WPCb 2MBVRKZ3|a# 7jC:,Xj\  P6G;XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4M (PCL) (Additional)HL4MPCAD.PRSXj\  P6G;\#'DXP2> K Z3|m#/ "i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN"o$K$"i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\Times New RomanCG TimesTimes New Roman BoldCG Times BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold Italic"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn720Ku'K)K , KV."i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^5Fg\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyyyyF\yrrygryyrr>3>g\>\\Q\Q>\g33\3g\\\FF3gQy\QF>(>g>0gg>>>0>>>>>>\>\3y\y\y\y\y\yQyQyQyQyQF3F3F3F3g\\\\ggggrQy\\\\rQ\r\y\y\y\yQyQygyQyQyQyQyQ\\\g\ggF3F\F>F\gggy\r3r_r>rFr3ggg\\yFyFyFgFgFgFggrcr3rgggggggyrgrFrFrF\r>ggFr>r\0\\=3=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB\\F\\\\\\07\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBigg>\\7"yyyy\nyc\gnn\"i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNz\fgffgf\yQzQyQfz\ff\z\\}=\\===WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\\\=\NN\\\\\\@\\\\@==ii\00\\pp\\\sff=i\@"\i\4\==p=\\f\z\=\Q\i~XzpNm\\\====pzfpfzQzGzQQQG3QzffQz\Qpp\p\\zQQzpfpppzG\pQpppp==\\\\\\\p=p\Q=Tgnj}}ccyyTjcc;T;TXFu"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/g,?2?2>,H2H2H2H2H2J2J2!2222!2I822F2>>$?2@>J2:J2J2H2H2YHB$B$C26&6&6&62>$>?2J2J2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,@,@,J2?2J262?2H2<!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22==Ld2d2H2;SS88Y!42^x#"ddddHHddd2Hdd4HHYYddd2YYddd Y2!!dddddH=dYHHHHHHHHHH!d2H282YdHdC2!2H,29HNAddHHHHHHHHHHddddd.dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddSC=NdHddd+;HHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!HHH!HHH!HHH!HHHHHHHHHHHHHH=?8=8C,?'A,J2H,!F,C8[8J,C2H,H=92=22?,H,C=H8N===H?J!2HHH=,====I!!2222HJ222HHH=!92,!ddhrZz.lZrrvvnFFZ8( / yO'ԍ 13 FCC Rcd at 23,097.> Moreover, because NTIA does not license the stations about  xwhich it collects information, it has no legal mechanism to ensure their participation or the accuracy of  xginformation reported. Under these circumstances, we continue to believe that, while NTIA's data may  x&complement that of the Commission derived from our revised ownership form, NTIA's data are not a  xsubstitute for that of the Commission. Rather, the Commission, which licenses broadcasters and has a  xstatutory duty to ensure that it does so in a manner that disseminates licenses "among a wide variety of  x^applicants, including . . . businesses owned by members of minority groups and women," is appropriately  xVand uniquely situated to collect information on the gender and race of the attributable owners of its  Sl' xtlicensees. Further, as we explained in the Streamlining Order, we continue to believe that collection of  xQthis information will not unduly burden broadcasters, because our new form will not require broadcasters  S' xto obtain information from anyone whose interests are not already reportable.2 / {O^%'ԍ Id.2 We thus affirm our  S'decision to require the submission of race and gender data for attributable owners of broadcast stations. "J ,l(l(,,N"Ԍ S' ę B. REVISED CONSTRUCTION PERIODS  S' "<20. Section 319 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  319, provides that  xkthe Commission (except in certain carefully defined circumstances) cannot grant a license for a broadcast  xQstation without specifying the operating and construction parameters for the facility, including the date on  xDwhich the facility must be completed and ready for operation. Section 319 also states that a construction  x3permit "will be automatically forfeited if the station is not ready for operation within the time specified  xor within such further time as the Commission may allow, unless prevented by causes not under the  Sh' x*control of the grantee."Dh/ yO'ԍ 47 U.S.C.  319(a), (b).D Prior to adoption of the Streamlining Order, the Commission's rules established  xa construction period of 24 months for a fullpower television station and 18 months for other broadcast  S' xtfacilities. If the station was not "ready for operation" within that period, it was to be declared forfeit.TX/ yO 'ԍ 47 C.F.R.  73.3598, 73.3599 (1997).T  xA permittee could request additional time if it failed to complete construction by the established date by  xfiling FCC Form 307. Additional time would be authorized if the permittee demonstrated one of the  xfollowing three conditions: (1) construction is complete and testing is underway looking toward the prompt  S6 ' xfiling of a license application; (2) substantial progress has been made, i.e., demonstration that equipment  xis on order or on hand, site acquired, site cleared, and construction proceeding to completion; or (3) no  xxprogress has been made for reasons clearly beyond the control of the permittee (such as delays caused by  x7governmental budgetary processes and zoning problems), but the permittee has taken all possible steps to  Sj' x3resolve the problem expeditiously and proceed with construction.Jj/ yO'ԍ 47 C.F.R.  73.3534(b) (1997).J A permittee making a satisfactory  S7' x^showing under these criteria would be afforded up to an additional six months to complete construction.J7x/ yOO'ԍ 47 C.F.R.  73.3534(d) (1997).J  xFurthermore, the rules afforded permittees an additional six months to construct from the grant of a  xmodification application and an additional one year to construct from consummation of an assignment or  S' xVtransfer.@/ yOF' x. ԍ Because the grant of a modification or assignment/transfer could have the practical effect of extending a permit  x beyond its authorized period, the rules established a bifurcated scheme of evaluating these applications: if the  x modification or assignment/transfer application was filed within the first half of the construction period (twelve  xQ months for fullpower television stations, 9 months for other broadcast services), the rules required only that the  xM permittee (or assignee/transferee) certify that it would commence construction immediately upon grant of the  xo modification or consummation of the assignment/transfer. If the modification or assignment/transfer application was  x; filed after that time, the rules dictated that the permittee make the "oneinthree" showing in addition to the requisite  yO'certification. See 47 C.F.R.  73.3535 (1997). Where an applicant failed to apply for an extension or make the necessary showing, the  xCommission's longstanding practice, despite the automatic forfeiture provision of Section 319(b) of the  xAct, was to declare a broadcast construction permit forfeit rather than considering it to have lapsed and  S'been forfeit automatically.X/ yO#' x ԍ See Streamlining Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 23,089; see also Edward A Baker v. FCC, 834 F.2d 181 (D.C. Cir.  yO}$' x 1987); MGTV Broadcasting Company v. FCC, 408 F.2d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 1968); Mass Communicators, Inc. v. FCC,  yOE%'266 F.2d 681 (D.C. Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 828 (1959) .  "I21. While the ostensibly strict extension policies were designed to encourage prompt construction"0,l(l(,,K"  S' xof broadcast facilities, see generally Broadcast Construction Periods, 102 FCC 2d 1054 (1985), we found,  S' xas stated in the Streamlining Order, that a significant number of permittees did not succeed in constructing  xtheir proposed facilities prior to permit expiration. As a result, we continued to receive large numbers of  xextension applications each year and substantial staff resources were required for the factintensive analysis  S4' xinvolved in processing and disposing of these applications.>4/ yO'ԍ 13 FCC Rcd at 23,088.> Thus, to reduce the time spent in applicant  S' xpreparation and staff study of extension applications, we determined in the Streamlining Order to: (1)  xapply a uniform threeyear term to all construction permits; (2) exclude from the calculation of this term  xthose periods during which the permit itself was the subject of administrative or judicial review or where  Sh' xconstruction delays were caused by an "act of God," i.e., "toll" the construction period for these events;  x(3) eliminate the practice of providing extra time for construction after a permit has been modified or  S' xDassigned/transferred; and (4) make construction permits subject to automatic forfeiture upon expiration.X/ yO ' x ԍ See Streamlining Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 23,09192; see also the revised text of 47 C.F.R.  73.3598 as adopted  yO 'in the Streamlining Order. Petitioners challenge the scope of application of the new rules and the tolling provisions of the new rules.  Si ' 1. Scope of New Rules  S ' "22. Background. Though in the NPRM in this proceeding we had "tentatively concluded" and  S ' xsought comment on whether we should apply the revised rules to all permits still within the initial  xconstruction period, but not those beyond that period, 13 FCC Rcd 11349, 11374, we ultimately concluded  Sj' xin the Streamlining Order that "the fairer approach is to allow all permittees to take advantage of the  S7' xextended construction period." 13 FCC Rcd at 23,091. Thus, all existing permittees would be allowed  x/three unencumbered years to complete construction and would be subject to the revised extension  x*procedures. While this gave many permittees the benefit of an extended period, it also placed in jeopardy  x@construction permits that had been outstanding for an extended period and yet never implemented; we  x+stated that "[n]o additional time will be granted when the permittee has had, in all, at least three  S8'unencumbered years to construct." 13 FCC Rcd at 23,093.   S' "_23. Pleadings. Petitioners challenge the application of the new rules to existing permits outside  S' x@the initial construction period on various grounds. Several petitioners charge that the NPRM provided  xinsufficient notice that the new rules would be applied to all outstanding construction permits, not just to  xthose in their initial period, and therefore that the Commission must establish a new noticeandcomment  S' x"period under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C.  551 et seq. / yOV' x  ԍ See Petitions of Aspen FM, Inc. ("Aspen FM") at 49; Browne Mountain Television ("Browne") at 35;  x Brunson Communications, Inc. ("Brunson") at 910; Family First at 45; Michael L. Horvath ("Horvath") at 6; Isaac  x Max Jaramillo ("Jaramillo") at 910; Pollock Broadcasting Co. ("Pollock") at 910; Starr County Historical Foundation, Inc. ("Starr") at 911; and Sungilt Corporation, Inc. ("Sungilt") at 45. These and other  xpetitioners also charge that the application of the revised rules to permits issued and extended under the  S' x"oneinthree" rules violates the APA prohibition on retroactive rule making.X/ yO#' x ԍ See Petitions of Aspen FM at 1012; Brunson at 1012; Horvath at 35; Jaramillo at 1012; Long Island  x* Multimedia, LLC ("Long Island") at 78; Milwaukee Area Technical College ("Milwaukee") at 5; Pollock at 1012' Royce International Broadcasting Co. ("Royce") at 1218; Starr at 1112; Sungilt at 56; and ZSpanish at 89. They state that "legislative  xrules" ones, as here, adopted pursuant to noticeandcomment rule making procedures must be applied  S:' xprospectively only and that the Streamlining Order impermissibly "reaches back" into the history of a": ,l(l(,,"  xtpermittee who took actions believing that further extensions could be obtained under the "oneinthree"  xstandard. Some petitioners claim that it is inequitable not to continue to take into account for existing  xpermittees circumstances that, under the old rules, were sufficient to justify an extension, since these  xxpermittees invested time and money, formulating business plans, on the basis of existing rules that enabled  S4' xthem to receive extensions.X4/ yO' xM ԍ See Petitions of Brown at 56; Brunson at 57; Central Florida at 59; Covenant at 68; Family First at 57;  x Floyco Inc. at 34; Horvath at 35; Jaramillo at 57; KM at 911; Harry J. and Stella A. Pappas ("Pappas") at 710; Pollock at 57; Reece at 34; Starr at 67; UP Wireless at 37; and Workman at 57. Several petitioners claim that the forfeiture of authorizations resulting from  xthe application of the revised construction period to outstanding construction permits amounts to a "taking"  S' xwithout due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution./ yOV ' xQ ԍ See Petitions of Aspen FM at 1214; Covenant Network ("Covenant") at 56; Horvath at 56; and Withers at 68. Two  S'permittees filed requests that the decision to apply the revised rules to existing permittees be stayed.G@/ yO{ 'ԍ See note 1, supra.G  S5' "24. Discussion. Insufficient notice. We reject petitioners' claim that the NPRM provided  xinsufficient notice that the rules would be applied to all outstanding permits and therefore violated the  xAPA. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, as well as several other circuits, have held that  xAPA notice requirements are satisfied where the final rule is a "logical outgrowth" of the proposed rule.  Sj ' xgPublic Service Commission of the District of Columbia v. FCC, 906 F.2d 713, 717 (D.C. Cir. 1990).Yj / yP' x #B7  PT6Q MP#э# X\  P6G;P# Cf. South Terminal Corp v. EPA, 504 F. 2d 646, 659 (1st Cir. 1974) (the first case to use the "logical  yO' x| outgrowth" formula); accord, BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Costle, supra; Taylor Diving & Salvage Co. v. United States  yOk'Department of Labor, 599 F.2d 622, 626 (5th Cir. 1979). #d PE37 MP#  xA final rule will be deemed the logical outgrowth of a proposed rule if a new round of notice and  x^comment would not provide commenters with their first opportunity to offer new and different criticisms  S ' xthat the agency might find convincing. American Water Works Association v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266, 1274  S ' x(D.C. Cir. 1994); Fertilizer Institute v. EPA, 935 F.2d 1303, 1311 (D.C. Cir. 1991).LY / yP/' xQ #B7  PT6Q MP#э# X\  P6G;P# Compare American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Donovan, 757 F.2d 330,  yO' x^ 339 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (when notice of proposed rule making contained "no indication" that changes to specific rule  yO'provisions were being considered, modification of those regulations held not a "logical outgrowth" of proposal.)#d PE37 MP#L Alternatively, courts  xwill consider "whether parties affected by a final rule were put on notice that 'their interests were at  S8' xstake.'" American Medical Association v. U.S., 887 F.2d 760, 768 (7th Cir. 1989) (citing Spartan  S' xRadiocasting Co. v. FCC, 619 F.2d 314, 321 (4th Cir. 1980) and South Terminal Corp. v. EPA, supra,  S' x504 F.2d at 659). See also American Iron and Steel Institute v. EPA, 568 F.2d 284, 293 (3d Cir. 1977)  x(agency's notice must "fairly apprise interested persons of the 'subjects and issues' [of the rule  Sl'making].") l/ yP"' x #B7  PT6Q MP#э# X\  P6G;P# Accord, Consolidated Coal Co. v. Costle, 604 F.2d 239, 248 (4th Cir. 1979), rev'd on other grounds sub nom.  yO"'EPA v. National Crushed Stone Association, 449 U.S. 64 (1980).#d PE37 MP#ў  "25. Clearly, our decision to apply the revised rules to all outstanding permits was a logical  S' x*outgrowth of the "tentative conclusion" in the NPRM. In the NPRM, we stated: "Because many [permits  xbeyond their initial construction period] have already been afforded a construction period close to (or in  xmany instances, in excess of) the threeyear term proposed in this notice, we propose to continue to apply"m k ,l(l(,,"  x&our current rules to construction permits that are beyond their initial periods." 13 FCC Rcd at 11374.  xHowever, we specifically invited comment on that proposal, and several parties filed comments in  S' xresponse to the invitation. See Streamlining Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 23,09192. Therefore, a new round  xof comments would not provide commenters with their first opportunity to address the proposed ruling.  "26. Likewise, the invitation of comment on our "tentative conclusion" apprised anyone interested  xthat the application of the new rules to existing permittees beyond the initial construction period was an  xcissue "on the table" and a subject ripe for comment. That our ultimate conclusion differed from the  S5' x@NPRM's "tentative conclusion" does not indicate that the notice was inadequate. An agency "need not  xtsubject every incremental change in its conclusions after each round of notice and comment to further  S' xpublic scrutiny before final action. Wayerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1031 (D.C. Cir. 1978);  S ' xBrazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. Southwestern Power Administration, 819 F. 2d 537, 5423 (5th  xpCir. 1987). To require in each case a new notice and a new round of comments after revision of a  S6 ' xproposed rule would unduly burden and delay the rule making process. Id. See also Public Service  S 'Commission of the District of Columbia v. FCC, 906 F.2d 713, 7178 (D.C. Cir. 1990).  S ' "27. Retroactivity. We also reject the contention that application of the revised rules to all  x3outstanding permits constitutes impermissible retroactive rule making. As petitioners note, "legislative  xrules" adopted pursuant to noticeandcomment rule making procedures are "primarily retroactive" and thus  xpimpermissible when they "change [ ] the past legal consequences of past actions" without statutory  S' xauthority to do so. See generally Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 U.S. 204, 208, 219  x(Scalia, J, concurring) (1988). Such is not the case here. We are not in this matter "changing the past  Sl' xDlegal consequences of past actions." For example, we did not invalidate any extensions granted under the  x^former "oneinthree" standard and declare those permits forfeit. Neither did we examine existing permits  xMand retroactively cancel those of permittees who had already had at least three unencumbered years in  xwhich to construct their stations or in any other way "reach back" into a past construction period and alter  S'the legal consequences of those actions which previously justified extensions.  S:' "+28. Nor are our rules impermissible under the standard for "secondary" retroactivity, i.e., they  S' xdo not unreasonably affect the future legal consequences of past actions. Id. We recognize that the  S' xStreamlining Order may force some permittees who have received repeated extensions under the old  xstandards, and who may have formulated business plans based on the expectation that they would continue  xto receive extensions indefinitely, to instead find a way to resolve existing problems and construct  ximmediately or lose their permits in the near future. However, there is ample precedent that upsetting  S' xexpectations that current rules or laws would continue is not unlawful retroactive rule making.Y!@/ yOp' xt ԍ Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 269 & n. 24 (1994) (a law does not act retrospectively merely  yO8' x because it is applied in a case arising from conduct antedating its enactment or upsets expectations based in prior  x law; rather, the issue is whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its  yO ' x  enactment"); DIRECTTV, Inc. v. FCC, 110 F.3d 816, 826 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ("a new rule or law is not retroactive  yO!' x 'merely because it . . . upsets expectations based on prior law,'" quoting Landgraf); Chemical Waste Management,  yOX"' x Inc. v. EPA, 869 F.2d 1526, 1536 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ("it is often the case that a business will undertake a certain  x course of conduct based on the current law and will then find its expectations frustrated when the law changes. This has never been thought to constitute retroactive lawmaking"). Y  xMoreover, grant of repeated construction extensions was by no means certain even under our old rules.  S' xTherefore, business plans based on the expectation of an indeterminate construction period were per se  xunreasonable and there is no legal support for the charge that the Commission acted unlawfully in enacting the revised rules."< !,l(l(,,"Ԍ S'   S' "A29. Nonetheless, though not legally compelled to do so, we will provide relief to permittees  xholding valid initial authorizations or extensions on February 16, 1999, the effective date of the  Sg' xStreamlining Order, including permittees whose authorizations have already expired but for which  S4' xtforfeiture is not final."4/ yO'ԍ We take this action pursuant to the discretion vested in us by 47 U.S.C.  319(b). See infra paras. 3536. Pursuant to the action we take today, these permittees' authorizations will now  S' xbe automatically forfeit either (a) one year from the effective date of this Order or (b) on the existing  xexpiration date, whichever is later. Furthermore, concerning the additional time hereby granted, permittees  S' xmay employ the tolling provisions adopted in the Streamlining Order as revised infra.L#X/ yO 'ԍ See infra paras. 3141.L Our action in no  xway signals a retreat from our view that three years is an adequate time to construct. Rather, it reflects  xour acknowledgement of the fact that, because of the uncertainty engendered by various petitions for  xreconsideration objecting specifically to application of the new rules to existing permits, some permittees  xmay not have taken all actions necessary to meet their existing construction deadlines. We also want to  xensure beyond any doubt that permittees who may in fact have invested significant time and money  xconstructing facilities under the old rules and who are in imminent danger of losing their permits have a  S6 'final opportunity to bring service to the public.$6 / yO' x ԍ In light of this action, which in essence grants petitioners ZSpanish and Withers the relief they seek, their stay requests will be dismissed as moot.  S ' "[30. Unconstitutional taking. Finally, we reject petitioners' claims that forfeiture of existing  xQpermits pursuant to the new rules may lead to an unconstitutional taking of private property. We recently  xaddressed the issue of whether Commission licensees have a property interest in their authorizations that  xcan support such a claim when Commission action results in loss of the authorization. We reiterate here  S' xZour statements in Reauction of Defaulted PCS CBlock Licenses, 12 FCC Rcd 17,688, 17,692 (1997), concerning the auctioning of certain wireless communications authorizations:  ""  Section 301 of the Communications Act provides that no license granted pursuant to the act "shall  "be construed to create any right beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license."  S' "/Furthermore, courts have long held that licensees have no property interest in their licenses [citing  S' "FCC v. Sanders Brothers Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 475 (1940); Quincy Cable TV, Inc. v.  S' "yFCC, 768 F.2d 1434, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1985), National Association of Broadcasters v. FCC, 740  "F.2d 1190,1198 (D.C. Cir. 1984).] Consequently, [there was no] . . . property interest in any of  ""the 18 licenses that were the subject of the reauction. As such, the decision to reauction does not  "and indeed could not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation.     Sn' xSee also Mass Communicators, Inc. v. FCC, 408 F.2d at 126465 n. 21 ("[a] license is merely a temporary  S;' x*permission to make use of rights belonging to the public, and confers no proprietary interest"); Joseph F.  S' xBryant, 6 FCC Rcd 6121, 6123 (1991) ("[a] broadcast license does not confer a property right. Rather,  S' xit is a valuable, though limited, privilege to utilize the airwaves"); Marr Broadcasting Co., Inc., 2 FCC  xcRcd 3466, 3467 (Rev. Bd. 1987) ("[l]ittle discussion is necessary to affirm that a broadcast license  So' x3incorporates no property rights, 47 U.S.C.  301, 304 . . . .")%o@/ yOO&' xx ԍ 47 U.S.C.  304 requires applicants to "waive any claims to the use of any particular frequency . . . as against the regulatory power of the United States because of the previous use of the same, whether by license or otherwise." &o/ yO' x ԍ Although a broadcast permit or license does not confer a property right on its holder, procedural due process  x rights inherent in the APA attach when the Commission changes the terms or conditions of a permit or license. For  x example, the dismissal of an application is a sufficiently grave sanction to trigger "[t]raditional concepts of due  x process incorporated into administrative law" that "preclude an agency from penalizing a private party for violating  yO' x a rule without first providing adequate notice of the rule." Satellite Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC, 824 F.2d 1, 2  yOx' x (D.C. Cir. 1987); Radio Athens, Inc. v. FCC, 401 F.2d 398, 404 (D.C. Cir. 1968). Thus, while "a license confers  xt no 'property right,' and [. . .] licensees accept their licenses subject to the Commission's regulations . . . [those  x regulations] are subject to amendment [only] by rule making in which licensees may be heard." That having been  yO' x accomplished, all procedural requirements have been met here. Amendment of Section 97.1114 of the Amateur  yO' x Radio Service Rules, 59 RR 2d 436, 437 (1985), citing United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U.S. 192, 202 yO` '04 (1956); WBEN Inc. v. United States, 396 F.2d 601, 618 (2d Cir. 1968).  Since permittees have no property"o ( &,l(l(,,"  xinterest in their construction permits, forfeiture of the permit upon expiration of the term cannot constitute  xa "taking." Moreover, because construction permits are by their own terms granted for a limited period, when the permit expires, even the privilege to construct a station conferred by the permit ceases.  S4' 2. Tolling Provisions    S' " 31. Background. As noted above, in the Streamlining Order we adopted a system by which the  xthreeyear construction period will be "tolled" in the event that construction delays are caused by an act  xof God or the permit itself is the subject of administrative or judicial review. An act of God was defined  S5' xin terms of natural disasters (e.g., floods, tornados, hurricanes, or earthquakes). Administrative or judicial  xreview includes (1) petitions for reconsideration and applications for review of a permit or extension grant,  xand any subsequent court appeal thereof; or (2) any cause of action pending before any court of competent  xjurisdiction relating to any necessary local, state, or federal requirement for the construction or operation  Si ' xof the station, including any environmental requirement. We indicated in the Streamlining Order that we  xbelieved the threeyear construction period provided sufficient time for permittees to overcome other  xZobstacles to construction and therefore that we did not need to permit tolling for those circumstances.  x&Regarding zoning, we specifically stated that "a threeyear construction period provides ample time to  xcomplete [the zoning approval] process and construct the station or choose a new site free of zoning  x@difficulties." 13 FCC Rcd at 23,052. However, we noted that, in keeping with our decision to toll the  x&threeyear period for administrative or judicial review, "the pendency of an appeal in a local court of a  S'final zoning board determination would qualify for tolling." Id.  S' "32. Pleadings. Petitioners challenge our tolling provisions on various grounds. Several claim  Sk' xZthat they are too narrow and violate Section 319(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  319(b).'k( / yO3' xo ԍ See Petitions of the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System ("Wisconsin") at 67; Long Island at 1, 67; Milwaukee at 45; Pappas at 67: Royce at 4; Clinton County Broadcasting ("Clinton") at 6.  xThis provision, which is the source of the Commission's permitextension policy, indicates that a broadcast construction permit:  "J  shall provide that said permit will be automatically forfeited if the station is not ready for  "operation within the time specified or within such further time as the Commission may allow, unless prevented by causes not under the control of the grantee.     xDOn the other hand, one petitioner complains that our revised rules violate Section 319(b) because they are" ',l(l(,,W"  S'too lenient and consider factors not beyond a permittee's control.O(/ yOh'ԍ See Long Island petition at 23.O  "833. Other petitioners, including the NAB, focus especially on zoning matters as circumstances  Sg' xthat should permit tolling.) gX/ yO_' x ԍ See Petitions of NAB at 24; Pappas at 56; BeMore Broadcasting, Inc. ("BeMore") at 24; Wisconsin at 45;  yO'' x Reece at 78; Royce passim; Sungilt at 810; and ZSpanish at 1114. NAB and Pappas had previously filed  yO' x comments pursuant to the NPRM requesting that zoning problems be retained as a justification for further time to construct. Three petitioners maintain that zoning is a "real world" encumbrance beyond  xIa permittee's control that cannot be ignored. They believe that refusing to take zoning matters into  x@account would allow tower opponents and local authorities to "wait out" a broadcaster and "prevail by  S'attrition."h*@/ yO 'ԍ See Petitions of BeMore at 2; NAB at 3; and Pappas at 7.h  "/34. Additionally, several petitioners offer specific circumstances that they contend warrant tolling  x7a permittee's construction period. For example, two petitioners argue that the construction period should  S5' xbe tolled during the pendency with the Commission of modification or assignment applications.+5/ yO'ԍ See Petitions of Michael R. Birdsill ("Birdsill") at 34 and ZSpanish at 1315. Three  xpetitioners indicate that the construction period should likewise be tolled during the pendency of petitions  S' xgfor rule making affecting a station's frequency and/or class.,` / yO' x3 ԍ See Petitions of Claire B. Benezra et al. ("Benezra") at 29; Birdsill at 45; and KCWETV, Inc. ("KCWE") at 2. Two petitioners holding noncommercial  x"educational construction permits indicate that the loss of an approved tower site warrants tolling a  xpermittee's construction period, especially for noncommercial educational stations for whom "the most  S6 ' x}common source of delay is the loss of a painstakingly selected transmitter site."n-6 / yO'ԍ See Petitions of Cornerstone at 45 and Growing Christian at 5.n A third petitioner  x/echoes that the construction period should be tolled for the pendency of a modification application  S ' xnecessitated by the loss of a transmitter site due to the denial of federal, state, or local approvals.R. H / yO'ԍ See Petition of ZSpanish at 1314.R One  x/petitioner offers that the construction period should be tolled during the pendency of civil litigation  xaffecting the permittee's ability to construct, such as breachofcontract litigation over the use of the  S7' xtransmitter site.8/7/ yO'ԍ Id.8 Two petitioners request that the tolling provisions should include receipt of permits  xZwhich contain a condition that program testing on the subject station may not commence until another  S' xDstation commences program testing on a new channel.^0h/ yO"'ԍ See Petitions of Covenant at 7 and KRTS at 13.^ Such permits include, for example, those issued  xout of channelchange allotment proceedings. Three petitioners argue the construction period should be  xtolled during periods of inclement weather conditions which delay construction, such as winter snow or  S8' xspring rains.w18/ yO&'ԍ See Petitions of Wisconsin at 57, Milwaukee at 35, and Sungilt at 78.w Four petitioners argue that low power television ("LPTV") permittees should be accorded  xspecial tolling treatment because of LPTV filing restrictions and digital television ("DTV") displacement"1,l(l(,,"  S'issues.2/ yOh' xg ԍ See Petitions of Browne at 56, Equity Broadcasting Corporation and Luis Martinez ("Equity") at 48; UP Wireless, LLC and Mark Silberman ("UP Wireless") at 48, and ZSpanish at 68.  S'  S' " 35.   Discussion. Section 319(b) requirements. We affirm our conclusion in the Streamlining  Sh' xOrder that our tolling provisions are "responsive to statutory requirements" and, except as noted below,  S5' xtaffirm the limitations on tolling adopted in the Streamlining Order. 13 FCC Rcd at 23,092. We believe  xthat the adopted provisions "strike the balance between the fundamental public interest in expediting new  xbroadcast service and preventing the warehousing of spectrum, and our recognition that there are some  S' x3legitimate obstacles that may prevent construction." Id. at 23,094. By adding a full year to the length  xof time television broadcasters had to construct under our former rules and a full one and onehalf years  xto the length of time radio broadcasters had, we believe that we have "built in" an adequate safety valve  xfor diligent permittees to complete construction within a permit's term. While we acknowledge that  S' xfactors other than those we delineated as tolling circumstances can cause delay, we do not believe those  xdelays are generally so insurmountable that their effects cannot be overcome during the course of three years, necessitating, under the statute, that they excuse failure to construct.  "h36. Our intention is simply, within the bounds of the statute, to establish an incentive for all  x7potential applicants to plan construction carefully even prior to applying for a permit and, once the permit  xtis received, to bring to the construction process the same degree of urgency brought to other business  x7endeavors. From the number of extension requests filed under the former rules, this has clearly not been  xthe case in past years; we note that we received over 1000 such requests between January 1, 1998 and  xFebruary 12, 1999, the last day extension requests could be filed under the former rules. In fact, our  xexperience indicates that despite financial and site availability certification requirements, applicants have  xQin some instances filed for permits without taking preliminary steps to ensure that they can begin much  x@less complete construction once an authorization is received. Such tactics deprive the public of the  xprompt initiation of additional broadcast service and represent an abuse of the Commission's processes.  xWe believe the new rules minimize instances when those who do not have the intent or foresight to ensure the prompt initiation and conclusion of construction "tie up" the spectrum indefinitely.  S'  Sm' " 37. Zoning Matters. We affirm the exclusion of zoning matters from the category of  S;' xcircumstances triggering the tolling provisions..3 ; / yO' x ԍ We note that, prior to revision of the permit extension rules in 1985, zoning difficulties were not considered  yO' x a circumstance beyond the permittee's control. See, e.g., Business Radio Communications Systems, Inc., 102 FCC  xg 2d 714, 7167 (1985) (zoning difficulty was "a problem related to [the permittee's] selection of a transmitter site which was an independent business decision," not a circumstance beyond the permittee's control).. It is our experience that diligent permittees will not find  S' x7zoning difficulties to be an insurmountable problem because permittees can, in the vast majority of cases,  xfind a way to resolve zoning issues either by securing an alternate site or obtaining the necessary  S' xapprovals. We concur with commenter EBT Broadcasting, L.L.C.'s view that zoning delays often stem  xsimply from misjudgments in specifying tower sites; the thousands of conforming sites attest to the ability  S<'of diligent and reasoning applicants to designate sites suitable for their intended purpose.c4</ yO#'ԍ See Reply comments of EBT Broadcasting, L.L.C. at 2.c  "38. Additionally, we believe that diligent permittees can eliminate or mitigate zoning delays by  S' xapplying for approval from the pertinent local authorities prior to the issuance of a construction permit.  x@Indeed, existing precedent indicates that an applicant whose use of a specified site depends upon local"p4,l(l(,,."  xzoning approval will not have "reasonable assurance" of the availability of that site unless it has contacted  S' xthat local authority prior to filing the application. See, e.g., Arizona Number One Radio, 103 FCC 2d  x551, 555 (1986) (affected applicants had "done virtually everything in their own power to affirm  Sg' x'reasonable assurance' of their proposed . . . site [with the owner of the site, the Bureau of Land  S4' xManagement of the United States Department of the Interior]"); El Camino Broadcasting Corporation, 14  S' xFCC 2d 361 (Rev. Bd. 1968); Charles W. Jobbins, 5 RR 2d 783 (Rev. Bd. 1965) (where use of site  xdependent upon local zoning approval, FCC will presume that approval is forthcoming, and thus that  xkapplicant has reasonable assurance of use of site, so long as applicant has initiated the process and applied  Sh'for zoning approval/variance).5xh/ yO' x ԍ Three petitioners argue that the Commission cannot draw a meaningful distinction between seeking zoning  x approval before the appropriate local agency and seeking judicial review of a zoning denial, and thus we cannot  yO` ' x logically deny tolling in the former circumstance while granting it in the latter. See Petitions of Pappas at 5, Royce  x} at 10, and Sungilt at 9. Our decision to permit tolling for "any cause of action pending before any court of  x; competent jurisdiction relating to any necessary local, state, or federal requirement for the construction or operation  x of the station, including any environmental requirement" is, however, clearly consistent with our decision to permit tolling for judicial appeals in general and, we believe, is an appropriate "safety valve."   S' "39. Other matters. We will, however, expand our tolling provisions to include several  xcircumstances raised by petitioners. We will permit tolling in circumstances where, for reasons beyond  xthe control of a permittee, there is the failure of a Commissionimposed condition precedent to  xcommencement of operation. For example, when, to accommodate a new station or a facilities increase  S7 ' xfor an existing station, the staff issues an allotment rule making Report and Order, it will impose a  xcondition on the permit subsequently issued to the initiating party to the effect that: "Program testing for  xtthe subject facility will not be authorized until [the affected station has commenced program testing on  xits new channel], and a license application for the subject facilities will not be granted until [a license  x^application has been granted for the affected station to operate on its new channel]." There are occasions  xtwhere the initiating party promptly constructs its facility but cannot commence operations because the  S' xDaffected station has not completed its modified facilities.`6/ yO'ԍ See Petitions of Covenant at 7 and KRTS at 13. ` In such cases, we will not consider the permit  xkof the initiating party forfeit provided that the permittee notifies the staff that construction is complete and  S'the station is ready for operation prior to the expiration of the permit.7@/ yO' x ԍ After the allotment rule making has become final, the affected station has at best an "implied STA" to remain  x on its old frequency until it is ready for operation on its new frequency. In cases where the affected station is  x* unnecessarily impeding the other station's ability to move or commence operations, we affirm the staff's practice  yO/' x of cancelling that "implied STA" and ordering the affected station to cease broadcasting on its old frequency. See  yO' x7 Letter to Stations KMEM(FM), Memphis, Missouri and KLBA(FM), Albia, Iowa, reference 18000B3DCD (M.M.  yO' x Bur. May 26, 1995) (station whose frequency had been amended by virtue of a final Report and Order in allocations  xk rule making proceeding ordered to cease broadcasting on its "old" frequency to accommodate commencement of operations of new station).  Sl'  S9' "+ 40.  We will also permit tolling in certain limited circumstances involving LPTV permittees due  xto the unique nature of this secondary service and the impact of the advent of DTV upon the spectrum  xQavailable for these permittees. Specifically, we will toll the construction period for the pendency of major  x&modification applications that were submitted during the last periodic LPTV filing window. Similarly,  xthe construction period for LPTV permittees that file a displacement application as defined in 47 C.F.R.  x73.3572(a)(2), which is necessitated by a fullservice or DTV transition proposal, will be tolled during":7,l(l(,,"  xthe pendency of that displacement application. Additionally, if the permittee has received special  xItemporary authorization to operate with the facilities specified in the pending major modification or  x3displacement application, we will not consider a permit automatically forfeited in such circumstances.  Sg' xxUntil the pending major modification or displacement application has been granted, the construction period  S4'will be tolled.8 4/ yO' xx ԍ We reiterate that we will afford no additional time to permittees who make a business decision not to use the  xk site approved in the construction permit: a statement that the permittee has found a better site or that the original  xI site could not be obtained for commercially reasonable terms will not suffice. The site must have become unavailable for reasons not attributable to the permittee.  "41. Additionally, we take this opportunity to clarify the effect of the transition to DTV generally  xon analog television construction permits for commercial and noncommercial educational facilities. There  Sh' xtare circumstances, such as those demonstrated by petitioner KCWE,9h/ yO ' x ԍ Petitioner KCWE presents a unique set of circumstances. It was denied local zoning approval, and discovered  x7 that there was no fully spaced site for which it could get local approval. It then filed a petition for rule making to  yOH' x substitute channel 29 for its authorized channel 32; while the staff released the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in  x the proceeding, the rule making was delayed by the institution of DTV proceedings. Nevertheless, the staff issued  x@ special temporary authorization ("STA") to KCWETV to operate on Channel 32 pending resolution of those proceedings, and KCWETV is currently on the air on Channel 32.  where a necessary modification  xapplication or rule making proposal was delayed while the Commission finalized its DTV allotment table.  xIn such cases, we will not consider such permit automatically forfeited. We expect that only a small  x&number of fullservice television permittees will meet these criteria. Neither will we consider forfeit a  x^construction permit when the permittee builds and begins operating pursuant to Commission authorization  Si ' xsuch as an STA because it is precluded by unique circumstances from obtaining a license. See, e.g.,  S6 ' xSyracuse Channel 62, Inc., FCC 86331, 60 RR 2d 1161 (1986) (television station operating pursuant to  xSTA is not an "unbuilt station" for purposes of the "noprofit" assignment rules then in effect, 47 C.F.R.  x 73.3597). However, we reject the suggestion advanced by the Association of America's Public  xQTelevision Stations ("APTS") that we should accord further relief to all public television station permittees  xlbecause of issues relating to DTV implementation. We carefully considered the impact of DTV  S7' x*implementation in the Advanced Television Systems proceedingb:7( / X4 x #Xj\  P6G; 9XP#э# B7  PT6Q MP# See, e.g., Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and Order in Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact  xP'Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, 13 FCC Rcd 6860, 686566 (1998).b and we are not persuaded to revisit that  xsubject in a general manner as suggested. However, if presented with specific problems affecting a  xparticular noncommercial educational licensee or permittee, we retain the discretion to fashion whatever relief is appropriate.  S8' "  42. We realize that there may be rare and exceptional circumstances other than those delineated  S' xhere which would warrant the tolling of construction time, i.e., circumstances in which, for reasons not  xdiscussed here, a permittee is prevented from completing construction within three years for reasons  S' x beyond its control such that the permittee would be entitled to tolling of the construction time under  xSection 319(b). In these very limited circumstances, we will entertain requests for waiver of our strict  S9'tolling provisions. "9 :,l(l(,,"  S'3. Miscellaneous issues.  S' "43. We here clarify and modify several requirements adopted in the Streamlining Order. We take  Sg'these actions partly sua sponte and partly in response to comments by petitioners.  S' "p44. Tolling notification. In the Streamlining Order, we replaced FCC Form 307 that FCC form  xby which broadcast permittees sought extensions and replacements of construction permits with a  xnotification procedure under which a permittee must inform the Commission of the circumstances that it  Si' xgbelieves should toll its construction period. Pursuant to the Streamlining Order, a permittee is required  xto notify the Commission "as promptly as possible," and in all cases within 30 days, of the "act of God"  xthat has blocked construction or of the initiation of administrative or judicial review. 13 FCC Rcd at  x23,092. A permittee requiring more than six months to resume construction after a natural disaster must  xMsubmit additional supporting information at sixmonth intervals detailing construction progress and the  xsteps it has taken and proposes to take to resolve any remaining impediments. Finally, a permittee must notify the Commission when the relevant administrative or judicial review process is resolved.  "45. We here clarify that, apart from the stationidentifying information required by Paragraph 88  S ' x/of the Streamlining Order (call sign, frequency, city of license, and permit file number), the tolling  x notification should contain the following information: (1) the grant date and original expiration date of  S8' xthe construction permit; (2) a brief description of the tolling event;;8/ yO' xD ԍ If the tolling event involves administrative or judicial review, the notification should supply the name of the court or administrative body, the case or docket number assigned, and the party instituting the cause of action. (3) a specific reference to Section  S' x73.3598 of the Commission's rules, the Streamlining Order, or this Order demonstrating that the  xcircumstances qualify as an approved tolling event; (4) the date(s) during which the tolling impediment  xMprevented construction; and (5) if possible at the time of notification, the permittee's calculation of the  Sl'revised permit expiration date.u<l / yO,' x ԍ Those which contain the information described supra and which specify an approved tolling event will receive  x a brief acknowledgement of the revised permit expiration date; the Commission's data bases also will be revised to  xb reflect that date. Those notifications that do not contain all of the requisite information, or those that specify events  x that have not been found to constitute a tolling event, will be rejected, and the permittee will be notified simply that its construction period remains unchanged.u 4= l/ yO' x ԍ We disagree with those petitioners who believe that our notification process will be more burdensome on  yO' x permittees and the staff than our former extension system. See Petitions of Central Florida at 89; Reece at 67, and  xo ZSpanish at 1516. The tolling/notification procedures will require substantially less time for preparation and review  yO4'than the factintensive extension requests under the old "oneinthree" standard. 4  S' "46. FM Minor Change Tenderability Criteria. Prior to the institution of the competitive bidding  xprocedures for broadcast facilities, applications for facilities in the nonreserved FM band would be  xacceptable for filing only if they met a twotiered minimum filing requirement. First, the application had  xto include six essential elements: (1) the applicant's name and address; (2) the applicant's original  xsignature; (3) the applicant's principal community; (4) the specified channel or frequency; (5) the class  x3of station proposed; and (6) the transmitter site coordinates. Additionally, the applicant could omit no  S' xxmore than three of the "second tier" items specified in Appendix C to the Report and Order in MM Docket  S' xNo. 91347, 7 FCC Rcd 5074 (1992). See 47 C.F.R.  73.3564(a) (1997). In order to facilitate the  xauction process, the Commission abolished the twotier system for all fullservice FM applications for new  S<' x&facilities and major changes in the Broadcast Auction Order. See 13 FCC Rcd at 15,988 n.59. In the"< =,l(l(,,"  S' xNPRM in this proceeding, we concluded that the rationale underlying the auctionrelated processing rule  xchange applied only to new and major change applications. However, in light of the revisions to the  S' x7application forms and processing procedures proposed in the NPRM, we invited comment on whether or  xtnot we should modify the "tenderability" and twotier standards for minor change FM applications. 13 FCC Rcd at 11,366 n.68.  "47. We received no comments on this issue, and we did not address the matter in the  S' x&Streamlining Order. However, we will take this opportunity to clarify and modify the twotier review  xsystem for FM minor change applications. This action is necessary because many of the "second tier"  xelements have been eliminated as a result of our streamlined application form. We will essentially  S' xincorporate the six remaining elements contained in Appendix C to the Report and Order in MM Docket  S' xNo. 91347 directly into Section 73.3564 of our rules.>x/ yO7 ' x& ԍ The requirements from Appendix C that remain relevant in light of the streamlined FCC Form 301 are: (1)  x a list of the other media interests of the applicant and its principals; (2) certification of compliance with the alien  xk ownership provisions contained in 47 U.S.C.  310(b); (3) tower/antenna heights; (4) effective radiated power; (5)  x whether the antenna is directional or omnidirectional; and (6) an exhibit demonstrating compliance with the contour  x protection requirements of 47 C.F.R.  73.215, if applicable. Although not eliminated by the revision to the FCC  yO' x Form 301 in the Streamlining Order, we note that applicants filing minor change applications do not need to comply  yO'with the local public notice requirements of 47 C.F.R  73.3580. See 47 U.S.C.  309(c). Applicants filing minor change applications on  xZthe "paper" FCC Form 301 will be considered to meet the minimum filing requirements if they omit no  Si ' xkmore than three of the six items.?i / yO' x ԍ We note that these procedures will remain relevant only until the implementation of the mandatory electronic  x filing procedures. Any information omitted from an electronically filed application will be immediately identified  x to the applicant. The Commission's electronic filing system will not accept applications until all necessary  x information is included in the application. Thus, in order to "get in the door" with an electronically filed minor change application, all pertinent information requested by FCC Form 301 will need to be supplied. Applicants omitting up to three of the secondtier elements will be sent  xa deficiency letter by the staff and given one opportunity to correct all tender and acceptance defects, as  S ' xspecified in the Report and Order in MM Docket No. 91437, 7 FCC Rcd at 5078; applications omitting more than three of the six will be returned.  Sj' "48. Broadcast Application Signature Requirement. The following revision is being made in this  xtproceeding in order to clarify and update an existing rule. Because this revision is a procedural change  xthat relaxes a filing requirement, we find that notice and comment procedures are unnecessary and need  S'not be followed prior to adoption.|@ / yO*'ԍ See 5 U.S.C.  553(b)(3)(B); see also 47 C.F.R.  1.412(c).| The rule revisions are set forth in Appendix C to this Order.  "49. Section 73.3513 of the Commission's rules specifies who must sign the certification section  S9' xof the broadcast application or amendment on behalf of various broadcast entities.dAHz9H / yO!"'ԍ The rule states, in pertinent part,  e N   ` ` (a) Applications, amendments thereto, and related statements of fact required by the FCC must be signed by the following persons:  {OA%'` ` (1) Individual applicant. The applicant, if the applicant is an individual.  {O &'` ` (2) Partnership. One of the partners, if the applicant is a partnership.  {O&'` ` (3) Corporation. An officer, if the applicant is a corporation.  {O'' e  ` ` (4) Unincorporated Association. A member who is an officer, if the applicant is an unincorporated"'@,l(l('" ` ` association.  {OX' e J ` ` (5) Government Entity. Such duly elected or appointed officials as may be competent to do so  e [ ` ` under the law of the applicable jurisdiction,if the applicant is an eligible governmental entity, such ` ` as a State or Territory of the United States and political subdivisions thereof . . . .     xx Only the original application, amendment, or request must contain an original signature; copies of the application  yOB'may be conformed. See 47 C.F.R.  73.3513(c).d It also specifies that"9 A,l(l(,,"  S' xthe applicant's attorney may sign in case of the applicant's disability or absence from the United States.MB / yO'ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  73.3513(b).M  xCommission case law consistently has held that the application must bear an original signature; facsimile  S' xsignatures have been held to be unacceptable. See, e.g., SBM Communications, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 3436  Sg' xQ(1992), and Mary Ann Salvatoriello, 6 FCC Rcd 4705 (1991), citing Jane A Roberts, 29 FCC 141 (1960).  xgThe basis for this policy is that the original signature requirement provides assurance that the applicant  xhas personally reviewed the application and can be held responsible for the truthfulness and accuracy of  S'the application. Mary Ann Salvatoriello, 6 FCC Rcd at 470607.  "50. We no longer believe that the original signature requirement is the only reliable means of  xguaranteeing application review. In any case, applicants can be held accountable for false information and  x&representations made in applications irrespective of whether or not the application contains an original  S' x7signature. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  73.1015 (requiring truthful written responses to Commission inquiries);  S ' x47 C.F.R.  73.3513(d) (willful false statements in applications will be considered, inter alia, a violation  Si ' xof Section 73.1015); see also 47 C.F.R. 1.52 (facsimile signature of attorney or unrepresented party  xsufficient for subscription and verification of pleadings). There also may be cases for example, informal  xcrequests for special temporary authorization in emergency situations where permitting the use of  xfacsimile signatures could expedite Commission action furthering the public interest. Accordingly, we will amend Section 73.3513 of our rules to permit facsimile signatures by the appropriate signatory.  S7'(  III. PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND ORDERING CLAUSES ă  "51. The Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility  S'Act, 5 U.S.C.  604, is contained in Appendix B.  "52. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the abovereferenced reconsideration petitions ARE  S' xZGRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and the motions for stay filed by ZSpanish Media, et  S'al. and W. Russell Withers, Jr. IS DISMISSED.  "V53. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That, pursuant to authority in Sections 4(i) and (j), 301, 303(f),  x303(g), 303(h), 303(j), 303(r), 307(c), 308(b), 319(b), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as  xamended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), 301, 303(f), 303(g), 303(h), 303(j), 303(r), 307(c), 308(b), 319(b),  S' xZand 403, this Memorandum Opinion and Order IS ADOPTED, and Part 73 of the Commission's Rules IS AMENDED as set forth in the attached Appendix C.  "[54. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the rule amendments set forth in Appendix C WILL  xBECOME EFFECTIVE 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register, and the information  xcollection contained in these rules will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, following OMB approval, unless a notice is published in the Federal Register stating otherwise. "nB,l(l(,,"Ԍ "55. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference  S' x/Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the  xISupplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. ` `  hhCqFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCqMagalie Romn Salas ` `  hhCqSecretary  S' "B,l(l(,,"  X' #Xj\  P6G; 9XP#S Commissioner Harold W. FurchtgottRoth, Dissenting In Part  xIn the Matter of 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review Streamlining of Mass Media  x6!Applications, Rules, and Processes; Policies and Rules Regarding Minority and Female Ownership of Mass Media Facilities; MM Docket Nos. 9843, 94149  X4  X4 "[As I did in the original Report & Order, # Xj\  P6G; 9XP#I respectfully dissent in this reconsideration from  xthe decision to require broadcast station owners to identify their race, ethnicity and gender on  X4 xyAnnual Ownership Report Form 323. See supra at Part II.A.4. For a full explication of the  xreasons why I believe this governmental reporting requirement to be impractical; statutorily ill Xq 4 xfounded; and generally inappropriate, see Statement of Harold W. FurchtgottRoth, Dissenting  XP 4 xin Part, In the Matter of 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review Streamlining of Mass Media  xApplications, Rules, and Processes; Policies and Rules Regarding Minority and Female  X 4 xOwnership of Mass Media Facilities, MM Docket Nos. 9843, 91140, 94149, 13 FCC Rcd 23,056 (1998). " B,l(l(,, "  X4  APPENDIX A LIST OF PARTIES FILING PLEADINGS ă  X4Petitions for Reconsideration:  XQ4Aspen FM, Inc., et al. Association of America's Public Television Stations BeMore Broadcasting  X4Benezra, Claire B. et al. Birdsill, Michael Robert Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System Brown Broadcasting Service, Inc. Browne Mountain Television Brunson Communications, Inc. Central Florida Educational Television, Inc. and Good Life Broadcasting, Inc. Clinton County Broadcasting, Inc. Cornerstone Community Radio, Inc.  X4Covenant Network, et al. Equity Broadcasting Corporation and Louis Martinez Family First Federal Communications Bar Association Floyco Inc. Growing Christian Foundation Horvath, Michael L. Jaramillo, Isaac Max KCWETV, Inc. KM Communications, Inc. KRTS, Inc. Long Island Multimedia, L.L.C. Milwaukee Area Technical College District Board Mojave Broadcasting Company National Association of Broadcasters Pappas, Harry J. and Stella A. Pollack Broadcasting Company Reece Associates, Limited Royce International Broadcasting Company Starr County Historical Foundation, Inc. Sungilt Corporation, Inc. Tillotson, David U.P. Wireless, L.L.C. and Mark Silberman Withers, W. Russell Workman, Denny d/b/a/ Wichita Communications  XB$4ZSpanish Media Corporation, et al.  X%4Oppositions to or Comments on Petitions: "&B,l(l(,,&"Ԍ X4Aspen FM, Inc., et al. Carolina Christian Broadcasting, Inc. Press Communications, L.L.C.  X4  Xt4Replies: Central Florida Educational Television, Inc. and Good Life Broadcasting, Inc. Long Island Multimedia, L.L.C. U.P. Wireless, L.L.C. and Mark Silberman "B,l(l(,,"  X4U APPENDIX B  X'SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS ă  X4Memorandum Opinion and Orderă %MM Docket Nos. 9843 and 94149  xAs required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act ("RFA"), 5 U.S.C.  603, a Final Regulatory  X 4 xFlexibility Analysis ("FRFA") was incorporated in Appendix B of the Report and Order in this  X4 xproceeding.CI  yOc ' x ԍ 13 FCC Rcd 23,056 (1998). Certain abbreviated references used in the Memorandum Opinion and Order are also used in this Appendix. The Commission's Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  X4 x("Supplemental FRFA") in this Memorandum Opinion and Order reflects revised or additional  xinformation to that contained in the FRFA. This Supplemental FRFA is thus limited to matters  X 4 xraised in response to the First Report and Order that are granted on reconsideration in the  X^ 4 x}Memorandum Opinion and Order. This Supplemental FRFA conforms to the RFA, as amended  X; 4by the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996.D; I  yO ' x ԍ Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) ("CWAAA"); see generally 5 U.S.C.  601 et. seq. Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ("SBREFA").   X 4 x^ A. Need for and Objectives of Action: The actions taken in this Memorandum Opinion and  X 4 xEOrder are in response to petitions for reconsideration of the rules and policies adopted in the  X4 xReport and Order to streamline the Commission's broadcast application procedures, reducing both  xapplicant and licensee burdens as well as increasing the efficiency of application processing to  xconserve staff resources, while at the same time preserving the public's ability to participate in the broadcast license process. The petitions are denied, with the following exceptions.  X4 xThe first amendment to the rules and policies adopted in the Report and Order in this proceeding  xRis based on petitions arguing that the promulgated provisions for seeking extension of time to  xcconstruct were too restrictive and did not account for certain circumstances legitimately beyond  xthe control of the permittee. While rejecting the majority of the petitioners' arguments, we did  xstate that we would accord relief to permittees who are prevented form construction by operation  xof a Commissionimposed condition or by Commission processing requirements for permit modifications, the latter being most prevalent in the Low Power Television ("LPTV") service.  xSecond in response to a petition claiming that such procedure was costly and often unnecessary,  xhwe exempted applicants for assignment/transfer of control of broadcast stations from the  xrequirement that applications proposing local radio ownership concerns must be accompanied by  x}a contour map detailing the stations serving the pertinent broadcast "market." No map would be  xrequired if the applicant could demonstrate that a sufficient number of stations are licensed to the community in question that the numerical cap will not be approached.  X4 x<Third, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making ("Notice") in this proceedingBExI  yO''ԍ 13 FCC Rcd 11,349 (1998).B invited comments on"E,l(l(,,Y "  xca streamlined approach to FM "minor change" applications, which currently are evaluated under  X4 xIa twotiered review process. The Notice invited comment on a proposal that would parallel the  xapproach previously adopted with respect to applications for new FM stations and "major change"  x/applications. The Commission received no comments on this issue, and it was not addressed in  Xt4 xthe Report and Order. However, the streamlined application forms adopted in the Report and  XQ4 xEOrder eliminated many of the secondtier review elements. Accordingly, this Memorandum  X.4 xOpinion and Order incorporates the remaining elements directly into the FM processing rules, specifically 47 C.F.R.  73.3564.  X4 xFinally, this Memorandum Opinion and Order adopts sua sponte a rule permitting the use of  xcfacsimile signatures in place of the original applicant signature that had previously been required  xuon all applications and requests for Commission action. The Commission believes that an  x8applicant can be held accountable for false information and representations in an application  x<whether or not the application contains an original signature, and permitting facsimile signatures will in some cases expedite the submission and processing of requests for Commission action.  X 4 x" B. Significant Issues Raised by Public in Response to Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:  xNo petitions or comments were received in response to the FRFA. Several petitioners, however,  x raised indirectly small businessrelated issues. As indicated above, for example, several  x}petitioners stated that the revised construction period/tolling procedures would disproportionately  XD4 x_impact LPTV permittees;jFDI  yO'ԍ See Comments of Browne, Equity, UP Wireless, and ZSpanish.j another petitioner commented that the construction period/tolling  xprocedures will disproportionately impact public television stations, especially those proposing  xto construct their initial facility as a digital broadcast station. One petitioner argued that the  xIcontemporaneous notification procedure would increase, as opposed to decrease, the burden on  X4 x&permittees.IGXI  yO'ԍ See Comments of ZSpanish.I Another petitioner claimed that the contour map submission requirement was unduly  xMexpensive and unnecessary in many assignment/transfer cases, even those involving the local radio  Xr4 xownership rules.IHrI  yO 'ԍ See Comments of Tillotson.I Finally, one petitioner noted that the requirement that broadcasters provide  xcinformation regarding the race, ethnicity, and gender of any attributable owner was burdensome  xand unnecessary, given that ethnicity and gender data is already collected by the National  X 4Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA").DI xI  yO2 'ԍ See Comments of APTS.D  X4 xP! C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to which Rules will Apply:  xUnder the RFA, small entities may include small organizations, small businesses, and small  x<governmental jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C.  601(6). The RFA, 5 U.S.C.  601(3), generally defines  xthe term "small business" as having the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under  xthe Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632. A small business is one which: (1) is independently  x/owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional  xcriteria established by the Small Business Administration ("SBA"). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. "I,l(l(,, "  x601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency after consultation  xwith the Office of Advocacy of the SBA and after opportunity for public comment, establishes  xone or more definitions os such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register."  x'In the FRFA, we utilized the definition of "small business" promulgated by the SBA. No  xpetitions or comments were received concerning the Commission's use of the SBA's small  x}business definition for the purposes of the FRFA, and we will therefore continue to employ such  x}definition for this Supplemental FRFA. We hereby incorporate by reference the description and estimate of the numbers of small entities from the FRFA in this proceeding.  X ' x D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and other Compliance  X\ 4 xRequirements: The Report and Order adopted a number of rules and policies that included,  xIbut reduced, reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements. These were described in  xdetail in the FRFA and are not increased in any way by the rule and policy amendments adopted  X 4 x/in this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Those reporting and recordkeeping requirements that  xwere amended were in fact ameliorated. For example, certain assignment/transfer applicants will not need to submit contour maps to demonstrate compliance with the local radio ownership rules.  Xg4 xVAdditionally, while the Memorandum Opinion and Order retains the requirement that permittees  xand licensees compile and retain information concerning the ethnicity and gender of its  xattributable owners, they must submit this information on a biennial, rather than annual, basis.  xAs stated in the FRFA, not all broadcast licensees are required to file ownership reports at all;  xsole proprietorships and partnerships comprised solely of natural persons are exempt from the  xfiling requirement. Furthermore, the modified reporting requirements apply only to commercial  xNbroadcast stations, not to the 2401 noncommercial educational FM and television stations authorized as of April 30, 1999.  X,' x" E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant  X 4 xAlternatives Considered: The FRFA described in some detail the steps taken in the Report and  X4 xIOrder to minimize significant economic impact on small entities and the alternatives considered.  X4 xThe rule and policy amendments adopted in this Memorandum Opinion and Order should also  x"serve to minimize the adverse impact of the "streamlining" rules on small entities. Initially, with  xrespect to the revised construction period/tolling rules, we note that small entities that might  xrequire more time to construct an authorized broadcast station than would a large corporation  X74 x"would likely benefit from the rules adopted in the Report and Order. These entities would now  xbe given on extra year to construct a new television facility and 18 extra months to complete a  xradio station. Furthermore, these revised construction periods apply to all outstanding permits.  xTherefore, to the extent that such smaller entities needing some additional time will be granted up to three "unencumbered" years simply upon a written request for such treatment.  Xe#4 xRAs urged by several petitioners, the Memorandum Opinion and Order modifies the rules and  XB$4 xlpolicies promulgated in the Report and Order in such ways that will indirectly benefit smaller  xbroadcast entities. For example, the elimination of the need to compose and submit station  xservice contour maps in all assignment/transfer applications implicating the local radio ownership rules will likely benefit smaller entities owning fewer broadcast stations. "&I,l(l(,,&"Ԍ X4 xԙ F. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and  X4 xOrder in this proceeding, including this Supplemental FRFA, in a report that will be sent to  X4 xVCongress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. See 5  X4 xU.S.C.  801(1)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of this Memorandum  Xt4 xOpinion and Order, including this Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of  XQ4 xthe Small Business Administration. We will also publish a copy of the Memorandum Opinion  X.4 x&and Order and Supplemental FRFA (or summaries thereof) in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C.  604(b). "I,l(l(,,"  X4 \ Appendix C ă  X' Part 73 of Title 47 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:  XQ'Part 73 RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES  X 4 1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C.  154, 303, 334and 336  X ' 47 CFR Part 73 is amended to read as follows:  X\ 4 2. Section 73.3513 is amended by revising paragraph (c) as follows:  X '  73.3513 Signing of Applications  X4v ***** Ð\  Xg4 (c) Facsimile signatures are acceptable. Only the original of applications, amendments, or related statements of fact, need be signed; copies may be conformed. v*****\  X4 3. Section 73.3564 is amended by revising subsection (a)(2) as follows:  XO'  73.3564 Acceptance of Applications  X 4v ***** Ð\  X4 (a)(2) In the case of minor modifications of facilities in the nonreserved FM band, applications will be placed on public notice if they meet the following twotiered minimum filing requirements as initially filed in firstcome/firstserve proceedings: (i) the application must include: (A) Applicant's name and address, (B) Applicant's signature, (C) Principal community, (D) Channel or frequency, (E) Class of station, and (F) transmitter site coordinates; and (ii) the application must not omit more than three of the following secondtier items:  X%4 (A) a list of the other media interests of the applicant and its principals, (B) certification of compliance with the alien ownership provisions contained in 47"&I,l(l(,,&"  X4USC 310(b), (C) tower/antenna heights, (D) effective radiated power, (E) whether the antenna is directional or omnidirectional, and (F) an exhibit demonstrating compliance with the contour protection requirements of  XQ447 CFR ` ` 73.215, if applicable. Applications found not to meet minimum filing requirements will be returned to the applicant. Applications found to meet minimum filing requirements, but that contain deficiencies in tender and/or acceptance information, shall be given an opportunity for corrective amendment pursuant to  73.3522. Applications found to be substantially complete and in accordance with the Commission's core legal and technical requirements will be accepted for filing. Applications with uncorrected tender and/or acceptance defects remaining after the opportunity for corrective amendment will be dismissed with no further opportunity for amendment. v*****\" I,l(l(,, "  X' # Xj\  P6G; 9XP#S Commissioner Harold W. FurchtgottRoth, Dissenting In Part In the Matter of 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review Streamlining of Mass Media Applications, Rules, and Processes; Policies and Rules Regarding Minority and Female Ownership of Mass Media Facilities; MM Docket Nos. 9843, 94149  X.4  X 4As I did in the original Report & Order, # Xj\  P6G; 9XP#I respectfully dissent in this reconsideration from the decision to require broadcast station owners to identify their race, ethnicity and  X4gender on Annual Ownership Report Form 323. See supra at Part II.A.4. For a full explication of the reasons why I believe this governmental reporting requirement to be  X 4impractical; statutorily illfounded; and generally inappropriate, see Statement of Harold W.  X` 4FurchtgottRoth, Dissenting in Part, In the Matter of 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review Streamlining of Mass Media Applications, Rules, and Processes; Policies and Rules  X 4Regarding Minority and Female Ownership of Mass Media Facilities, MM Docket Nos. 9843, 91140, 94149, 13 FCC Rcd 23,056 (1998).