FCC Web Documents citing 73.182

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-97-68A1.pdf
  • ("ReconsiderationOrder"),theColIllIlissionadoptedmeasurestoiJnproveand revitalizetheAMbroadcast band,andtoestablishstandardsto.,permitcertainAMlicenseesand pennitteestomigratetofrequenciesbetween1605and1705 kfIz,the On October14,1994,theMassMediaBureaureleased Public DA94-1154· ("PublicNotice I") whichlistedthestationseligibletoapplyforspecificExpandedBandassigrunents(the"First AllotmentPlan").By MemorandumOpinionandOrder,10FCCRcd12143(1995)("Order theCommissionpartiallygrantedreconsideration,rescinded PublicNoticeIandtheinitial improvementrankingfactorsofstationsthathadpetitionedtomigratetotheExpandedBandI andsolicitedcommentsonproposedtechnicalprocedurestocalculate.revisedimprovement rankingfactorsandgenerateanewallotmentplan.In CommentsinResponsetoReconsideration ofImplementationoftheAMExpandedBandandAllotmentPlan,11FCCRcd12444(1996) ("Order theCoII¥Dissiondeniedalll]loc\ificationsproposedincomments.filedinresponse to OrderI.adoptedtheOrderIproceduresandclosedtheJune.30,1993-Aengineering'database tofurtherrevision. theMassMediaBureaureleased PublicNotice,MassMedia BureauAnnouncesRevisedExpandedAMBroadcastBandImprovementFactorsandAllotment Plan,DA96-408(releasedMarch22,1996)("PublicNoticeIf'),whichlistedtheimprovement factoror"eachstationthathadpetitionedtomigratetotheExpandedBandandannouncedan eighty-sevenstationallotmentplan(the"SecondAllotmentPlan")fornewassigrunentsinthe ExpandedBand. " '"InitialimprovementfactorrankingsappearedinaDecember3,1993PublicNotice.Stationswillbeallotted channelsonthebasisoftheircalculatedimprovementfactorrankings.See47C.F.R.§73.30.Eachstation's improvementfactorisrepresentedbyaratiooftheareaofinterferencecausedtoallotherstationsdividedbythe migrator'sinterference-freeservicearea.Thelargertheimprovementfactor,thegreaterthereductioninexisting bandinterferencethatwouldresultfromtherelocationofthemigratingstationtotheExpandedBand. 3361 Federal'CommunicationsCommission FCC97-68 2..NowbeforetheCommissionareeighttimely-filed-petitionsforreconsiderationof OrderIIandPublicNotice11.2 Forthereasonssetforthbelow,wegrantin'partthepetitionof WGNY,.rescindtheSecondAllotmentPlan,andmodifythefrequencypreclusionprogram,one oftwoprimaryprogramsusedtogeneratetheallotmentplan,tofollowthefederaltravelers informationstation("TIS")frequencypreclusionstandardsspecifiedinOrderI.Onourown motionweconformtherevisedplantoRegion2treatyrequirementsandeliminatesoftware codingerrorsinthefrequencypreclusionandallotmentplanprograms.Wealsoclarifythe secondharmonicinterferencestandardwhichhasbeenappliedinthisproceeding.Wedenythe otherpetitionsforreconsideration.TheMassMediaBureauisconcurrentlyreissuingthe ExpandedBandallotmentplan(the"ThirdAllotmentPlan")basedonthechangesadoptedinthis Order. THEWGNYPETITION 3.TheSecondHarmonicInterferenceStandard.Stationsoperatingon810,820,830, 840,and850kHzhavethepotentialtocauseinterferencetoExpandedBandstationsoperating attwicethecarrierfrequency,oftheexistingbandstations,i.e.,toExpande\iBandstations operatingon1620,1640,1660,1680,and1700kHz.Suchsecondharmonicinterferenceis causedbythegenerationofthe,secondharmonic.ofthelowerfrequencywithintheradioreceiver. Section73.182restricts·thelocatiortofthetransmissionfacilitiesof540-800kHzstationsin order,topreventsecondharmonicinterferenceto.existingbandstations.SunriseBroadcasting ofNewYork,Inc.;licenseeofWGNY;Newburgh,NewYork("WQNY")rnaintainsthatthe COIDnlissiOndidnotfollow·thestandardannoUncedinOrderItocalculateharmonicinterference betWeenexistingandExpandedBandstations.Moreover,WGNYcontendsthatweshould .reconsiderthestatedOrderistandardwhichprovidessignificantlygreaterharrnoni<:interference pr()tectionthanthestandardsetforthintheCommission's Itargues.thattherule,itself, istoopreclusiveandurgestheCommissionto"revisit"thisissuetoensurethatthefmala,llotment planachievesthegreatest'possibleinterferencereductionsamonglicensedstations. .4.InOrder1,weproposedtoprecludeExpandedBandassignmentswhichwouldresult inprohibitedsecondhaitnonicoverlap,asdeterrninedinaccordancewith47 ().f·R§ SeeOrderI, 10FCCRcdat12148;.However,OrderImisstatesthisruleasprohibiting
  • 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
    • 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. 32
  • 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
    • 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 as
  • 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
    • 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 - Competitive
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2900A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2900A1.txt
    • before the inspection. We find that Clarke's replacement of the Chief Operator prior to the inspection demonstrates good faith and warrants mitigation of the proposed monetary forfeiture to $6,000. No mitigation is warranted for a history of overall compliance. On August 2, 2001, the San Francisco Office issued an NOV to Clarke for violations of Sections 11.35(a), 11.52(d), 11.61(a) and 73.182(a)(1) of the Rules (radio stations KVLM and KZSQ, Sonora, California) and, on August 16, 2001, the San Francisco Office issued an NOV to Clarke for violations of Section 11.52(b) and 73.182(a)(1) of the Rules (radio station KKBN, Sonora, California). Clarke, therefore, has no history of overall compliance. Nor is mitigation warranted on the basis of Clarke's correction of the violations
  • 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
    • 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. § 1.2105(b).
  • 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
    • 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 change from
  • 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
    • 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 from the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3913A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3913A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3913A1.txt
    • application on April 26, 2002. In response to staff deficiency letters regarding its full Form 301 application, TELNS filed amendments addressing technical deficiencies and typographical errors. We dismiss Ingles's challenge to those amendments as premature. For the same reasons, we dismiss Ingles's Petition to Deny to the extent that she argues that TELNS's original auction application violates Sections 73.24(i) and 73.182 of our rules. As we pointed out in the Reconsideration Decision, our pre-auction application analysis is limited to identifying those applications that are mutually exclusive to one another, and not to perform acceptability or grantability analyses. Such challenges should properly be made once the winning auction bidder files its full Form 301 application. Real party in interest allegations: Ingles alleges
  • 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
    • 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); 47
  • 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
    • 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 from the
  • 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
    • for a new AM station at Uncasville, Connecticut. The application is a singleton in AM Auction No. 84, filed pursuant to the August 26, 2004, public notice. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is denied. The staff's initial deficiency letter on February 8, 2005, stated that Ridgefield's proposed facility failed to protect other stations in violation of Section 73.182 of the Commission's rules, and that a curative amendment was required. In response to several requests for additional time, a second staff letter granted Ridgefield a period of 180 days from the date of the original deficiency letter to bring the application into ``substantial compliance'' with the Commission's technical rules for AM facilities. The second staff letter stated that ``[t]he
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1932A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1932A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1932A1.txt
    • the requirements of Section 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''). Under that provision, the Commission must ensure the "fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio service" throughout the country. Approval of the IRA presented here would be inconsistent with that Commission statutory responsibility. Conclusion/Actions. For the above stated reasons, and pursuant to Sections 0.61, 0.283 73.182(k) of the Rules, JCE Licenses, LLC's June 3, 2005, Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc, and its application (File No. BMP-20031024AAV) to modify the construction permit for Station WFTL(AM), West Palm Beach, Florida, ARE DISMISSED. Sincerely, Peter H. Doyle Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau cc: John Wells King, Esq. Letter to John Wells King, Esq., Reference 1800B3 (Audio
  • 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
    • 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 facility specified
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3492A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3492A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3492A1.txt
    • to file a further amendment. RW filed a further amendment on February 24, 2006. On May 2, 2006, the staff sent RW a letter addressing RW's February amendment. In this letter the staff found, first, that the amended application increased the 25 percent root sum square (``RSS'') limit to first-adjacent station WWRV(AM), New York, New York, in violation of Section 73.182 of the Commission's Rules, and second, that RW's proposed 24.1 mV/m NIF contour covered less than 25 percent of the area of the City of Westfield, and approximately 53 percent of the population. The staff therefore rejected RW's request for waiver of the Section 73.24(i) coverage requirements, providing RW 30 more days in which to file a curative amendment to
  • 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
    • 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 FCC
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1660A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1660A1.txt
    • 316 application for consent to assign the KGA(AM) license to Mapleton License of Spokane, LLC was filed. The parties consummated this assignment on December 3, 2007. See Letter from Ray O'Russa to FCC dated June 10, 2008 (the ``Objection''). See Letter from Kevin Latek to Tom Hutton, Deputy Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, dated July 7, 2008 (the ``Response''). Section 73.182 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') states that mainland U.S. Class A AM stations ``shall operate at 50 kW.'' See 47 C.F.R. §73.182(a)(1)(i). Objection at 1. Id. 47 C.F.R. §73.3517(c). Policies to Encourage Interference Reduction between AM Broadcast Stations, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 4492 (1990) (``Interference Reduction''). Id. at 4494. A ``white'' area is one which does not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1741A1.txt
    • airport. For the reasons stated below, we deny the Informal Objections and grant the Application. Background. On April 19, 2007, H & G submitted the Application proposing to construct three 199-foot towers for its authorized new AM station in Bend, Oregon. We dismissed the Application on September 5, 2007, because the towers would cause nighttime interference in violation of Section 73.182 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''). H & G amended the Application to comply with Section 73.182 and submitted a Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Reinstatement of Application Nunc Pro Tunc (the ``Petition''). We granted the Petition and reinstated the Application on April 7, 2008, requiring, however, that H & G respond to the October 2007 Letter. Subsequent to
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2455A1.txt
    • one full-time aural service. 47 C.F.R. § 73.14; Interference Reduction, 5 FCC Rcd at 4494 n. 14. Interference Reduction, 5 FCC Rcd at 4494. See June 14, 2007, Amendment to the WCAR Application, Engineering Statement, at 3. Id. at 2. See June 14, 2007, Amendment to the WCAR Application, Engineering Statement, at 3 and Figure 3. See 47 C.F.R. § 73.182(q). Facility ID No. 55497. Facility ID No. 18517. 47 U.S.C. § 316(a). The procedure for modifying an authorization in such manner is set forth in Section 1.87 of the Commission's Rules, and it requires that the Commission notify the licensee of the affected station, in writing, of the proposed action and the public interest reasons for it, and afford the
  • 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
    • 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 C.F.R.
  • 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
    • 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 C.F.R.
  • 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
    • 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 window-filed
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-464A1.txt
    • kilometers beyond the Station's protected service contour; and (3) the proposed STA facilities would result in impermissible contour overlap with first-adjacent channel Station WELP(AM), Easley, South Carolina, during daylight hours in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 73.37(a) and would cause objectionable nighttime skywave interference to co-channel Stations WGAD(AM), Gadsden, Alabama, and WTOU(AM), Akron, Ohio, in contravention of 47 C.F.R. § 73.182. Morradio, Inc.¸ Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 915AT0001 (CIB Oct. 21, 1998) (``1998 NAL''). 47 C.F.R. § 73.1350(a) indicates that broadcast licensees are responsible for maintaining and operating their station ``in accordance with the terms of the station authorization.'' 47 C.F.R. § 73.1690 requires prior Commission approval of a construction permit application before a broadcast station can
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280538A1.pdf
    • O F A P P L I C A T I O N STATEFILE NUMBER E/P AM STATION APPLICATIONS FOR ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION NEW 160261 HILO BROADCASTING, L.L.C. HI CAPTAIN COOK , HI BNP-20040127ABN 1150 KHZ E CP New Stn. Section 307(b) showing filed 10/28/05 Motion to Sever Application from MX Group and for Waiver of Section 73.182(K)(2) of the Rules filed 5/26/06 by (HBC) Petition for Reconsideration Filed 02/25/2008 by Hilo Broadcasting, L.L.C. NEW 160949 JOHN EDWARD OSTLUND CA EASTON , CA BNP-20040129AMT 1150 KHZ E CP New Stn. Section 307(b) showing filed 10/31/05 Petition for Reconsideration Filed 02/25/2008 by John Edward Ostlund NEW 161071 AMY MEREDITH AZ MANY FARMS , AZ BNP-20051024ADB 1250 KHZ E AM
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293328A1.txt
    • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit › Report No. 2897 September 9, 2009 CONSUMER & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU REFERENCE INFORMATION CENTER ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ RM NO. RULES SEC. PETITIONER DATE RECEIVED NATURE OF PETITION 11560 73.182(q) du Treil, Lundin 08/25/09 Modification of Section 73.182(q), & Rackley, Inc. and Footnote 1, to Promote Improvement Hatfield & Dawson Consulting of Nighttime Service by AM Radio Engineers, LLC Stations by Eliminating the ``Ratchet Clause.'' (Filed By: DTR/H&D Joint Venture Ronald D. Rackley, P.E. 201 Fletcher Avenue Sarasota, FL 34237) (Benjamin F. Dawson III, P.E. 9500 Greenwood Avenue N Seattle,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296440A1.pdf
    • E O F A P P L I C A T I O N STATEFILE NUMBER E/P AM STATION APPLICATIONS FOR ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION REINSTATED NEW 160261 HILO BROADCASTING, L.L.C. HI CAPTAIN COOK , HI BNP-20040127ABN 1150 KHZ E CP New Stn. Section 307(b) showing filed 10/28/05 Motion to Sever Application from MX Group and for Waiver of Section 73.182(K)(2) of the Rules filed 5/26/06 by (HBC) Petition for Reconsideration Filed 02/25/2008 by Hilo Broadcasting, L.L.C Partial Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration Filed 03/10/2008 by John Edward Ostlund Opposition Filed 03/10/2008 by Hilo Broadcasting, L.L.C. Petition for Reconsideration denied by letter of 9/4/2008, 1800B3-TSN. DIGITAL TRANSLATOR OR DIGITAL LPTV APPLICATIONS FOR ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT ACCEPTED FOR FILING NEW 184651 REGENTS/UNIVERSITYOFNEWME
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296441A1.pdf
    • A T U R E O F A P P L I C A T I O N FILE NUMBER STATE E/P 02/19/2010 Actions of: AM STATION APPLICATIONS FOR ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT DISMISSED , CAPTAIN COOK 1150 KHZ E HI CP New Stn. Section 307(b) showing filed 10/28/05 Motion to Sever Application from MX Group and for Waiver of Section 73.182(K)(2) of the Rules filed 5/26/06 by (HBC) Petition for Reconsideration Filed 02/25/2008 by Hilo Broadcasting, L.L.C. Partial Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration Filed 03/10/2008 by John Edward Ostlund Opposition Filed 03/10/2008 by Hilo Broadcasting, L.L.C. Petition for Reconsideration denied by letter of 9/4/2008, 1800B3-TSN. HILO BROADCASTING, L.L.C. NEW 160261 BNP-20040127ABN HI FM STATION APPLICATIONS FOR MINOR MODIFICATION TO A CONSTRUCTION
  • 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
    • 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 tested by
  • 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
    • 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, i.e.,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-87A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-87A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-87A1.txt
    • 50 percent of Chillicothe (see 47 C.F.R. § 73.515). The other nine stations that provide protected service to all or a substantial part of Chillicothe are as follows: WTVN(AM), WRFD(AM) and WNCI(FM) - all licensed to Columbus, Ohio; WXIC and WXIZ(FM), Waverly, Ohio; WHOK-FM, Lancaster, Ohio; WXZQ(FM), Piketon, Ohio; WPAY-FM, Portsmouth, Ohio; and WSRW-FM, Hillsboro, Ohio. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.182(d) (defining minimum AM signal strength to provide requisite primary service) and 73.215(a) (defining FM protected service contours). Clear Channel is the licensee of WSRW-FM and Citicasters Licenses, L.P., a Clear Channel subsidiary, is the licensee of WTVN(AM) and WNCI(FM). 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1)(e). See also Serafyn v. FCC, 149 F.3d 1213, 1216 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Astroline Communications Co. v. FCC,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-119A1.txt
    • upon grant of a construction permit to Kemp. 5. Discussion. Mutual exclusivity of applications: Both Green Valley and Nelson argue that Green Valley's application is not mutually exclusive with either Nelson's or Kemp's, and therefore none of the parties should have been required to submit Section 307(b) information. Nelson and Green Valley argue that the Bureau erroneously relied on Section 73.182 of our rules, which requires applicants to protect existing stations but does not, in their view, apply to applicants for new stations. However, we have already rejected this same argument made by both parties, and find no reason to revisit our decision in this regard. The three applications are mutually exclusive, and the Bureau properly sought Section 307(b) information. 6.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-120A1.txt
    • that D&E's proposal at Baxter was entitled to a dispositive Section 307(b) preference. 3. Discussion. Mutual exclusivity of applications: Nelson argues that the two applications in MX Group AM 25 are not mutually exclusive with each other, and that therefore neither applicant should have been required to submit Section 307(b) information. Nelson contends that the Bureau erroneously relied on Section 73.182 of the Commission's rules, which requires applicants to protect existing stations but does not, in Nelson's view, apply to applicants for new stations. However, we rejected this argument in a separate Memorandum Opinion and Order, after Nelson previously challenged the Bureau's determination that its Plano application and D&E's Baxter application were mutually exclusive. We find no reason to revisit our
  • 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
    • no error in the determination that Peoples's Bunnell and McCoy's Sandy Springs applications are mutually exclusive. The Bureau's technical analysis of the two applications shows that McCoy's proposed Sandy Springs nighttime facility would increase the 50 percent exclusion limit of Peoples's nighttime proposal for the new AM station at Bunnell, i.e., would cause prohibited nighttime interference, in violation of Section 73.182 of our rules. As we previously held in Nelson Enterprises, two applications for new AM broadcast stations are considered mutually exclusive if either application enters the 25 percent root-sum-square (``RSS'') nighttime interference limit of the other. Because McCoy's proposed facility would increase Peoples's 50 percent exclusion limit, it would necessarily exceed the 25 percent threshold. The two proposals cannot both
  • 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
    • 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 determination. ALM
  • 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
    • 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 Order''). First Broadcasting
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-33A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-33A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-33A1.txt
    • REC Networks Comments, Amherst Alliance Comments, Gerry Bishop Comments, David L. Hershberger Comments, Donald E. Mussell, Jr. Comments, Paul Dean Ford, P.E. Comments. Nighttime secondary operation for an AM station is operation with power less than 250 watts and antenna efficiency less than 241 millivolts per meter at one kilometer for one kilowatt input. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.21(a)(3) and 73.182(a)(4). See Public Notice, Use of Separate Antennas to Initiate Digital FM Transmissions Approved, 19 FCC Rcd 4722 (MB 2004). 19 FCC Rcd at 7525-26. A sample digital notification letter for FM stations using dual antennas is available at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/digital/index.html. See generally 47 C.F.R. § 74.1231. 19 FCC Rcd at 7526. Harris Corporation Comments at 5; Western Inspirational Broadcasters, Inc. Comments
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-114A1.txt
    • the Bureau erred in concluding that Bixby was not entitled to a dispositive preference based on its civic, cultural, religious, social, and commercial attributes. 9. Ingles next reiterates her argument that the Bureau should not even have performed a Section 307(b) analysis of TELNS's application because it was not acceptable for filing due to alleged violations of Sections 73.24(i) and 73.182 of the Commission's Rules. We disagree. In establishing competitive bidding procedures for the broadcast service, the Commission made clear that the staff is not to perform an analysis of the acceptability or grantability of applicants' auction filing window applications. That analysis occurs at the close of the auction, and is limited to the winning bidder. The Commission discussed at length,
  • 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
    • at 3, 7. In its Engineering Statement, SRC also claims that the staff did not properly apply interference standards to establish mutual exclusivity between the applications. Specifically, SRC contends that the staff should not assume that applications filed during the window that enter into the 25 percent root-sum-square (``RSS'') of another window-filed application are mutually exclusive. See 47 C.F.R. § 73.182(k) (providing that the RSS methodology should be applied for the "calculation of nighttime interference for non-coverage purposes.'' In order to limit the number of interfering signals that must be taken into account, a "25 percent exclusion method" is used in making the calculations. By this method, the staff is able to determine which applications will cause unacceptable nighttime interference to
  • 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
    • filed during the relevant filing window are mutually exclusive with each other. Two AM applications filed during the same filing window are considered mutually exclusive if either fails to fully protect the other as required by the Commission's technical rules. 40. In Nelson Enterprises, Inc., the Commission held that the staff properly calculated predicted nighttime interference levels, pursuant to Section 73.182(k) of the rules, by considering interference caused to or received from other window-filed applications as well as to existing stations. It also rejected the contention that window-filed applications should not be considered mutually exclusive if they could be granted by processing them in a particular sequence and treating one application as having been ``first filed,'' and therefore entitled to cut-off
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-24A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-24A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-24A1.txt
    • without an opportunity for amendment. The staff will review the remaining applications to determine whether they meet the following basic eligibility criteria: (1) community of license coverage (day and night) as set forth in § 73.24(i), and (2) protection of co- and adjacent-channel station licenses, construction permits and prior-filed applications (day and night) as set forth in §§ 73.37 and 73.182. If the staff review shows that an application does not meet one or more of the basic eligibility criteria listed above, it will be deemed ``technically ineligible for filing'' and will be included on a Public Notice listing defective applications and setting a deadline for the submission of curative amendments. An application listed on that Public Notice may be amended
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-28A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-28A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-28A1.txt
    • (3), we think it unfair to subject an applicant successfully clearing this hurdle to a new, co-equal priority. Thus, we will consider this new, underserved populations factor under Priority (4). Accordingly, a new AM applicant proposing third, fourth, and/or fifth reception service to at least 25 percent of the population in the proposed primary service area, as defined in Section 73.182(d) of our Rules, where the proposed community of license has two or fewer local transmission services, may receive a dispositive Section 307(b) preference under Priority (4). We find that 25 percent of the covered population is a high enough standard to warrant awarding a dispositive Section 307(b) preference, while not so high that no applicant will be able to meet
  • http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1998/fcc98117.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1998/fcc98117.wp
    • 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 against rulemaking petitions) 23 predicted 1
  • http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98281.pdf
    • 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 community must be encompassed by
  • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2900A1.html
    • the inspection. We find that Clarke's replacement of the Chief Operator prior to the inspection demonstrates good faith and warrants mitigation of the proposed monetary forfeiture to $6,000. 11. No mitigation is warranted for a history of overall compliance. On August 2, 2001, the San Francisco Office issued an NOV to Clarke for violations of Sections 11.35(a), 11.52(d), 11.61(a) and 73.182(a)(1) of the Rules9 (radio stations KVLM and KZSQ, Sonora, California) and, on August 16, 2001, the San Francisco Office issued an NOV to Clarke for violations of Section 11.52(b) and 73.182(a)(1) of the Rules (radio station KKBN, Sonora, California). Clarke, therefore, has no history of overall compliance.10 12. Nor is mitigation warranted on the basis of Clarke's correction of the
  • http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-99-55A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-99-55A1.pdf
    • 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 of construction permit extension rules to
  • http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/amfmrule.html
    • of directional antennas. [137]TEXT [138]PDF 73.152 Modification of directional antenna data. [139]TEXT [140]PDF 73.153 Field strength measurements in support of applications or evidence at hearings. [141]TEXT [142]PDF 73.154 AM directional antenna partial proof of performance measurements. [143]TEXT [144]PDF 73.157 Antenna testing during daytime. [145]TEXT [146]PDF 73.158 Directional antenna monitoring points. [147]TEXT [148]PDF 73.160 Vertical plane radiation characteristics, f(). [149]TEXT [150]PDF 73.182 Engineering standards of allocation. [151]TEXT [152]PDF 73.183 Groundwave signals. [153]TEXT [154]PDF 73.184 Groundwave field strength graphs. [ [155]Groundwave Field Strength Graphs ] [156]TEXT [157]PDF 73.185 Computation of interfering signal. [158]TEXT [159]PDF 73.186 Establishment of effective field at one kilometer. [160]TEXT [161]PDF 73.187 Limitation on daytime radiation. [162]TEXT [163]PDF 73.189 Minimum antenna heights or field strength requirements. [164]TEXT [165]PDF 73.190 Engineering
  • 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
    • 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 and
  • 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
    • 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 and
  • 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
    • 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. 32
  • 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
    • 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 against rulemaking petitions) 23 predicted 1
  • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98281.pdf
    • 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 community must be encompassed by
  • 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
    • (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 strict application of construction permit extension
  • http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form301/301.pdf
    • 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 community must be encompassed by
  • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2900A1.html
    • the inspection. We find that Clarke's replacement of the Chief Operator prior to the inspection demonstrates good faith and warrants mitigation of the proposed monetary forfeiture to $6,000. 11. No mitigation is warranted for a history of overall compliance. On August 2, 2001, the San Francisco Office issued an NOV to Clarke for violations of Sections 11.35(a), 11.52(d), 11.61(a) and 73.182(a)(1) of the Rules9 (radio stations KVLM and KZSQ, Sonora, California) and, on August 16, 2001, the San Francisco Office issued an NOV to Clarke for violations of Section 11.52(b) and 73.182(a)(1) of the Rules (radio station KKBN, Sonora, California). Clarke, therefore, has no history of overall compliance.10 12. Nor is mitigation warranted on the basis of Clarke's correction of the
  • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-249A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-249A1.pdf
    • for a new AM station at Uncasville, Connecticut. The application is a singleton in AM Auction No. 84, filed pursuant to the August 26, 2004, public notice. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is denied. The staff's initial deficiency letter on February 8, 2005, stated that Ridgefield's proposed facility failed to protect other stations in violation of Section 73.182 of the Commission's rules, and that a curative amendment was required. In response to several requests for additional time, a second staff letter granted Ridgefield a period of 180 days from the date of the original deficiency letter to bring the application into ``substantial compliance'' with the Commission's technical rules for AM facilities. The second staff letter stated that ``[t]he
  • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1932A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1932A1.pdf
    • the requirements of Section 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''). Under that provision, the Commission must ensure the "fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio service" throughout the country. Approval of the IRA presented here would be inconsistent with that Commission statutory responsibility. Conclusion/Actions. For the above stated reasons, and pursuant to Sections 0.61, 0.283 73.182(k) of the Rules, JCE Licenses, LLC's June 3, 2005, Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc, and its application (File No. BMP-20031024AAV) to modify the construction permit for Station WFTL(AM), West Palm Beach, Florida, ARE DISMISSED. Sincerely, Peter H. Doyle Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau cc: John Wells King, Esq. Letter to John Wells King, Esq., Reference 1800B3 (Audio
  • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3492A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3492A1.pdf
    • to file a further amendment. RW filed a further amendment on February 24, 2006. On May 2, 2006, the staff sent RW a letter addressing RW's February amendment. In this letter the staff found, first, that the amended application increased the 25 percent root sum square (``RSS'') limit to first-adjacent station WWRV(AM), New York, New York, in violation of Section 73.182 of the Commission's Rules, and second, that RW's proposed 24.1 mV/m NIF contour covered less than 25 percent of the area of the City of Westfield, and approximately 53 percent of the population. The staff therefore rejected RW's request for waiver of the Section 73.24(i) coverage requirements, providing RW 30 more days in which to file a curative amendment to
  • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1660A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1660A1.pdf
    • 316 application for consent to assign the KGA(AM) license to Mapleton License of Spokane, LLC was filed. The parties consummated this assignment on December 3, 2007. See Letter from Ray O'Russa to FCC dated June 10, 2008 (the ``Objection''). See Letter from Kevin Latek to Tom Hutton, Deputy Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, dated July 7, 2008 (the ``Response''). Section 73.182 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') states that mainland U.S. Class A AM stations ``shall operate at 50 kW.'' See 47 C.F.R. §73.182(a)(1)(i). Objection at 1. Id. 47 C.F.R. §73.3517(c). Policies to Encourage Interference Reduction between AM Broadcast Stations, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 4492 (1990) (``Interference Reduction''). Id. at 4494. A ``white'' area is one which does not
  • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1741A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1741A1.pdf
    • airport. For the reasons stated below, we deny the Informal Objections and grant the Application. Background. On April 19, 2007, H & G submitted the Application proposing to construct three 199-foot towers for its authorized new AM station in Bend, Oregon. We dismissed the Application on September 5, 2007, because the towers would cause nighttime interference in violation of Section 73.182 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''). H & G amended the Application to comply with Section 73.182 and submitted a Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Reinstatement of Application Nunc Pro Tunc (the ``Petition''). We granted the Petition and reinstated the Application on April 7, 2008, requiring, however, that H & G respond to the October 2007 Letter. Subsequent to
  • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2455A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2455A1.pdf
    • one full-time aural service. 47 C.F.R. § 73.14; Interference Reduction, 5 FCC Rcd at 4494 n. 14. Interference Reduction, 5 FCC Rcd at 4494. See June 14, 2007, Amendment to the WCAR Application, Engineering Statement, at 3. Id. at 2. See June 14, 2007, Amendment to the WCAR Application, Engineering Statement, at 3 and Figure 3. See 47 C.F.R. § 73.182(q). Facility ID No. 55497. Facility ID No. 18517. 47 U.S.C. § 316(a). The procedure for modifying an authorization in such manner is set forth in Section 1.87 of the Commission's Rules, and it requires that the Commission notify the licensee of the affected station, in writing, of the proposed action and the public interest reasons for it, and afford the
  • 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
    • 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 tested by
  • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-05-120A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-05-120A1.pdf
    • 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 Order''). First Broadcasting
  • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-114A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-114A1.pdf
    • the Bureau erred in concluding that Bixby was not entitled to a dispositive preference based on its civic, cultural, religious, social, and commercial attributes. 9. Ingles next reiterates her argument that the Bureau should not even have performed a Section 307(b) analysis of TELNS's application because it was not acceptable for filing due to alleged violations of Sections 73.24(i) and 73.182 of the Commission's Rules. We disagree. In establishing competitive bidding procedures for the broadcast service, the Commission made clear that the staff is not to perform an analysis of the acceptability or grantability of applicants' auction filing window applications. That analysis occurs at the close of the auction, and is limited to the winning bidder. The Commission discussed at length,
  • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-227A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-227A1.pdf
    • at 3, 7. In its Engineering Statement, SRC also claims that the staff did not properly apply interference standards to establish mutual exclusivity between the applications. Specifically, SRC contends that the staff should not assume that applications filed during the window that enter into the 25 percent root-sum-square (``RSS'') of another window-filed application are mutually exclusive. See 47 C.F.R. § 73.182(k) (providing that the RSS methodology should be applied for the "calculation of nighttime interference for non-coverage purposes.'' In order to limit the number of interfering signals that must be taken into account, a "25 percent exclusion method" is used in making the calculations. By this method, the staff is able to determine which applications will cause unacceptable nighttime interference to
  • http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/96-113.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/96-113.pdf
    • not submitted any information or arguments that would warrant a different result. 10. Finally, WGNY argues that the 0.5 mV/m contour is too restrictive for purposes of calculating the service area of harmonically related stations. Section 73.112(s) of the Commission's rules prohibits a station assignment if its frequency is twice that of another station in the same service area. Section 73.182(d) of the Commission's rules defines this service area as the 0.5 mV/m contour. WGNY did not raise the question in the expanded band rulemaking proceeding whether this general service area definition is also appropriate in making expanded band assignments and its attempt to do so here is clearly untimely. In any event, it has failed to demonstrate why the 0.5
  • 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
    • SECTION III-A AM BROADCAST ENGINEERING DATA CERTIFICATION If any question is answered "No," a request for waiver, explanation, or justification must be submitted otherwise, the application will be returned without further consideration. Exhibits are required as noted. 13.Broadcast Facility. The proposed facility complies with the engineering standards and assignment requirements of 47 CFR (( 73.24(e), 73.33, 73.45, 73.150, 73.152, 73.160, 73.182(a)-(i), 73.186, 73.189, 73.1650. Exhibit Required. 14.Community Coverage. The proposed facility complies 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
  • http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/AttachB-04-18-1997.html
    • A-3(d) do not have to be answered. + Question 15, parts A-4(a), A-4(b), A-4(c) and A-4(d) do not have to be answered. + Question 15, parts B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4 do not have to be answered. + Question 15, parts C-1 and C-2 (nighttime) must be answered. [4]Footnote 1. The nighttime interference-free contour is defined in 47 C.F.R. Section 73.182(k)(1) as the 50% RSS value. Either the 5 mV/m nighttime groundwave contour, or the 50% RSS Night Limit Contour if greater than 5 mV/m, must encompass at least 50% of the community of license. In calculating the distance to the contour, use measured ground conductivity data in the same manner as in the response to Question 15A. + Question 15,
  • http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/let19961205.doc
    • cc: Barry D. Wood, Esq. Thomas DiBiasi, Esq. Francis E. Fletcher, Jr., Esq. The Joint Petition to Grant Applications Pursuant to Interference Reduction Agreements was filed on June 11, 1996. The Amended Joint Petition was filed on September 12, 1996. The Petitions will collectively be referred to as the "Joint Petition." Unity also requests a waiver of 47 C.F.R. Section 73.182. That request is unnecessary, and therefore, need not be addressed herein. On October 24, 1996, the Commission granted the application for the assignment of license of WLNG(AM) from Main Street to Unity (File No. BAL-960611HF). This transaction has not yet been consummated. On October 24, 1996, the Commission granted the application assigning WERA(AM) from Cloud 9 to Unity (File No.
  • http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/amfmrule.html
    • of directional antennas. [137]TEXT [138]PDF 73.152 Modification of directional antenna data. [139]TEXT [140]PDF 73.153 Field strength measurements in support of applications or evidence at hearings. [141]TEXT [142]PDF 73.154 AM directional antenna partial proof of performance measurements. [143]TEXT [144]PDF 73.157 Antenna testing during daytime. [145]TEXT [146]PDF 73.158 Directional antenna monitoring points. [147]TEXT [148]PDF 73.160 Vertical plane radiation characteristics, f(). [149]TEXT [150]PDF 73.182 Engineering standards of allocation. [151]TEXT [152]PDF 73.183 Groundwave signals. [153]TEXT [154]PDF 73.184 Groundwave field strength graphs. [ [155]Groundwave Field Strength Graphs ] [156]TEXT [157]PDF 73.185 Computation of interfering signal. [158]TEXT [159]PDF 73.186 Establishment of effective field at one kilometer. [160]TEXT [161]PDF 73.187 Limitation on daytime radiation. [162]TEXT [163]PDF 73.189 Minimum antenna heights or field strength requirements. [164]TEXT [165]PDF 73.190 Engineering
  • http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/includes/63-amfmrule.htm
    • of directional antennas. [90]TEXT [91]PDF 73.152 Modification of directional antenna data. [92]TEXT [93]PDF 73.153 Field strength measurements in support of applications or evidence at hearings. [94]TEXT [95]PDF 73.154 AM directional antenna partial proof of performance measurements. [96]TEXT [97]PDF 73.157 Antenna testing during daytime. [98]TEXT [99]PDF 73.158 Directional antenna monitoring points. [100]TEXT [101]PDF 73.160 Vertical plane radiation characteristics, f(). [102]TEXT [103]PDF 73.182 Engineering standards of allocation. [104]TEXT [105]PDF 73.183 Groundwave signals. [106]TEXT [107]PDF 73.184 Groundwave field strength graphs. [ [108]Groundwave Field Strength Graphs ] [109]TEXT [110]PDF 73.185 Computation of interfering signal. [111]TEXT [112]PDF 73.186 Establishment of effective field at one kilometer. [113]TEXT [114]PDF 73.187 Limitation on daytime radiation. [115]TEXT [116]PDF 73.189 Minimum antenna heights or field strength requirements. [117]TEXT [118]PDF 73.190 Engineering