FCC Web Documents citing 73.37

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2010 02 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2216A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2216A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2216A1.txt
  • window, the staff employed technical standards consistent with the Commission proceeding undertaken to revitalize and improve the AM service. See Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast Service, 6 FCC Rcd 6273 (1991), recon granted in part and denied in part, 8 FCC Rcd 3250 (1993). The staff also applied the following rule sections: 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37, 73.182, 73.183(b)(1). The Commission adopted service and competitive bidding rules for mass media services, including standard broadcast (AM), frequency modulation (FM), full service commercial television (TV) and Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS). Also adopted were rules for the secondary services of low power television (LPTV), FM translator and television translator. See Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2416A1.txt
  • applications, the staff employed technical standards consistent with the Commission proceeding undertaken to revitalize and improve the AM service. See Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast Service, 6 FCC Rcd 6273 (1991), recon granted in part and denied in part, 8 FCC Rcd 3250 (1993). The staff also applied the following rule sections: 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37, 73.182, 73.183(b)(1). See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j); 47 C.F.R. § 73.5000(a); see generally, First Report and Order, Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 (1998) (``Broadcast First Report and Order''). In addition, Attachment A includes six applications inadvertently listed on AM Auction No.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1166A1.txt
  • ORDERED THAT a copy of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to M.C. Allen Productions, 4531 Shannon Place, Redding, California 96001. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau In that decision, the Commission reaffirmed the dismissal of an application whose proposed contour overlapped Allen's licensed contour in violation of section 73.37(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.37(a). The Commission determined that dismissal was appropriate because the applicant neither had protected Allen's licensed facilities in Burney nor requested a waiver of section 73.37(a). The applicant had contended, inter alia, that there was no need to protect Allen's licensed facilities because Allen had already relocated Station KMCA and its main studio
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2773A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2773A1.txt
  • 5101 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 307, Washington, D.C. 20006. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau On July 13, 2001, the Commission's staff granted BL-20010612AHZ, thereby changing KMCA's community of license from Burney to Shasta, California. In that decision, the Commission reaffirmed the dismissal of an application whose proposed contour overlapped KMCA's licensed contour in violation of section 73.37(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.37(a). The Commission determined that dismissal was appropriate because the applicant neither had protected KMCA's licensed facilities in Burney nor requested a waiver of 47 C.F.R.§ 73.37(a). The applicant had contended, inter alia, that there was no need to protect KMCA's licensed facilities because Allen had already relocated KMCA and its main studio
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-539A1.txt
  • nighttime interference would result. The Commission adopted new AM interference standards, which became effective April 19, 1992, in full compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act. Currently, an application for a new AM broadcast station or for a major change in an authorized AM broadcast station must show that objectionable interference will not result to an authorized station. 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37, 73.182. Nighttime interference is considered objectionable if it would increase the 25 percent root-sum-square (RSS) night limit of another station. Id. The AM Improvement Report and Order classifies a station whose interference contribution is below the 25 percent RSS limit as a low interferer, and states in pertinent part that ``a new station may be authorized only if it qualifies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2216A1.txt
  • window, the staff employed technical standards consistent with the Commission proceeding undertaken to revitalize and improve the AM service. See Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast Service, 6 FCC Rcd 6273 (1991), recon granted in part and denied in part, 8 FCC Rcd 3250 (1993). The staff also applied the following rule sections: 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37, 73.182, 73.183(b)(1). The Commission adopted service and competitive bidding rules for mass media services, including standard broadcast (AM), frequency modulation (FM), full service commercial television (TV) and Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS). Also adopted were rules for the secondary services of low power television (LPTV), FM translator and television translator. See Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3532A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3532A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3532A1.txt
  • in the 1605-1705 kHz band. See 47 C.F.R. § 73.30. 47 C.F.R. § 73.3571(f). Broadcast First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 15989. 47 C.F.R. § 73.3571(h)(1)(ii). Id. 47 C.F.R. § 73.5002(a). See id. § 73.3571(h)(3). See id. § 73.5006(b). See id. § 73.3571(h)(2). In determining mutual exclusivity among the AM applications, the staff will apply 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37, 73.182, 73.183(b)(1). See also Nelson Enterprises, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd 3414 (2003) (application of AM interference standards to establish mutual exclusivity between window-filed applications); Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast Service, 6 FCC Rcd 6273 (1991), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 8 FCC Rcd 3250 (1993). See id. § 73.5002(c)(1)&(d)(1). See id. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2683A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2683A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2683A1.txt
  • filing of long form applications upon good cause showing). Effective August 10, 2004, this fee is $3,310.00. See schedule of charges at 47 C.F.R. § 1.1104. Method and form of payment is addressed in 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1109 and 1.1110. See also the Media Services Application Fee Filing Guide and the FCC Form 301 instructions. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.24, 73.37, and 73.182. See 47 C.F.R. § 73.5005. Pursuant to procedures adopted in the Broadcast Auction First Report and Order, singleton applicants filing FCC Form 301 applications may modify the technical proposals specified in their tech box proposal. However, such singleton applicants may not specify in the FCC Form 301 application a change in the proposed facility that constitutes a major
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3596A1.txt
  • the filing of long form applications upon good cause showing). Effective August 10, 2004, this fee is $3,310.00. See schedule of charges at 47 C.F.R. § 1.1104. Method and form of payment is addressed in 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1109, 1.1110. See also the Media Services Application Fee Filing Guide and the FCC Form 301 instructions. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.24, 73.37, and 73.182. See 47 C.F.R. § 73.5005. Pursuant to procedures adopted in the Broadcast Auction First Report and Order, singleton applicants filing FCC Form 301 applications may change the technical proposals specified in their previous filing. However, such singleton applicants may not specify in the FCC Form 301 application a change in the proposed facility that constitutes a major change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1604A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1604A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1604A1.txt
  • Filing Requirements Regarding January 26 - 30, 2004 Window for Certain AM Construction Permits Applications; Notice Regarding Freeze on the Acceptance of AM Minor Change Construction Permit Applications from January 12 to January 30, 2004,'' Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 23016 (2003) (``AM Window Public Notice''). In determining mutual exclusivity the staff applied the following rule sections: 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37, 73.182, 73.183(b)(1). See also Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast Service, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 6273 (1991), recon granted in part and denied in part, 8 FCC Rcd 3250 (1993) and Nelson Enterprises, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd 3414 (2003) (clarifying standards to establish mutual exclusivity between window-filed AM applications). See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j);
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-438A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-438A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-438A1.txt
  • the filing of long form applications upon good cause showing). Effective August 10, 2004, this fee is $3,310.00. See schedule of charges at 47 C.F.R. § 1.1104. Method and form of payment is addressed in 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1109, 1.1110. See also the Media Services Application Fee Filing Guide and the FCC Form 301 instructions. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.24, 73.37, and 73.182. See 47 C.F.R. § 73.5005. Pursuant to procedures adopted in the Broadcast Auction First Report and Order, singleton applicants filing FCC Form 301 applications may change the technical proposals specified in their previous filing. However, such singleton applicants may not specify in the FCC Form 301 application a change in the proposed facility that constitutes a major change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1546A1.txt
  • Objection and grant the Application. Background. Wendell is the permittee of new unbuilt Station WXNH(AM), Jaffrey, New Hampshire. Wendell submitted to the Commission on April 17, 2006, an application for minor modification of the WXNH(AM) construction permit. On April 28, 2006, LIM submitted an informal objection to Wendell's application for minor modification, alleging that the proposed WXNH(AM) facilities violate Section 73.37(a) of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') and would receive prohibited contour overlap from WLIE(AM). In his Objection to the Application, Wendell indicates that the WXNH(AM) construction permit ``does not have a prohibited overlap to the WLIE licensed facilities and that the WLIE licensed facilities ... and its construction permit ... have been incorrectly granted due to inconsistencies with the WLIE
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-249A1.txt
  • service.'' Ridgefield amended the Uncasville application on August 8, 2005. The amendment changed the frequency of the proposal from 1520 kHz to 1490 kHz, and supplied field strength measurements for WACM, West Springfield, Massachusetts. The staff's study of the amended proposal indicated that the Uncasville facility would both cause and receive prohibited contour overlap with WACM in violation of Section 73.37 of the Commission's rules. Because the amended proposal did not comply with the Commission's rules, the staff dismissed Ridgefield's application. In order to eliminate prohibited contour overlap with WACM, with its Petition, Ridgefield supplied a technical amendment reducing the antenna efficiency of the proposed Uncasville station, increasing the power, and asserting that the staff's interpretation of the provisions of 73.37(a)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3406A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3406A1.txt
  • for the filing of long form applications upon good cause showing). Effective October 17, 2006, this fee is $3,565.00. See schedule of charges at 47 C.F.R. § 1.1104. Method and form of payment is addressed in 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1109, 1.1110. See also the Media Services Application Fee Filing Guide and the FCC 301 instructions. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.24, 73.37, and 73.182. See 47 C.F.R. § 73.5005. Pursuant to procedures adopted in the Broadcast Auction First Report and Order, singleton applicants filing FCC 301 applications may change the technical proposals specified in their previous filing. However, such singleton applicants may not specify in the FCC 301 application a change in the proposed facility that constitutes a major change from the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3793A1.txt
  • mutual exclusivities by submitting settlement agreements or technical amendments to the Commission). 47 C.F.R. § 73.3571(f). Broadcast First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 15989. All mutually exclusive applications will be considered under the relevant procedures for conflict resolution. See 47 C.F.R. § 73.3571(h)(2). In determining mutual exclusivity among the AM applications, the staff will apply 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37, 73.182, 73.183(b)(1). See also Nelson Enterprises, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 3414 (2003) (application of AM interference standards to establish mutual exclusivity between window-filed applications); Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Service, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 6273, 6356 (1991), recon. granted in part and denied in part, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1313A1.txt
  • Petition for Reconsideration (``Reply'') filed by Licensee on May 14, 2007. Background. On August 9, 2004, Licensee filed an application seeking to change the Station's frequency and operating power. On March 19, 2007, the application was returned because it failed to provide daytime protection to co-channel stations WCST(AM), Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, and WOLB(AM), Baltimore, Maryland, in violation of Section 73.37 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''). In its Petition, Licensee asserts that Radio One has abandoned WOLB(AM)'s licensed site and sold it to a developer who has constructed various buildings on it. Radio One, it continues, has pending an application for license to cover its WOLB(AM) construction permit and, in fact, is currently operating WOLB(AM) from that site. Licensee contends
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1371A1.txt
  • filing window. It was determined to be a ``singleton,'' that is, an application not mutually exclusive with any other window-filed application. Accordingly, the staff directed Rainey to file a long-form (FCC Form 301) application. Rainey timely filed the Application on October 29, 2004. On February 9, 2006, the staff notified Rainey that the facilities proposed in the Application violated Section 73.37(a) of the Commission's Rules, and afforded Rainey the opportunity to amend the Application to correct all deficiencies. After requesting and receiving an extension of time in which to amend, Rainey filed an amendment to the Application on August 9, 2006. On September 5, 2006, the staff informed Rainey that the amended Application still violated Section 73.37 of the Commission's Rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1416A1.txt
  • on May 14, 2007, by Licensee, and the Radio One Supplement. Background. On August 9, 2004, Licensee filed the Application seeking to change the Station's frequency and operating power. On March 19, 2007, the Application was returned because it failed to provide daytime protection to co-channel stations WCST(AM), Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, and WOLB(AM), Baltimore, Maryland, in violation of Section 73.37 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''). In its Petition, Licensee asserts that Radio One has abandoned WOLB(AM)'s then-licensed site and sold it to a developer who has constructed various buildings on it. Licensee also notes that Radio One had recently filed an application for license to cover its WOLB(AM) construction permit to operate from a new site and, in fact,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1946A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1946A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1946A1.txt
  • the Mentor Partners application. As noted above, both Mentor Partners and WTRW Inc. have filed ``long form'' applications for their proposals, which remain pending. Accordingly, Heller's argument that the grant of the WONX Application here will somehow affect the settlement of AM MX Group 84-53 is no longer accurate and requires no further discussion. Prohibited Contour Overlap. Pursuant to Section 73.37 of the Rules, the Commission does not regulate with respect to contour overlap where ``the area of overlap lies entirely over sea water.'' KCI indicates in the Engineering Statement attached to the WONX Application that the overlap caused to WGBW(AM) would be ``slightly reduced'' by the proposal, and our analysis reveals that any remaining overlap between WONX(AM) and WGBW(AM) would
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2446A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2446A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2446A1.txt
  • is predicted to any stations.'' In performing an engineering review of the Application, however, the Bureau discovered that the Station's proposed daytime .5 mV/m and 0.025 mV/m groundwave contours would overlap, respectively, with the 0.025mV/m and .5 mV/m groundwave contours of the unbuilt construction permit for co-channel Class B station WFGM(AM), Sandy Springs, Georgia (``WFGM(AM) Permit''), in violation of Section 73.37(a) of the Commission's rules (``Rules''). Although the WFGM(AM) Permit was initially set to expire on February 3, 2007, the permit was tolled for a period and is now set to expire on January 13, 2009. Thus, the Bureau dismissed Petitioner's Application based on the prohibited groundwave contour overlap with the WFGM(AM) Permit. In response to the Bureau Decision, Petitioner argues
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-587A1.txt
  • filing window. It was determined to be a ``singleton,'' that is, an application not mutually exclusive with any other window-filed application. Accordingly, the staff directed Rivers to file a long-form (FCC Form 301) application. Rivers timely filed the Application on October 29, 2004. On May 13, 2005, the staff notified Rivers that the facilities proposed in the Application violated Section 73.37 of the Commission's Rules, and afforded Rivers the opportunity to amend the Application to correct all deficiencies. After requesting and receiving an extension of time in which to amend, Rivers filed amendments to the Application on November 14, and 18, 2005. On August 22, 2006, the staff informed Rivers that the amended Application still violated Section 73.37, giving it 30
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2119A1.txt
  • September 16, 2005 Deadline Established for Section 307(b) Submissions, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 10563 (MB/WTB 2005) (``MX Public Notice''), as extended by Auction No. 84 Settlement Period and Section 307(b) Submission Deadline Extended to October 31, 2005, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 14492 (MB/WTB 2005). In determining mutual exclusivity the staff applied the following rule sections: 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37, 73.182, 73.183(b)(1). See also Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast Service, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 6273 (1991), recon granted in part and denied in part, 8 FCC Rcd 3250 (1993) and Nelson Enterprises, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 3414 (2003) (clarifying standards to establish mutual exclusivity between window-filed AM applications). 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2119A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2119A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2119A2.txt
  • September 16, 2005 Deadline Established for Section 307(b) Submissions, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 10563 (MB/WTB 2005) (``MX Public Notice''), as extended by Auction No. 84 Settlement Period and Section 307(b) Submission Deadline Extended to October 31, 2005, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 14492 (MB/WTB 2005). In determining mutual exclusivity the staff applied the following rule sections: 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37, 73.182, 73.183(b)(1). See also Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast Service, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 6273 (1991), recon granted in part and denied in part, 8 FCC Rcd 3250 (1993) and Nelson Enterprises, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 3414 (2003) (clarifying standards to establish mutual exclusivity between window-filed AM applications). 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2196A1.txt
  • and Filing Requirements Regarding October 1-5, 2007, Window for Certain AM Construction Permit Applications for Rockland County, New York; Notice Regarding Freeze on the Filing of AM Expanded Band Minor Change Construction Permit Applications,'' Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 16217 (2007) (``Supplemental AM Window Public Notice''). In determining mutual exclusivity, the staff applied the following rule sections: 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37, 73.182, 73.183(b)(1). See also Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast Service, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 6273 (1991), recon granted in part and denied in part, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 3250 (1993), and Nelson Enterprises, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 3414 (2003) (clarifying standards to establish mutual exclusivity between
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-801A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-801A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-801A1.txt
  • area that will experience a reduction in service due to the proposed contingent facilities changes. We will therefore examine the parties' IRA here in light of these four factors. Reduction in Interference. The IRA states that deletion of station KVLH(AM)'s license would result in the elimination of 16,752 square kilometers of interference area created by KVLH(AM), as defined by Section 73.37 of the Rules. Increased Service. The IRA indicates that the Station's daytime power increase would permit the Station to serve 1,974,482 more people than are within the Station's licensed 2 mV/m service contour. Creation of ``White'' or ``Gray'' Areas. Deletion of station KVLH(AM)'s license would not create any white or gray areas. Local Service Floor. The parties indicate that even
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-213571A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-213571A1.txt
  • ACCEPTED FOR FILING -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- TX BMPH-20010607AAW KWTR 86625WOODROW MICHAEL WARREN Mod of CP to chg E104.1 MHZ BIG LAKE, TX AM STATION APPLICATIONS FOR MINOR MODIFICATION TO A LICENSED FACILITY PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ CA BP-20001218ACS KGDP 54760RADIO REPRESENTATIVES, INC. Minor change in licensed facilities; P660 KHZ ORCUTT, CA PET FOR RECON AND REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SECTION 73.37(A) FILED 6/4/01 FM STATION APPLICATIONS FOR MINOR MODIFICATION TO A LICENSED FACILITY ACCEPTED FOR FILING -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- KY BPH-20010518AAX WDHR 18224EAST KENTUCKY BROADCASTING CORP. Minor change in licensed facilities E93.1 MHZ PIKEVILLE, KY FM TRANSLATOR APPLICATIONS FOR MINOR MODIFICATION TO A LICENSED FACILITY ACCEPTED FOR FILING -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ FL BPFT-20010606ABA W263AH 43706 MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO Minor change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255864A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255864A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255864A1.txt
  • Corporation 10/25/04 In the Matter of the Commission's Rules Regarding Stolen Vehicle Recovery Systems (Filed By: Henry Goldberg, Goldberg, Godles, Wiener & Wright 1229 19th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ RM NO. RULES SEC. PETITIONER DATE RECEIVED NATURE OF PETITION ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------- 11136 73.21 and InterMart Broad- 10/25/04 In the Matter of the Commission's Rules Regarding 73.37 casting of Georgia, Inc., the technical operation of AM stations in the 1605- Rama Communications, 1705 KHz band (the ``AM Expanded Band''). The and Multicultural Radio petition proposes to amend Sections 73.21(a) (2), Broadcasting, Inc. 73.26 and 73.37 to designate certain stations operating the AM Expanded Band as Class B (Filed By: Lauren A. Colby, stations, to permit the authorization
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257265A1.txt
  • 58.63 dBW QPSK, DIGITAL DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 76K8G7W 56.31 dBW QPSK, DIGITAL DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 45K0G7W 56.19 dBW QPSK, DIGITAL DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 43K8G7W 86.01 dBW QPSK, DIGITAL DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 42M0G7W 76.93 dBW QPSK, DIGITAL DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 36M0G7W 54.83 dBW QPSK, DIGITAL DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 32K0G7W 73.37 dBW QPSK, DIGITAL DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 2M29G7W 82.78 dBW QPSK, DIGITAL DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 20M0G7W 59.77 dBW QPSK, DIGITAL DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 100KG7W 80.14 dBW ANALOG VIDEO 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 36M0F8W QPSK, DIGITAL TELEPHONY 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 36M0G7W QPSK, DIGITAL DATA 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 9K00G7W QPSK, DIGITAL DATA 11700.0000 - 12200.0000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265808A1.txt
  • - 14500.0000 MHz 76K8G7W 49.32 dBW QPSK DIGITAL DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 9K00G7W QPSK DIGITAL DATA 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 2M29G7W QPSK DIGITAL DATA 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 36M0G7W QPSK DIGITAL DATA 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 42M0G7W QPSK DIGITAL DATA 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 72M0G7W Page 9 of 18 82.78 dBW QPSK DIGITAL DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 20M0G7W 73.37 dBW QPSK DIGITAL DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 2M29G7W 76.93 dBW QPSK DIGITAL DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 36M0G7W 86.01 dBW QPSK DIGITAL DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 42M0G7W 88.25 dBW QPSK DIGITAL DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 72M0G7W QPSK, DIGITAL TELEPHONY 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 36M0G7W 71.70 dBW QPSK, DIGITAL TELEPHONY 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 36M0G7W PSK DIGITAL VIDEO
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-397A1.txt
  • allocation of that frequency in the Bay City area, with parameters replicating Station KFCC(AM)'s service area, would likely be impossible under current technical standards, if the station's authorization is terminated. The problem is that the station both produces and receives overlap from first adjacent Station KWHI (Brenham, Texas). This interference, although previously permitted, is now prohibited under 47 C.F.R. § 73.37(a) of the Commission's rules, but the current operation could continue pursuant to a ``grandfather'' provision if the license were assigned. 8. A waiver of the revised technical standards to permit replication of KFCC's current service area would serve the public interest. In revising those standards to alleviate congestion and interference in the AM band generally, the Commission deleted former Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-70A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-70A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-70A1.txt
  • of Birach's plans to cease broadcast operations and relocate the station. Documents submitted with the Assignment Application condition Birach's contractual obligations on the approval of the Brinklow Application. The Petition for Waiver that accompanied the Brinklow Application specifically stated that Station WDMV was losing money and ``may well be forced off the air.'' Petition for Waiver for 47 C.F.R. § 73.37, filed as part of BP-920508AA, at 2. The Letter of Intent that was included in the Assignment Application stated that the ``physical facilities of Radio Station WDMV-AM'' would not be purchased by Birach. Letter of Intent in Assignment Application (File No. BAL-19920508EB). These facts reflect Birach's intention, as evidenced by the Brinklow Application and the Petition for Waiver accompanying it,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-190A1.txt
  • Dismiss or Return Application as Unacceptable For Filing'' against Star's application. FB argued in its motion that the Star application was unacceptable because it failed to protect FB's prior-filed and cut off September 29, 1999, minor change application to increase WRMQ's daytime power to 5 kW. It concludes that the Star application should be dismissed for this violation of Section 73.37(a). The FB minor change application was filed on a paper form. Star asserts that the FB application did not appear in the Commission's Consolidated Data Base System (``CDBS'') when Star prepared and filed its proposed new station application. At the time, the Commission was in the process of converting its paper records to electronic form in CDBS. 4. Star seeks
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-286A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-286A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-286A1.txt
  • their ever-expanding core marketing area.'' The NRSC AM report recommends that the Commission authorize daytime operation with the hybrid AM IBOC system as developed by iBiquity. This system has been designed to conform to the AM emission mask specified in Section 73.44 of the Commission's rules. The emission mask is integrally related to the Commission's AM allocations rules (principally Sections 73.37 and 73.182) which, in turn, rest on certain assumptions concerning tradeoffs between coverage and interference. Thus, the AM IBOC system confines the digital signal within the station's existing authorization. Based on the testing record and this system design, we agree with the NRSC and will presumptively permit all stations to operate with the digital power levels developed by iBiquity and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-38A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-38A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-38A1.txt
  • Bureaus subsequently released an October 27, 2000, Public Notice, which listed all mutually exclusive AM applications, including the Applications. The Staff Decisions denied reconsideration of the exclusion of the Applications from the Singleton Public Notice and reaffirmed the correctness of the procedures used to determine nighttime mutual exclusivity. 3. The MX Public Notice specifically noted that the staff applied Sections 73.37, 73.182, and 73.183(b)(1) of the Commission's technical rules to make mutual exclusivity determinations. Neither the Plano nor the Sahuarita application complied with the nighttime protections set forth in Section 73.182. In MX Group AM 25, Nelson's proposed Plano nighttime facility would enter the fifty percent exclusion root-sum-square (``RSS'') limit of D&E's nighttime proposal for a new station in Baxter, Minnesota,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-143A1.txt
  • in this regard. Id. at 6. See also Broadcast First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 15964-65. See, e.g., Mutually Exclusive Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 20449 n.3 (in determining mutual exclusivity among AM applications, staff employed technical standards consistent with the Commission proceeding undertaken to revitalize and improve the AM service, as well as 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37, 73.182, and 73.183(b)(1)). See also Nelson Enterprises, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd 3414 (2003) (``Nelson Enterprises''). 47 C.F.R. § 73.182. Peoples's 50 percent nighttime limit is 11.26 mV/m, resulting from the single contribution of WTRU(AM), Kernersville, North Carolina. The computation of Peoples's nighttime limit excludes a contribution of 12.7 mV/m from a proposed new Class A station in Belize City, Belize.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-148A1.txt
  • the AM broadcast construction permit at Las Vegas, Nevada, in MX Group AM 38. 5. Discussion. Allegations regarding grantability of PMCC application: ALM reiterates its previous assertions that the PMCC application cannot be granted due to technical defects. Specifically, ALM argues that PMCC's auction filing window application does not satisfy the AM daytime and nighttime interference protection requirements of Sections 73.37 and 73.182 of our rules. Thus, it contends, PMCC's application should be dismissed, and ALM's and Michael's applications processed as non-mutually exclusive applications. However, the contentions regarding the alleged technical deficiencies of PMCC's application, based on PMCC's AM auction filing window application, are beyond the scope of a threshold Section 307(b) analysis, and thus have no relevance to the Bureau's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-120A1.txt
  • Canadian or Mexican governments if required to do so. Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920, 15928 (1998) (``Broadcast First Report and Order''). See also 47 C.F.R. § 73.3571(h)(1)(i). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.24(i) (principal community coverage requirement), 73.37 (signal overlap), 73.182 (interference and other engineering standards). Id. § 73.5002(d). 47 U.S.C. § 307(b). See Broadcast First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 15964-65. First Broadcasting Petition at 8. Id. at 8-9. Id. at 27-28. Id. at 28. Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Permit FM Channel and Class Modifications by Application, 8 FCC Rcd 4735 (1993) (``One-Step
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-35A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-35A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-35A1.txt
  • final date by which regulatory fees must be paid. The Fee Due Date usually occurs in August or September. An ``Exempt Entity'' is a legal entity that is relieved of the burden of paying annual regulatory fees. Definitions regarding AM Expanded Band stations are listed in many places in the Commission rules, including 47 CFR section 73.14, 73.21, 73.30, and 73.37. See 47 CFR sections 73.14, 73.21, 73.30, and 73.37 of the Commission' rules for information regarding AM Expanded Band stations. See 47 CFR sections 1.1161(c), 1.1164(f)(5), and 1.1910. See FY 2001 Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 13590 (2001) at ¶ 67. See also FCC Public Notice - Common Carrier Regulatory Fees (August 3, 2001) at 4. Beginning in FY2002,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-163A1.txt
  • adjacent channels. A major change in ownership is a situation where the original party or parties to the application do not retain more than 50% ownership interest in the application as originally filed. A major change in community of license is one in which the applicant's daytime facilities at the proposed community are not mutually exclusive, as defined in Section 73.37 of this part, with the applicant's current daytime facilities, or any change in community of license of an AM station in the 1605-1705 kHz band. All other changes will be considered minor. ***** (j) Applications proposing to change the community of license of an AM station, except for an AM station in the 1605-1705 kHz band, are considered to be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-20A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-20A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-20A1.txt
  • adequately explained how information submitted by Owens was evaluated and how the staff concluded that the proposed station would cause no interference to KUZZ(AM). There is no requirement that the staff's analysis be of a minimum length. The Permit Decision concisely explained the staff's determination that, based upon the record, including submitted measurements, the proposed station would meet all Section 73.37(a) contour overlap standards and would not interfere with KUZZ(AM). Moreover, the staff had previously explained in the Deficiency Letter why Owens' interference allegations were without merit. As noted above, the Permit Decision dismissed Owens' Petition for Reconsideration of the Deficiency Letter on procedural grounds because reconsideration generally does not lie against interlocutory actions. Nevertheless, the staff also explained that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-227A1.txt
  • to determine which applications will cause unacceptable nighttime interference to other stations.). According to SRC, applications which enter the RSS calculation of other applications are only mutually exclusive if the ability of one of the facilities to provide principal community interference free service is also eliminated. We disagree. The staff properly applied the relevant AM interference rules (47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37, 73.182, 73.187) in making its mutual exclusivity determinations. See, e.g., Nelson Enterprises, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 3414 (2003). The Commission recognized that limiting pre-auction analysis of all filed applications to a determination of mutual exclusivity could result in ``applicants, whose technical proposals are unacceptable, participating and perhaps prevailing in an auction'' and, therefore, the Commission considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-7A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-7A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-7A1.txt
  • Island, whose overlap with the relevant market stations occurs only over Long Island Sound, and contends that it should not be counted as a market station. As a general matter, we find those interference cases inapposite. In contrast to the assignment application at issue here, the applications in those cases facially violated a Commission rule. Critically, however, that rule, Section 73.37, Note 2 (1), states that it ``will not apply'' when otherwise prohibited overlap occurs entirely over sea water because such interference does not adversely affect listeners. As noted above, Section 73.3555 contains no parallel instruction. In any event, AAA volunteered to omit WXNI(AM) from the station count and doing so would not alter the outcome in this case. Even without
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-30A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-30A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-30A1.txt
  • regarding the submission of the short-form application, FCC Form 175, and all appropriate certifications, information and exhibits contained therein. To determine which AM applications are mutually exclusive, AM applicants must submit the engineering data contained in FCC Form 301 as a supplement to the short-form application. Such engineering data will be studied for compliance with the technical requirements of §§73.24, 73.37, and 73.182 and will be protected from subsequently filed applications as of the close of the window filing period. Note 1 to §73.3571: For purposes of paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section, determinations of mutual exclusivity will be made in accordance with the Commission's decision in Nelson Enterprises, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd 3414 (2003). 3. Section 73.5002 is proposed to be
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/fc980194.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/fc980194.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/fc980194.wp
  • to submit a set of preferred site coordinates, and may simply indicate the vacant allotment upon which they intend to bid.153 Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-194 for two separate FM allotments were to conflict, we will expect the winning bidders for these allotments to resolve such conflict through negotiations after the close of the auction. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37, 73.182, and 73.187 (AM interference rules); 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.703; 74.705, 74.707 and 154 74.709 (LPTV and television translator interference rules); and 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.1203 and 74.1204 (FM translator interference rules). See Comments of Tri-County Broadcasting, Inc. at 4; KERM, Inc. at 4 (prior to auction, requiring submission of long- 155 forms is unnecessary and preparing long-forms is burdensome
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/fc980194.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/fc980194.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/fc980194.wp
  • to submit a set of preferred site coordinates, and may simply indicate the vacant allotment upon which they intend to bid.153 Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-194 for two separate FM allotments were to conflict, we will expect the winning bidders for these allotments to resolve such conflict through negotiations after the close of the auction. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37, 73.182, and 73.187 (AM interference rules); 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.703; 74.705, 74.707 and 154 74.709 (LPTV and television translator interference rules); and 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.1203 and 74.1204 (FM translator interference rules). See Comments of Tri-County Broadcasting, Inc. at 4; KERM, Inc. at 4 (prior to auction, requiring submission of long- 155 forms is unnecessary and preparing long-forms is burdensome
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/32/releases/da002416.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/32/releases/da002416.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/32/releases/da002416.txt
  • applications, the staff employed technical standards consistent with the Commission proceeding undertaken to revitalize and improve the AM service. See Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast Service, 6 FCC Rcd 6273 (1991), recon granted in part and denied in part, 8 FCC Rcd 3250 (1993). The staff also applied the following rule sections: 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37, 73.182, 73.183(b)(1). See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j); 47 C.F.R. § 73.5000(a); see generally, First Report and Order, Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 (1998) (``Broadcast First Report and Order''). In addition, Attachment A includes six applications inadvertently listed on AM Auction No.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-97.pdf
  • KANSAS 26.76 3.97 15.31 30.27 0.78 77.09 14.56 91.65 KENTUCKY 30.83 3.76 12.82 29.67 0.84 77.93 14.26 92.18 LOUISIANA 34.68 4.16 11.22 26.70 0.62 77.38 13.48 90.86 MAINE 22.95 3.63 14.54 27.00 0.94 69.06 12.36 81.42 MARYLAND 30.52 4.23 10.59 30.84 0.59 76.77 15.41 92.18 MASSACHUSETTS 28.96 3.95 11.85 30.29 0.90 75.94 15.75 91.69 MICHIGAN 24.04 3.84 24.33 20.58 0.57 73.37 14.55 87.92 MINNESOTA 28.72 4.25 10.95 28.89 0.77 73.58 15.91 89.49 MISSISSIPPI 38.35 4.08 11.48 30.32 0.74 84.97 13.77 98.74 MISSOURI 27.70 3.93 12.77 27.19 0.88 72.48 14.23 86.71 MONTANA 25.61 4.26 19.72 36.76 0.86 87.21 12.63 99.84 NEBRASKA 37.12 4.20 14.21 30.14 1.04 86.72 14.43 101.15 NEVADA 22.02 4.00 4.29 41.03 0.59 71.93 13.57 85.50 NEW HAMPSHIRE 27.38 4.14
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1998/fcc98117.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1998/fcc98117.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1998/fcc98117.wp
  • 74 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Translator Stations, Report and Order in MM Docket 88-140, 5 FCC Rcd 7212, 7224 (1990) (rejecting suggestions that changes in FM translator coverage areas greater than 10 percent be classified as minor changes based on concern over enabling translators to increase coverage significantly without being subject to competing applications). 86 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37(a) (AM daytime contour protection requirements); 73.182(q) (AM nighttime contour protection requirements); 73.509 (NCE FM stations must protect 1 mV/m contour of NCE FM stations); 74.1204 (FM translators must protect primary service contours of existing FM and FM translator stations); see also Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 4738 (employing similar reasoning in adopting cut-off protection for minor change applications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98281.pdf
  • map or maps having appropriate scales, showing the 1000 mV/m and coverage contours (the proposed 5 mV/m nighttime groundwave contour, or the nighttime interference-free contour, whichever is the greater value) for both existing and proposed facilities. The map showing the nighttime coverage contour must clearly show the legal boundaries of the principal community to be served. See Sections 73.24(e), 73.33, 73.37, 73.45, 73.150, 73.152, and 73.182(a)-(i). Item 8: Community Coverage. The applicant must certify that the proposed facility complies with the Commission's AM community coverage requirements. See Section 73.24(i). For all AM stations, the daytime 5 mV/m contour must cover the entire principal community to be served. Additionally, however: (1) For stations in the 535-1605 kHz band, 80% of the principal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99055.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99055.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99055.wp
  • ¶¶ 77-90 (released November 25, 1998) (modifying construction permit extension procedures); see also Matter of Revision of Sections 73.3571, 73.3572 and 73.3573 of the Commission's Rules, First Report and Order in MM Docket No. 83-1377, 56 Rad. Reg. 2d 941, 943-44 (1984) (employing similar analysis in classifying commercial FM station facilities increases as minor changes). 29 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37(a) (AM daytime contour protection requirements); 73.182(q) (AM nighttime contour protection requirements); 73.509 (NCE FM stations must protect 1 mV/m contour of NCE FM stations); 74.1204 (FM translators must protect primary service contours of existing FM and FM translator stations). 30 Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 14872; see supra, n. 29. 31 With regard to NPR's and V-Soft Communications' suggestions regarding
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99315.doc
  • review of the May 1, 1998, action returning as unacceptable for filing its application for a new AM broadcast station at Mountain Gate, California. For the reasons set forth below, we deny review. 2. The staff determined that Southern's proposed facilities would not adequately protect the licensed facilities of AM Station KMCA, Burney, California, as required by 47 C.F.R. § 73.37(a). Southern argues that the rule should not apply to its application, because the KMCA licensee had filed an application for a construction permit to change its community of license. Specifically, Southern contends that, because its dismissed application was actually a competing proposal with KMCA's application to change community of license, dismissal of its own application for failure to protect KMCA's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00285.doc
  • the application was mutually exclusive with a then-pending application filed by M.C. Allen Productions (``MCAP''), licensee of KMCA(AM), to change its community of license from Burney to Shasta, California. The staff returned Oregon's Mountain Gate Application as unacceptable for filing because it failed to adequately protect the licensed facilities of KMCA(AM) at Burney, California, as required by 47 C.F.R. § 73.37(a). The staff denied reconsideration, noting that ``Oregon's redundant petition failed to contain a curative amendment to eliminate the prohibited overlap'' to KMCA's licensed facilities in Burney. In its Application for Review, Oregon argued that §73.37(a) was misapplied with regard to the Mountain Gate Application. In the Application for Review, Oregon stated that the purpose of §73.73(a) is to require that
• http://www.fcc.gov/DiversityFAC/040614/DistressSalePolicy-recommendation.doc
  • continued existence. See, e.g., Revision of Radio Rules and Policies (R&O), 7 FCC Rcd 2755, 2769-2770 ¶¶26-29, reconsideration granted in part and denied in part, 7 FCC Rcd 6387 (1992) (pointing to the existence of the tax certificate and distress sale policies in order to justify relaxation of the local radio ownership rules); Deletion of AM Acceptance Criteria in Section 73.37(e) of the Commission's Rules (R&O), 102 FCC2d 548, 558 (1985), recon. denied, 4 FCC Rcd 5218 (1989) (holding that a ``sounder approach'' than eligibility criteria for new licenses is to use distress sales and tax certificates to promote minority ownership); Deregulation of Radio (R&O), 84 FCC2d 968, 977, recon. granted in part, 87 FCC2d 797 (1981), aff'd in pertinent part
• http://www.fcc.gov/DiversityFAC/040614/IncentiveBasedRegulations-recommendation.doc
  • limited eligibility for certain new AM construction permits to minority and noncommercial applicants. Clear Channel Broadcasting in the AM Broadcast Band (R&O), 78 FCC2d 1345, 1368-69, recon. denied, 83 FCC2d 216 (1980), aff'd sub nom. Loyola University v. FCC, 670 F.2d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1982). The Clear Channel Eligibility Criteria were repealed in Deletion of AM Acceptance Criteria in Section 73.37(e) of the Commission's Rules (R&O), 102 FCC2d 548, 558 (1985), recon. denied, 4 FCC Rcd 5218 (1989) (holding that a ``sounder approach'' than eligibility criteria is to use distress sales and tax certificates to promote minority ownership). Only thirteen minority owned stations had been created during the two years when the policy was in effect. Id., 102 FCC2d at 555.
• http://www.fcc.gov/DiversityFAC/102808/eligible-entities-report-102808.pdf
  • Commissioner Rivera characterized the weight of the daytimer preference -- which incorporated a "substantial" local ownership credit -- as so heavy that "it will be almost impossible for any newcomer - minority or non-minority - to prevail against a qualifying daytimer." Id., 101 FCC2d at 653 (Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Henry M. Rivera); Deletion of AM Acceptance Criteria in Section 73.37(e) of the Commission's Rules (R&O), 102 FCC2d 548, 558 (1985), recon. denied, 4 FCC Rcd 5218 (1989) ("Clear Channels Repeal") (repealing the minority and noncommercial eligibility criteria in Clear Channels, holding that a "sounder approach" than eligibility criteria is to use distress sales and tax certificates to promote minority ownership). Only thirteen minority-owned stations had been created under this two-year
• http://www.fcc.gov/DiversityFAC/adopted-recommendations/DistressSalePolicyRecommend.doc
  • continued existence. See, e.g., Revision of Radio Rules and Policies (R&O), 7 FCC Rcd 2755, 2769-2770 ¶¶26-29, reconsideration granted in part and denied in part, 7 FCC Rcd 6387 (1992) (pointing to the existence of the tax certificate and distress sale policies in order to justify relaxation of the local radio ownership rules); Deletion of AM Acceptance Criteria in Section 73.37(e) of the Commission's Rules (R&O), 102 FCC2d 548, 558 (1985), recon. denied, 4 FCC Rcd 5218 (1989) (holding that a ``sounder approach'' than eligibility criteria for new licenses is to use distress sales and tax certificates to promote minority ownership); Deregulation of Radio (R&O), 84 FCC2d 968, 977, recon. granted in part, 87 FCC2d 797 (1981), aff'd in pertinent part
• http://www.fcc.gov/DiversityFAC/adopted-recommendations/IncentiveBasedRegulationsRecommend.doc
  • limited eligibility for certain new AM construction permits to minority and noncommercial applicants. Clear Channel Broadcasting in the AM Broadcast Band (R&O), 78 FCC2d 1345, 1368-69, recon. denied, 83 FCC2d 216 (1980), aff'd sub nom. Loyola University v. FCC, 670 F.2d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1982). The Clear Channel Eligibility Criteria were repealed in Deletion of AM Acceptance Criteria in Section 73.37(e) of the Commission's Rules (R&O), 102 FCC2d 548, 558 (1985), recon. denied, 4 FCC Rcd 5218 (1989) (holding that a ``sounder approach'' than eligibility criteria is to use distress sales and tax certificates to promote minority ownership). Only thirteen minority owned stations had been created during the two years when the policy was in effect. Id., 102 FCC2d at 555.
• http://www.fcc.gov/DiversityFAC/adopted-recommendations/eligible-entities-report-102808.pdf
  • Commissioner Rivera characterized the weight of the daytimer preference -- which incorporated a "substantial" local ownership credit -- as so heavy that "it will be almost impossible for any newcomer - minority or non-minority - to prevail against a qualifying daytimer." Id., 101 FCC2d at 653 (Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Henry M. Rivera); Deletion of AM Acceptance Criteria in Section 73.37(e) of the Commission's Rules (R&O), 102 FCC2d 548, 558 (1985), recon. denied, 4 FCC Rcd 5218 (1989) ("Clear Channels Repeal") (repealing the minority and noncommercial eligibility criteria in Clear Channels, holding that a "sounder approach" than eligibility criteria is to use distress sales and tax certificates to promote minority ownership). Only thirteen minority-owned stations had been created under this two-year
• http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form301/301.pdf
  • map or maps having appropriate scales, showing the 1000 mV/m and coverage contours (the proposed 5 mV/m nighttime groundwave contour, or the nighttime interference-free contour, whichever is the greater value) for both existing and proposed facilities. The map showing the nighttime coverage contour must clearly show the legal boundaries of the principal community to be served. See Sections 73.24(e), 73.33, 73.37, 73.45, 73.150, 73.152, and 73.182(a)-(i). Item 8: Community Coverage. The applicant must certify that the proposed facility complies with the Commission's AM community coverage requirements. See Section 73.24(i). For all AM stations, the daytime 5 mV/m contour must cover the entire principal community to be served. Additionally, however: (1) For stations in the 535-1605 kHz band, 80% of the principal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011166.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011166.html
  • ORDERED THAT a copy of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to M.C. Allen Productions, 4531 Shannon Place, Redding, California 96001. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau In that decision, the Commission reaffirmed the dismissal of an application whose proposed contour overlapped Allen's licensed contour in violation of section 73.37(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.37(a). The Commission determined that dismissal was appropriate because the applicant neither had protected Allen's licensed facilities in Burney nor requested a waiver of section 73.37(a). The applicant had contended, inter alia, that there was no need to protect Allen's licensed facilities because Allen had already relocated Station KMCA and its main studio
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012773.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012773.pdf
  • Suite 307, Washington, D.C. 20006. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 On July 13, 2001, the Commission's staff granted BL- 20010612AHZ, thereby changing KMCA's community of license from Burney to Shasta, California. 2 In that decision, the Commission reaffirmed the dismissal of an application whose proposed contour overlapped KMCA's licensed contour in violation of section 73.37(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 73.37(a). The Commission determined that dismissal was appropriate because the applicant neither had protected KMCA's licensed facilities in Burney nor requested a waiver of 47 C.F.R. 73.37(a). The applicant had contended, inter alia, that there was no need to protect KMCA's licensed facilities because Allen had already relocated KMCA and its main studio out
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1546A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1546A1.pdf
  • Objection and grant the Application. Background. Wendell is the permittee of new unbuilt Station WXNH(AM), Jaffrey, New Hampshire. Wendell submitted to the Commission on April 17, 2006, an application for minor modification of the WXNH(AM) construction permit. On April 28, 2006, LIM submitted an informal objection to Wendell's application for minor modification, alleging that the proposed WXNH(AM) facilities violate Section 73.37(a) of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') and would receive prohibited contour overlap from WLIE(AM). In his Objection to the Application, Wendell indicates that the WXNH(AM) construction permit ``does not have a prohibited overlap to the WLIE licensed facilities and that the WLIE licensed facilities ... and its construction permit ... have been incorrectly granted due to inconsistencies with the WLIE
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-249A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-249A1.pdf
  • service.'' Ridgefield amended the Uncasville application on August 8, 2005. The amendment changed the frequency of the proposal from 1520 kHz to 1490 kHz, and supplied field strength measurements for WACM, West Springfield, Massachusetts. The staff's study of the amended proposal indicated that the Uncasville facility would both cause and receive prohibited contour overlap with WACM in violation of Section 73.37 of the Commission's rules. Because the amended proposal did not comply with the Commission's rules, the staff dismissed Ridgefield's application. In order to eliminate prohibited contour overlap with WACM, with its Petition, Ridgefield supplied a technical amendment reducing the antenna efficiency of the proposed Uncasville station, increasing the power, and asserting that the staff's interpretation of the provisions of 73.37(a)
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1313A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1313A1.pdf
  • Petition for Reconsideration (``Reply'') filed by Licensee on May 14, 2007. Background. On August 9, 2004, Licensee filed an application seeking to change the Station's frequency and operating power. On March 19, 2007, the application was returned because it failed to provide daytime protection to co-channel stations WCST(AM), Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, and WOLB(AM), Baltimore, Maryland, in violation of Section 73.37 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''). In its Petition, Licensee asserts that Radio One has abandoned WOLB(AM)'s licensed site and sold it to a developer who has constructed various buildings on it. Radio One, it continues, has pending an application for license to cover its WOLB(AM) construction permit and, in fact, is currently operating WOLB(AM) from that site. Licensee contends
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1371A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1371A1.pdf
  • filing window. It was determined to be a ``singleton,'' that is, an application not mutually exclusive with any other window-filed application. Accordingly, the staff directed Rainey to file a long-form (FCC Form 301) application. Rainey timely filed the Application on October 29, 2004. On February 9, 2006, the staff notified Rainey that the facilities proposed in the Application violated Section 73.37(a) of the Commission's Rules, and afforded Rainey the opportunity to amend the Application to correct all deficiencies. After requesting and receiving an extension of time in which to amend, Rainey filed an amendment to the Application on August 9, 2006. On September 5, 2006, the staff informed Rainey that the amended Application still violated Section 73.37 of the Commission's Rules,
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1416A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1416A1.pdf
  • on May 14, 2007, by Licensee, and the Radio One Supplement. Background. On August 9, 2004, Licensee filed the Application seeking to change the Station's frequency and operating power. On March 19, 2007, the Application was returned because it failed to provide daytime protection to co-channel stations WCST(AM), Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, and WOLB(AM), Baltimore, Maryland, in violation of Section 73.37 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''). In its Petition, Licensee asserts that Radio One has abandoned WOLB(AM)'s then-licensed site and sold it to a developer who has constructed various buildings on it. Licensee also notes that Radio One had recently filed an application for license to cover its WOLB(AM) construction permit to operate from a new site and, in fact,
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1946A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1946A1.pdf
  • the Mentor Partners application. As noted above, both Mentor Partners and WTRW Inc. have filed ``long form'' applications for their proposals, which remain pending. Accordingly, Heller's argument that the grant of the WONX Application here will somehow affect the settlement of AM MX Group 84-53 is no longer accurate and requires no further discussion. Prohibited Contour Overlap. Pursuant to Section 73.37 of the Rules, the Commission does not regulate with respect to contour overlap where ``the area of overlap lies entirely over sea water.'' KCI indicates in the Engineering Statement attached to the WONX Application that the overlap caused to WGBW(AM) would be ``slightly reduced'' by the proposal, and our analysis reveals that any remaining overlap between WONX(AM) and WGBW(AM) would
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2446A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2446A1.pdf
  • is predicted to any stations.'' In performing an engineering review of the Application, however, the Bureau discovered that the Station's proposed daytime .5 mV/m and 0.025 mV/m groundwave contours would overlap, respectively, with the 0.025mV/m and .5 mV/m groundwave contours of the unbuilt construction permit for co-channel Class B station WFGM(AM), Sandy Springs, Georgia (``WFGM(AM) Permit''), in violation of Section 73.37(a) of the Commission's rules (``Rules''). Although the WFGM(AM) Permit was initially set to expire on February 3, 2007, the permit was tolled for a period and is now set to expire on January 13, 2009. Thus, the Bureau dismissed Petitioner's Application based on the prohibited groundwave contour overlap with the WFGM(AM) Permit. In response to the Bureau Decision, Petitioner argues
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-587A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-587A1.pdf
  • filing window. It was determined to be a ``singleton,'' that is, an application not mutually exclusive with any other window-filed application. Accordingly, the staff directed Rivers to file a long-form (FCC Form 301) application. Rivers timely filed the Application on October 29, 2004. On May 13, 2005, the staff notified Rivers that the facilities proposed in the Application violated Section 73.37 of the Commission's Rules, and afforded Rivers the opportunity to amend the Application to correct all deficiencies. After requesting and receiving an extension of time in which to amend, Rivers filed amendments to the Application on November 14, and 18, 2005. On August 22, 2006, the staff informed Rivers that the amended Application still violated Section 73.37, giving it 30
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2119A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2119A1.pdf
  • September 16, 2005 Deadline Established for Section 307(b) Submissions, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 10563 (MB/WTB 2005) (``MX Public Notice''), as extended by Auction No. 84 Settlement Period and Section 307(b) Submission Deadline Extended to October 31, 2005, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 14492 (MB/WTB 2005). In determining mutual exclusivity the staff applied the following rule sections: 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37, 73.182, 73.183(b)(1). See also Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast Service, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 6273 (1991), recon granted in part and denied in part, 8 FCC Rcd 3250 (1993) and Nelson Enterprises, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 3414 (2003) (clarifying standards to establish mutual exclusivity between window-filed AM applications). 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2196A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2196A1.pdf
  • and Filing Requirements Regarding October 1-5, 2007, Window for Certain AM Construction Permit Applications for Rockland County, New York; Notice Regarding Freeze on the Filing of AM Expanded Band Minor Change Construction Permit Applications,'' Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 16217 (2007) (``Supplemental AM Window Public Notice''). In determining mutual exclusivity, the staff applied the following rule sections: 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37, 73.182, 73.183(b)(1). See also Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast Service, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 6273 (1991), recon granted in part and denied in part, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 3250 (1993), and Nelson Enterprises, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 3414 (2003) (clarifying standards to establish mutual exclusivity between
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-801A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-801A1.pdf
  • area that will experience a reduction in service due to the proposed contingent facilities changes. We will therefore examine the parties' IRA here in light of these four factors. Reduction in Interference. The IRA states that deletion of station KVLH(AM)'s license would result in the elimination of 16,752 square kilometers of interference area created by KVLH(AM), as defined by Section 73.37 of the Rules. Increased Service. The IRA indicates that the Station's daytime power increase would permit the Station to serve 1,974,482 more people than are within the Station's licensed 2 mV/m service contour. Creation of ``White'' or ``Gray'' Areas. Deletion of station KVLH(AM)'s license would not create any white or gray areas. Local Service Floor. The parties indicate that even
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-02-286A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-02-286A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-02-286A1.txt
  • their ever-expanding core marketing area.'' The NRSC AM report recommends that the Commission authorize daytime operation with the hybrid AM IBOC system as developed by iBiquity. This system has been designed to conform to the AM emission mask specified in Section 73.44 of the Commission's rules. The emission mask is integrally related to the Commission's AM allocations rules (principally Sections 73.37 and 73.182) which, in turn, rest on certain assumptions concerning tradeoffs between coverage and interference. Thus, the AM IBOC system confines the digital signal within the station's existing authorization. Based on the testing record and this system design, we agree with the NRSC and will presumptively permit all stations to operate with the digital power levels developed by iBiquity and
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-05-120A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-05-120A1.pdf
  • Canadian or Mexican governments if required to do so. Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920, 15928 (1998) (``Broadcast First Report and Order''). See also 47 C.F.R. § 73.3571(h)(1)(i). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.24(i) (principal community coverage requirement), 73.37 (signal overlap), 73.182 (interference and other engineering standards). Id. § 73.5002(d). 47 U.S.C. § 307(b). See Broadcast First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 15964-65. First Broadcasting Petition at 8. Id. at 8-9. Id. at 27-28. Id. at 28. Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Permit FM Channel and Class Modifications by Application, 8 FCC Rcd 4735 (1993) (``One-Step
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-06-163A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-06-163A1.pdf
  • adjacent channels. A major change in ownership is a situation where the original party or parties to the application do not retain more than 50% ownership interest in the application as originally filed. A major change in community of license is one in which the applicant's daytime facilities at the proposed community are not mutually exclusive, as defined in Section 73.37 of this part, with the applicant's current daytime facilities, or any change in community of license of an AM station in the 1605-1705 kHz band. All other changes will be considered minor. ***** (j) Applications proposing to change the community of license of an AM station, except for an AM station in the 1605-1705 kHz band, are considered to be
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-227A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-227A1.pdf
  • to determine which applications will cause unacceptable nighttime interference to other stations.). According to SRC, applications which enter the RSS calculation of other applications are only mutually exclusive if the ability of one of the facilities to provide principal community interference free service is also eliminated. We disagree. The staff properly applied the relevant AM interference rules (47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37, 73.182, 73.187) in making its mutual exclusivity determinations. See, e.g., Nelson Enterprises, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 3414 (2003). The Commission recognized that limiting pre-auction analysis of all filed applications to a determination of mutual exclusivity could result in ``applicants, whose technical proposals are unacceptable, participating and perhaps prevailing in an auction'' and, therefore, the Commission considered
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-7A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-7A1.pdf
  • Island, whose overlap with the relevant market stations occurs only over Long Island Sound, and contends that it should not be counted as a market station. As a general matter, we find those interference cases inapposite. In contrast to the assignment application at issue here, the applications in those cases facially violated a Commission rule. Critically, however, that rule, Section 73.37, Note 2 (1), states that it ``will not apply'' when otherwise prohibited overlap occurs entirely over sea water because such interference does not adversely affect listeners. As noted above, Section 73.3555 contains no parallel instruction. In any event, AAA volunteered to omit WXNI(AM) from the station count and doing so would not alter the outcome in this case. Even without
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-09-30A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-09-30A1.pdf
  • regarding the submission of the short-form application, FCC Form 175, and all appropriate certifications, information and exhibits contained therein. To determine which AM applications are mutually exclusive, AM applicants must submit the engineering data contained in FCC Form 301 as a supplement to the short-form application. Such engineering data will be studied for compliance with the technical requirements of §§73.24, 73.37, and 73.182 and will be protected from subsequently filed applications as of the close of the window filing period. Note 1 to §73.3571: For purposes of paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section, determinations of mutual exclusivity will be made in accordance with the Commission's decision in Nelson Enterprises, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd 3414 (2003). 3. Section 73.5002 is proposed to be
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-99-55A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-99-55A1.pdf
  • at ¶¶ 77-90 (released November 25, 1998) (modifying construction permit extension procedures); see also Matter of Revision of Sections 73.3571, 73.3572 and 73.3573 of the Commission's Rules, First Report and Order in MM Docket No. 83-1377, 56 Rad. Reg. 2d 941, 943-44 (1984) (employing similar analysis in classifying commercial FM station facilities increases as minor changes). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.37(a) (AM daytime contour protection requirements); 73.182(q) (AM nighttime contour protection requirements); 73.509 (NCE FM stations must protect 1 mV/m contour of NCE FM stations); 74.1204 (FM translators must protect primary service contours of existing FM and FM translator stations). Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 14872; see supra, n. 29. With regard to NPR's and V-Soft Communications' suggestions regarding strict application
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/amfmrule.html
  • [83]PDF 73.28 Assignment of stations to channels. [84]TEXT [85]PDF 73.29 Class C stations on regional channels. [ [86]AM Classes ] [87]TEXT [88]PDF 73.30 Petition for authorization of an allotment in the 1605-1705 kHz band. [89]TEXT [90]PDF 73.31 Rounding of nominal power specified on applications. [91]TEXT [92]PDF 73.33 Antenna systems; showing required. [93]TEXT [94]PDF 73.35 Calculation of improvement factors. [95]TEXT [96]PDF 73.37 Applications for broadcast facilities, showing required. [97]TEXT [98]PDF 73.44 AM transmission system emission limitations. [99]TEXT [100]PDF 73.45 AM antenna systems. [101]TEXT [102]PDF 73.49 AM transmission system fencing requirements. [103]TEXT [104]PDF 73.51 Determining operating power. [105]TEXT [106]PDF 73.53 Requirements for authorization of antenna monitors. [107]TEXT [108]PDF 73.54 Antenna resistance and reactance measurements. [109]TEXT [110]PDF 73.57 Remote reading antenna and common point
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/howtoapply.html
  • kHz to 1700 kHz. These stations are allocated on a non-interference basis. To be acceptable, an application for a new AM broadcast station must show that no interference will be caused to other U.S. and foreign AM stations on the same frequency or, on the adjacent channels (out to 30 kHz above or below the desired frequency (see [77]47 CFR 73.37)). Applications must also consider the second harmonic frequency and intermediate frequency relationships per 47 CFR 73.182(s) (for example 2 x 800 kHz = 1600 kHz for the second harmonic relationship; or 800 kHz + 455 kHz IF frequency could affect reception on 1250 and 1260 kHz). In general, these complex engineering analyses require specialized knowledge and software, and are best
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/translator.html
  • http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1232.pdf 99. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 100. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1202.pdf 101. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1232.pdf 102. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1204.pdf 103. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1235.pdf 104. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1232.pdf 105. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1203.pdf 106. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1231.pdf 107. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1234.pdf 108. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1263.pdf 109. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 110. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1231.pdf 111. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 112. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1231.pdf 113. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 114. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#FUND 115. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#WARN 116. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1231.pdf 117. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 118. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1232.pdf 119. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 120. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1284.pdf 121. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 122. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1999_register&docid=fr21ap99-11 123. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media.Orders/1999/fcc99055.pdf 124. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1233.pdf 125. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1251.pdf 126. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 127. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1233.pdf 128. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.37.pdf 129. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1233.pdf 130. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 131. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.3555.pdf 132. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1232.pdf 133. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 134. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1235.pdf 135. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 136. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1203.pdf 137. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 138. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1205.pdf 139. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 140. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1234.pdf 141. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.1226.pdf 142. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/noonehome.html 143. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 144. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr1.2002.pdf 145. http://www.noaa.gov/ 146. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr17.57.pdf 147. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 148. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1283.pdf 149. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1283.pdf 150. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.1201.pdf 151. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 152. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1204.pdf 153. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1205.pdf 154. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1235.pdf 155. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 156. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/fm.html 157. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/ 158. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/alphaindex.html
• http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/98-57.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/98-57.pdf
  • with community coverage requirements of 47 CFR ( 73.24(i). Exhibit Required. 15.Main Studio Location. The main studio complies with requirements of 47 CFR ( 73.1125. 16.Interference. The proposed facility complies with all of the following applicable rule sections. Check all those that apply. A separate exhibit is required for each applicable section as indicated. Groundwave. a) ( 47 CFR ( 73.37. Skywave. b) ( 47 CFR ( 73.182. Critical Hours. c) ( 47 CFR ( 73.187. Blanketing Interference. The proposed facility complies with the requirements of 47 CFR ( 73.24(g). 17.Environmental Protection Act. The proposed facility is excluded from environmental processing under 47 CFR ( 1.1306 (i.e., the facility will not have a significant environmental impact and complies with the maximum
• http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/let19961205.doc
  • to increase its daytime operating power from 5 kW to 25 kW and to make changes in its directional antenna system to increase WWRL(AM)'s interference-free 0.5 mV/m daytime contour. In conjunction with this application, Unity has filed an Amended Joint Petition to Grant Applications Pursuant to Interference Reduction Agreements ("Joint Petition"). Additionally, Unity requests a waiver of 47 C.F.R. Section 73.37, as grant of the above-captioned application would result in de minimus contour overlap. Furthermore, a petition to deny the above-captioned application was filed on November 8, 1996 by Blount Communications, Inc. ("BCI"), licensee of station WARV(AM), Warwick, Rhode Island. On December 5, 1996, BCI requested that its petition to deny be withdrawn. For the reasons stated below, we will grant
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/amfmrule.html
  • [83]PDF 73.28 Assignment of stations to channels. [84]TEXT [85]PDF 73.29 Class C stations on regional channels. [ [86]AM Classes ] [87]TEXT [88]PDF 73.30 Petition for authorization of an allotment in the 1605-1705 kHz band. [89]TEXT [90]PDF 73.31 Rounding of nominal power specified on applications. [91]TEXT [92]PDF 73.33 Antenna systems; showing required. [93]TEXT [94]PDF 73.35 Calculation of improvement factors. [95]TEXT [96]PDF 73.37 Applications for broadcast facilities, showing required. [97]TEXT [98]PDF 73.44 AM transmission system emission limitations. [99]TEXT [100]PDF 73.45 AM antenna systems. [101]TEXT [102]PDF 73.49 AM transmission system fencing requirements. [103]TEXT [104]PDF 73.51 Determining operating power. [105]TEXT [106]PDF 73.53 Requirements for authorization of antenna monitors. [107]TEXT [108]PDF 73.54 Antenna resistance and reactance measurements. [109]TEXT [110]PDF 73.57 Remote reading antenna and common point
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/howtoapply.html
  • kHz to 1700 kHz. These stations are allocated on a non-interference basis. To be acceptable, an application for a new AM broadcast station must show that no interference will be caused to other U.S. and foreign AM stations on the same frequency or, on the adjacent channels (out to 30 kHz above or below the desired frequency (see [77]47 CFR 73.37)). Applications must also consider the second harmonic frequency and intermediate frequency relationships per 47 CFR 73.182(s) (for example 2 x 800 kHz = 1600 kHz for the second harmonic relationship; or 800 kHz + 455 kHz IF frequency could affect reception on 1250 and 1260 kHz). In general, these complex engineering analyses require specialized knowledge and software, and are best
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/includes/63-amfmrule.htm
  • [34]PDF 73.28 Assignment of stations to channels. [35]TEXT [36]PDF 73.29 Class C stations on regional channels. [ [37]AM Classes ] [38]TEXT [39]PDF 73.30 Petition for authorization of an allotment in the 1605-1705 kHz band. [40]TEXT [41]PDF 73.31 Rounding of nominal power specified on applications. [42]TEXT [43]PDF 73.33 Antenna systems; showing required. [44]TEXT [45]PDF 73.35 Calculation of improvement factors. [46]TEXT [47]PDF 73.37 Applications for broadcast facilities, showing required. [48]TEXT [49]PDF 73.44 AM transmission system emission limitations. [50]TEXT [51]PDF 73.45 AM antenna systems. [52]TEXT [53]PDF 73.49 AM transmission system fencing requirements. [54]TEXT [55]PDF 73.51 Determining operating power. [56]TEXT [57]PDF 73.53 Requirements for authorization of antenna monitors. [58]TEXT [59]PDF 73.54 Antenna resistance and reactance measurements. [60]TEXT [61]PDF 73.57 Remote reading antenna and common point
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/includes/80-howtoapply.htm
  • kHz to 1700 kHz. These stations are allocated on a non-interference basis. To be acceptable, an application for a new AM broadcast station must show that no interference will be caused to other U.S. and foreign AM stations on the same frequency or, on the adjacent channels (out to 30 kHz above or below the desired frequency (see [21]47 CFR 73.37)). Applications must also consider the second harmonic frequency and intermediate frequency relationships per 47 CFR 73.182(s) (for example 2 x 800 kHz = 1600 kHz for the second harmonic relationship; or 800 kHz + 455 kHz IF frequency could affect reception on 1250 and 1260 kHz). In general, these complex engineering analyses require specialized knowledge and software, and are best
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html
  • http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1232.pdf 99. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 100. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1202.pdf 101. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1232.pdf 102. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1204.pdf 103. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1235.pdf 104. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1232.pdf 105. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1203.pdf 106. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1231.pdf 107. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1234.pdf 108. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1263.pdf 109. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 110. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1231.pdf 111. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 112. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1231.pdf 113. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 114. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#FUND 115. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#WARN 116. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1231.pdf 117. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 118. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1232.pdf 119. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 120. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1284.pdf 121. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 122. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1999_register&docid=fr21ap99-11 123. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media.Orders/1999/fcc99055.pdf 124. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1233.pdf 125. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1251.pdf 126. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 127. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1233.pdf 128. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.37.pdf 129. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1233.pdf 130. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 131. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.3555.pdf 132. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1232.pdf 133. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 134. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1235.pdf 135. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 136. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1203.pdf 137. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 138. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1205.pdf 139. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 140. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1234.pdf 141. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.1226.pdf 142. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/noonehome.html 143. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 144. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr1.2002.pdf 145. http://www.noaa.gov/ 146. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr17.57.pdf 147. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 148. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1283.pdf 149. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1283.pdf 150. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.1201.pdf 151. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 152. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1204.pdf 153. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1205.pdf 154. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/pdf/47cfr74.1235.pdf 155. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html#TABLE 156. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/fm.html 157. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/ 158. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/alphaindex.html
• http://www.fcc.gov/ocbo/mmtc_omnibus_comments.pdf
  • (and the 1979 U.S. WARC delegation had successfully provided for its adoption in ITU Region II) as a means of promoting minority ownership. Those digital receivers are long since outdated (now that we have the AM Expanded Band); thus, the nation lost an easy opportunity to have 10% more AM stations. 46/ In Deletion of AM Acceptance Criteria in Section 73.37(e) of the Commission's Rules (R&O), 102 FCC2d 548, 558 (1985) ("Clear Channels Repeal"), recon. denied, 4 FCC Rcd 5218 (1989), the Commission repealed the minority and noncommercial eligibility criteria in Clear Channels, holding that a "sounder approach" than eligibility criteria is to use distress sales and tax certificates to promote minority ownership. Only thirteen minority owned stations had been created
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/01-1110.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/01-1110.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/01-1110.pdf
  • Support of Grant of Brinklow Application at 3-5). The FCC date stamp has the date as June 8, 1995. On January 4, 2001 the Mass Media Bureau dismissed the Damascus Application as not "technically grantable" because of the unacceptable overlap of signal strength contours with another station (WWCS(AM)) Birach partly owned in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 73.37(a). Section 73.37(a) provides that "no application will be accepted for a change of the facilities of an existing station if the proposed change would involve ... overlap [of signal strength contours]" with another station as therein described. 47 C.F.R. § 73.37(a) (2002). In 1997 Birach had applied for and been granted a construction permit to reduce WWCS's daytime power and