some directions. Because of the restrictions which would be
imposed, the usually small amount of additional interference result-
ing, and the overall benefits to be obtained on balance, we will permit
stations to disregard short-spaced stations on second and third adja-
cent channels in making requests for increased facilities. Several par-
ties proposed that we disregard second and third channel interference
except when the two stations are less than 15 miles apart or unless
the interference is caused within a station’s principal city limits.
There are very few cases of such low spacings, and so we do not
believe there is need for any exceptions to the general policy. Fur-
thermore, the interference usually is smaller the closer the stations
are together. Paul Godley Company suggested that for such channels
we protect the 70 dbu contour by not-permitting overlap of the 90
and 110 dbu contours with the 70 dbu contour for second and third
adjacent channels, respectively. We do not believe this limitation is
needed for the same reasons we are rejecting the mileage limitation
above.
40 F.C.C.
880 Federal Communications Commission Reports
Plan Adopied
31. After careful consideration of all the comments and data sub-
mitted by all parties we are adopting a plan which we believe has
facets and advantages of both the horizontal increase and the pro-
tected contour proposals. It does not depend on the consent of any
other station so that any station may apply for increased facilities
at the time it wishes. It affords stations adequate protection of their
service to the public. It is a “go-no go” system so that it is not bur-
densome for either the licensees or the Commission. It provides for
substantial increases for many stations and would permit some im-
provement for most stations. The plan does not create any advantages
for the party which files first. This plan would spell out the maximum
facilities which every station which is now short-spaced could apply
for, depending on the spacings it has with respect to all other stations
(and. irrespective of the facilities of the other stations). This would
be done in accordance with the Table below. If a station wishes to
operate with greater ERP than that which would be permitted for
its mileage bracket, it may do so (up to the’maximum for its class)
by directionalizing so as to reduce the radidtion in the critical direc-
tion to that which would be permitted under the Table. (Directional
antennas must meet the requirements of paragraph (d) of Section
73.316, and increase in radiation away from the critical direction shall
not exceed 2 db per 10 degrees of azimuth. Where a directional
antenna is used radiation in any direction shall not exceed the maxi-
mum ERP for the station’s class).
Facilities to be authorized for short-spaced FM stations
Separation in Miles Facilities Authorized
Ch i Co-Ch: l First Adjacent Power Antenna
lass of Station ‘o-Channe! jj (a Heer th)
4565.. 3 300
Tess than 40 i 30
Less than 40- aN cine &
50 500 Class B
3. 300 Class A.
20 -500 Class B
3 300 Class A
10° 500 Class B
3 300 Class A
100 2,000 Class C
3 809 Class A
50 2,000 Class C
3 — 300 Class A
20 2,000 Class ©
50 500
20 500
10 500
5 500
50 500 Class B
100 2,000 Class ©
20 500 Class B
50 2,000 Class C
10 500 Class B
20 2,000 Class C
5 500 Class B
10 2,000 Class C
FM Broadcast Rules et al. 881
32. The above plan has all the advantages of the horizontal increase
without any of its disadvantages. It also appears to be preferable to
any other plans advanced previously. For one thing, except for the
horizontal increase plan any other proposal would necessitate more
extensive use of directional antennas to protect other short-spaced sta-
tions, unless the station involved were willing to use in all directions
the limited power it would be permitted in the critical direction. The
plan we adopt, by permitting substantial increases for many stations
without directionalization, imposes lesser burdens in this respect
while at the same time giving a short-spaced station an option to
obtain greater facilities by directionalizing if it wishes to do so. The
plan also permits stations to move their sites provided they adjust
their facilities to meet the Table. Usually, since transmitter moves do
not often involve great distances, the station moving will remain in
the same mileage bracket. The Table also provides a “floor” on facil-
ities for stations, regardless of spacing. The plan has many of the
advantages of the Table of Assignments and the minimum spacing
rules for new stations which we have adopted.
33. A study was made of all the spacing problems set out in the
comments herein, with a view toward determining whether the plan
would be of help to the stations and to the public. We found that in
almost all cases stations could get appreciably increased facilities, and
in many cases they could go to the maximum for their class (others
could go to the maximum except in one direction). Our study revealed
very few cases where the plan would result in interference within
stations’ existing 1 mv/m contours, and, while doubtless there will be
some such cases, it appears that they will not be numerous, It is true
that the resulting service ranges of short-spaced stations will be less
than those which we have provided for new stations; descending in
order with the reduced separations; but this is inevitable in dealing
with stations assigned under earlier assignment principles, at consid-
erably less than what are now standard spacings.’ Considering the
advantages mentioned, including the “go-no go” character of the plan
and its simplicity, the concomitant advantage to licensees and the
Commission and improved service to the public, we are of the view
that it clearly is in the public interest.and should be adopted.
| Moves of transmitter sites
84, As mentioned, the plan adopted provides for moves of trans-
mitter sites by short-spaced stations, provided the facilities are ad-
justed to meet the requirements of the Table. It is appropriate to spell
out in more detail the principles which will govern transmitter-site
moves.
(a) No new short spacing may be created to standard spaced
assignments. While we have taken steps herein to deal with the
problems of short-spaced stations assigned under earlier. rules,
For example, a Class: B station with maximum facilities, surrounded. by other
co-channel Class B stations with maximum facilities at standard spacings, woul baye a
- service range of 40 miles, whereas a short-spaced Class E station surrounded by stations
at 100 miles (both with maximum facilities permitted under the Table) would have a
service range of 26 miles.
40 F.C.C.
882 Federal Communications Commission Reports
we do not conceive it to be appropriate, in general, to permit any
new short spacings to be created even though in other directions
spacings might be improved. Any consideration of situations
where a slight new short spacing would. materially improve a
number of existing shortages must be on a case-by-case basis on
requests for waiver. The prohibition in this connection extends
to creation of new second and third adjacent channel. shortages.
While we have concluded that this should not be a consideration
in situations where it already exists, there is no reason to permit
such interference where it did not exist at all within the station’s
normal service range.
(b) Except where the station involved is (or would be after
the move) in one of the low-mileage brackets of the Table (“less
than 40”, “less than 60”, “less than 75”, etc.), a move may be
made with the station’s present facilities unless the move would
put the station into a lower mileage bracket.* In connection with
such a move, the station may request an increase in facilities up
to the maximum for the mileage bracket.
(c) Where a move would shorten an existing substandard
separation so as to put the station in a lower bracket, the station
must adjust its facilities so as to meet the maximum for that
bracket. If it is now lower than the new maximum, it may request
an increase up to that figure. Further limitations will apply in
the case of stations in the low- mileage brackets, as mentioned in
(d) below.
(d) Where a station is (or would be after the move) in one of
the low-mileage brackets of the Table, it will be permitted a move
which shortens the separation by no more than three miles, with-
out restriction on its facilities other than the maximum provided
for these brackets in the Table (e.g., for co-channel Class B sta-
tions less than 75 miles apart, 5 kilowatts and 500 feet effective
antenna height). If the move is greater than this, the station
must reduce its facilities to a level which will be, in the pertinent
direction, no more than the equivalent of operation from the
former-site with the maximum permitted facilities. For example,
a Class B station moving closer under these circumstances would
have its 1 mv/m contour in the pertinent direction no further out
than it would operating from its former site with 5 kilowatts and
500 feet. The stations falling in these lower brackets are not
numerous, and it is in these cases—where extremely short separa-
tions are involved—that greater restrictions are necessary in
order ‘to avoid substantial adverse impact on other stations.
6As mentioned, in general it may be expected that transmitter moves will not usually
be of any great distance; and therefore the effect thereof on other short-spaced stations
will be small. For example, in the case of co-channel Class B stations about 120 miles
apart, a decrease of 10 miles in the separation means a- reduction in the service range
of the affected station of only 2 miles. Therefore it is not appropriate to impose any
over-all reduction from present facilities. However, we do not wish to: encourage site
changes which will shorten existing substandard spacings, and we assume such moves
will not be undertaken except for substantial reasons. As mentioned in the text below,
the Commission reserves the right to deny any such application if, considering all of the
pertinent factors including inereased interference, it appears that such a move would
net be in the public interest.
40 F.C.C.
FM Broadcast Rules et al. 883
(e) In connection with any application for change in trans-
mitter site which would increase an existing short separation, the
Commission reserves the right to deny such an application if,
considering all pertinent factors inciuding effect on other sta-
tions, it appears that the public interest would not be served
thereby.
Proposals Made in Supplement To Third Further Notice
35. In the Order Extending Time for Filing Comments and Sup-
plement to Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making issued
in this proceeding on March 25, 1964 (FCC 64-240) there were three
proposals made on which comments were invited. First, Kear and
Kennedy had proposed a rule which would have permitted existing
short-spaced stations to change their sites in the event it became
necessary because of zoning or other requirements. The plan we are
adopting provides the conditions for moves and so we need not dis-
cuss this matter further. The second Kear and Kennedy proposal was
to permit stations which as a result of a move wished to increase their
antenna height, to utilize powers equal to the minimum for their class
up to antenna heights of 750 feet, with appropriate reductions above
this height. The Commission invited comments on alternative to this
proposal which would have permitted the use of minimum powers for
all heights above the maximum in the rules. The purpose of the two
latter proposals was to encourage stations to utilize high antenna
heights to improve service. Kear and Kennedy point out, and rightly
so, that if the minimum power is permitted for any height, stations
would soon have a combination of power and height which is greater
than those for a standard-spaced station. They therefore recommend
that if consideration is given to their proposal to permit minimum
power up to 750 feet or above, in no event would the power be permit-
ted to exceed the values determined from Figure 3 of Section 73.333
of the rules. Upon consideration of the comments filed and the plan
which we are adopting, we believe that there is no special rule needed
along the lines of encouraging high antenna heights. ‘The proposal
was apparently prompted by the availability in some areas of partic-
ularly suitable tall sites such as the Empire State Building in New
York. The rules we are adopting for short-spaced stations do permit
a combination of at least 10 kw and 500 feet for the bulk of the short
spaced stations now existing. This is roughly equivalent of the 5 kw
and 750 feet combination advocated by Kear and Kennedy. In the
event some situations exist for which the plan would: permit only 5
kw and 500 feet or the equivalent, these can be considered on an indi-
vidual basis as they come to our attention. ?
Legal considerations
36. For reasons stated at length above, we are of the view that the
„opportunity afforded by the plan adopted herein for increases in
facilities and over-all improvement in service is clearly in the public
interest, and that the benefits therefrom outweigh the relatively
40 F.C.0,
884 Federal Communications Commission Reports
small amounts of interference which will usually result. As men-
tioned, it appears that only in relatively few cases would interference
be caused within an existing station’s 1 mv/m contour. In the Third
Further Notice we tentatively discussed the rights of FM licensees to
object to applications for increased facilities by short-spaced stations
on the grounds that such proposals would cause interference within
their 1 mv/m contours. (See FN 5, Third Further Notice.) On
reflection, we have decided not to attempt to resolve the rights of
such objections at this time. They instead will be resolved if pre-
sented in a specific case.
Deletion of assignment where construction permit or license
is surrendered
37. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making issued Au-
gust 1, 1962 (FCC 62-867) the Commission said with respect to
short-spaced stations which turn in their licenses or construction
permits:
We propose to adopt a rule to the effect that, when a construction permit
or license for a station on the 80 commercial FM channels is voluntarily
relinquished by the holder thereof, or is vacated by final Commission action
in a renewal or revocation proceeding, the channel specified in the permit or
license will automatically cease to be assigned to the community specified in
the Table, and the Commission will give notice of that fact and will issue a
Notice of Proposed Rule Making looking toward determination of whether
the channel should remain assigned to that community or should be assigned
elsewhere.
The above statement of policy does not distinguish between stations
which meet the standard spacings adopted in 1962, and those which
are short-spaced. In any event, no final rule was adopted in this
connection. Nor do we believe that a rule would be particularly
useful. The action we take in any situation should depend upon the
number of assignments in the area, the need for assignments else-
where, the shortages involved and other considerations. It therefore
appears appropriate to treat these cases as they come up. The plan
we are adopting would permit such an assignment to remain im a
community where it is needed and would spell out the permissible
facilities, in any event another party receives a grant on the assign-
ment in question. ; :
38. We wish to emphasize that we are not in any way departing
from the assignment principles previously adopted in connection with
the Table of Assignments nor will we entertain petitions to assign
channels to communities at spacings less than those adopted. ‘The
procedure outlined herein is aimed at permitting existing stations
which were licensed under previous rules and standards to increase
their facilities and improve the service they are rendering to the
public in those cases where the previous rules would have permitted
such increases and in some other cases where the public would benefit
thereby. The basic principles and allocation plan adopted in the
Third Report remain our objectives for the FM broadcasting service.
39. Authority for the adoption of the amendments herein 1s con-
tained in Sections 4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1984,
as amended.
40 F.C.C.
FM Broadcast Rules et al. 885
40. In view of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED, That effective
November 16, 1964, Part 73 of the Commission’s Rules and Regu-
lations IS AMENDED as set forth in the attached Appendix.
FEDERAL Communications Commission,
Ben F. Warre, Secretary.
APPENDIX
1. § 73,202, Table of Assignments, is amended to include the following entries:
Alaska: `
ANCHO mananan sun arses E ato 263, 267, 271, 2884
Ea 1 BAREEN E ET EE E A 285A
Cordova.. 2 265A
Fairbanks. 262, 266
Juneau... 282, 286
Ketchikan- 290, 294
Nome.._- 262
Seward. 276A
like os soe ses eens Soa oS ee cee Seto tiec be soon 284
Hawaii:
ilo; HANM 205-2. 2ceecier AnA A A AN 246, 250
Kealakekua; HANAN coni reaa a ele n E a a aea 221A
Honolulu, Oahu-
Kailua, Oahu..
Waipahu, Oahu-
Lihue, Kavai..
Makawao, Mau
Wailuka; Maui-s2 22220 coco eee aces a e AE AEA EAE OS 236
U.S. Territories and Possessions
Guam:
ET T. EE ENS P V A A O AAA EAA AA E EREA E 230, 238
Puerto Rico:
AU asaan a e a A a a a O SAS E a 275
Aguadilla. - 225, 262
Arecibo.._- - 293, 297
Bayamon.. - 234, 264
Caguas £ 277
oamo - 223
Fajardo. __ - 243
Guayama. - 295
Humacao.. - 299
Isabella- - 268
Manati- - Presa 245
Mayaguez. 231, 248, 256
Poncé@sss5-4— 227, 270, 286
Rio: Piedras): 226222: Loto sabes. oe E esos tee lee see stesso 239
San German 236
San Juan_- 260, 273, 284, 289
Utued0:.o22222b5 hie oe ess A A AIRE E reset eae 281
Vauootan 22.6 Sooge oleae es eke S E T vet sewedoses 241
Virgin Islands:
Gharlotte-Amalie!=..02..2 8 L2ss24 season tech boeseee ets 250, 266
Cliristiansted... “24-62. .62 aa nee as etcetece st 2sse kee’ 258, 291
2, In §73.205, paragraphs (b) and (c) are amended to read as follows:
§73.205 Zones,
* * kod * ia igi *
_.(b) Zone 1-A consists of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and that por-
tion of the State of California which is located south of the 40th parallel,
(c) Zone 11 consists of Alaska, Hawaii and the rest of the United
States which is not located in either Zone 1 or Zone 1-A,
$73.207 [Amendment]
40 F.C.C,
279-022—70 58
886 Federal Communications Commission Reports
3. In §73.207, paragraph (b) is deleted. and paragraph (e) is redesignated
as paragraph (b).
4. In §73.211, paragraph (b) (3) is added and paragraph (d) is amended to
read as follows:
873.211 Power and antenna height requirements.
* * i * * * + *
(b) Maximum power and antenna height, * * *
(8) In Puerto Rico antenna heights may be used up to 2000 feet above
average terrain with effective radiated powers up to 25 kw. For antenna
heights above 2000 feet the power shall be reduced so that the station’s
i mv/m contour (located pursuant to Figure 1 of §73.333) will be no
further from the station’s transmitter than with the facilities of 25 kw
and antenna height of 2000 feet.
* * kd + * + *
{d) Ewisting stations. Stations authorized as of September 10, 1962,
which do not conform to the requirements of this section, may continue
to operate as authorized; but any application to change facilities will be
subject to the provisions of this section, except that the minimum power
specified in paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to an applica-
tion to increase facilities,
5. A new §73.213 is added:
§78.213 Stations at spacings below the minimum separations,
(a) Stations which are separated from other co-channel or adjacent
channel stations less than the minimum distances specified in §73.207 may
apply for changes in facilities provided the requested facilities conform
with the following table:
Facilities to be authorized for short-spaced FM stations
Separation in Miles Facilities Authorized
Class of Station Co-Channel First Adjacent Power Antenna
(kw) Height (ft)
3 800
2 3800
i 300
3 ` 300 Class A
50 500 Class B
3 300 Class A
20 ` 500 Class B
3 800 Class A
10 500 Class B
3 300 Class A
100 2,000 Class C
3 300 Class A
50 2,000 Class C
3 300 Class A
20 2,000 Class C
50. ` 500
20 500
10 500
5 50
10 2,000 Class C
- 2 100 2,000
(b) Stations authorized facilities in excess of those specified in this
section may continue to operate with such facilities.
(ec) Stations may elect to operate omnidirectionally with facilities no
greater than the least they should be permitted in any direction under
paragraph (a) of this section. Greater facilities (up to the maximum
40 F.C.C.
FM Broadcast Rules et al. 887
specified in §73.211(b) for their class) may be used if, by use of a direc-
tional antenna, radiation in any direction in which a short separation
exists is reduced to no more than that permitted under paragraph (a) of
this section. Applications for use of directional antennas must be in con-
formance with §73.316(d); in addition, the increase in radiation off the
line between the shori-spaced stations shal) not exceed 2 db per 10 degrees
of azimuth; and in no event shall radiation in any direction exceed the
maximum permitted under §73.211(b) for the particular class of station.
(d) Stations will be authorized maximum facilities for their class in
those directions in which they are short-spaced to other stations on sec-
ond or third adjacent channels.
(e) The powers listed in the table are the maximums to be authorized.
Antenna heights may be used exceeding those specified in the table for
equivalence purposes, provided the effective radiated power is reduced in
the amount necessary to place the 1 mv/m contour at no greater distance
as determined by use of Figure 1 of §73.838. The antenna height value to
be used is that above average terrain and not that in any particular direc-
tion. Where antenna heights below 100 feet are encountered (or negative
heights) an assumed value of 100 feet above average terrain shall be
assumed for the purposes of this paragraph.
(£) The following provisions will govern applications for move of trans-
mitter site:
(1) No application to move wili be accepted which creates short spacing
to standard spaced stations and assignments less than the distances speci-
fied in §78.207, including second and third adjacent channel separations.
This provision applies even if in other respects the application would be
acceptable under this paragraph.
(2) Stations short-spaced with respect to other stations under §78.207
may apply to move transmitter site, even though by the move the separa-
tion would be further shortened, under the following conditions and with
the following facilities:
(i) Where the short separation is second or third adjacent channel,
with any facilities up to the maximum permitted under §73.211.
(ii) Where the short separation is co-channel or first adjacent channel,
stations may apply for facilities up to the maximum for the mileage
bracket in which they would fall after the move, as specified in paragraph
(a) of this section, or with their present facilities if they are not moving
so far as to fall into a lower bracket. (See subparagraph (iii) of this
paragraph for further restrictions on very shortspaced stations.)
(iii) The provisions of this subparagraph apply where the resulting
separation after the move would be less than: co-channel, 40 miles Class
A to Class A, 75 miles Class B to Class B, 90 miles Class B to Class © or
vice versa, or 100 miles Class C to Class O; first-adjacent channel, 40 miles
Class A to Class B or vice versa, 50 miles Class B to Class B, 60 miles
Class A or B to Class ©, or vice versa, and 75 miles Class C to Class O.
Stations ‘so situated may apply to move and use either their present
+ facilities or no more than those specified for their mileage bracket in para-
` graph (a) of this section, if the move would not decrease the short
distance by more than three miles, If the move would decrease the short
distance a greater amount, a station will be permitted no more than the
facilities which would give it, in the critical direction, a 1 mv/m contour
located no further out than that which would result from using the former
location and the maximum facilities specified for the mileage bracket.
40 F.C.C,