In the Matter
of AMENDMENT OF PART 73 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES, REGARDING AM STATION ASSIGNMENT
STANDARDS AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AM AND FM BROADCAST SERVICES
Docket No. 18651
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
39 F.C.C.2d 645
RELEASE-NUMBER: FCC 73-220
February 28, 1973 Released
Adopted February 21, 1973
JUDGES:
BY THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER
ROBERT E. LEE ABSENT; COMMISSIONER JOHNSON DISSENTING AND
ISSUING A STATEMENT; COMMISSIONER WILEY ISSUING A SEPARATE STATEMENT.
OPINION:
[*645] 1. This
matter concerns the adoption of new rules to govern the assignment of standard
broadcast, or "AM" facilities, both new stations and major changes in
existing facilities. The proceeding was begun by Notice of Proposed Rule
Making and Memorandum Opinion and Order adopted September 4, 1969, FCC 69-960,
34 F.R. 14384 (September 13, 1969), 17 R.R. 2d 1524. Previously, in July 1968,
a "freeze" had been imposed on the acceptance of applications for new
AM stations and major changes, pending the formulation, proposal and adoption
of rules to govern this service in the future. n1 Comments and reply comments in
response to the Notice were filed until early April 1970.
n1 Report and Order adopted July 18, 1968, FCC
68-739, 33 F.R. 10343, 13 R.R. 2d 1667. The "freeze" applied to all
new and major change applications except change applications required by
circumstances beyond the applicant's control (e.g., inability to continue at
its present transmitter site), applications which are mutually exclusive with
AM renewal applications, applications necessary to comply with international
commitments, and applications for Class IV power increases where new
international agreements make them possible (the latter provision was relaxed
somewhat in 1969 along with the Notice). The "freeze" has been
waived in a few cases.
I.
CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLYING THE "FREEZE" AND NOTICE PROPOSAL
2. The 1968 "freeze"
Report and Order expressed in substance the following considerations: since the
adoption of new and somewhat more restrictive rules in 1964 (Docket 15084),
applications have continued to flow in, and, while they do not present problems
of degradation of existing service through interference (one of the important
objectives of the Docket 15084 was to adopt rules under which such degradation
would be minimized), stations authorized pursuant to these rules have been less
than successful in improving AM service [*646] generally in two important
respects: reduction of "unserved area" n2 and provision of first local
outlets in communities of significant size (while a majority of the stations
being authorized as of mid 1968 were first stations, the size of places to
which they were assigned was quite small, with a median population of
2,850). Also, since virtually all of the applications recently granted
were for daytime-only facilities they do nothing to improve service at night,
where the really substantial unserved area exists. The Report and Order
stated that this situation necessitated a study to determine whether there is
still a significant national need for new AM stations or for major changes in
existing stations, except in underserved areas, whether the remaining frequency
space should be conserved for developing areas or to eradicate "unserved
area", whether any future allocation system should view AM and FM as a
single aural service, and whether the traditional "demand" basis of
AM assignments is an efficient use of spectrum space. Since a continuing
flood of applications would frustrate the objectives of the forthcoming rule
making, on these basic questions, the "freeze" was adopted.
n2 The term "unserved" where used herein means area or
population not receiving AM primary service, daytime or nighttime as the case
may be. The term "white area", used traditionally and in the
Notice to express this concept, has been confusing at times, and therefore is
not used herein, "unserved area" meaning the same thing. We are
retaining the traditional term "gray" to refer to area or population
receiving only one primary service, since the only other likely expression,
"underserved", is not sufficiently precise.
3. The September 1969 Notice
herein expressed these concepts in more concrete form. A quite
restrictive rule was proposed, which would have prohibited the filing of
applications for new stations unless the proposed operation would provide a
first primary aural service to 25% of the area or population within the
proposed primary service contour, and, if the application were for changed
facilities, the area or population for which the station provided the only
service would be increased. In determining the extent of present aural
service, signals from existing FM stations of 1 mv/m or greater would be taken
into account. n3 Also, a test of FM channel availability would be included with respect
to applications for new AM stations or new nighttime facilities (though not for
changes in facilities on the same frequency): the AM application would not be
accepted if there is available in the community an FM channel which the
applicant could use and achieve substantially the same coverage of unserved
area. This would include unoccupied FM channels assigned to the community
in the FM Table of Assignments (Section 73.202 of the Rules), unoccupied and
available for use in the community because of assignment at a nearby community
(Section 73.203(b), the "10-mile" or "15-mile" rule), or
susceptible of assignment in a reasonably simple rule-making proceeding
involving no other changes in the Table. n4
n3 The
proposed rule itself would not have included in this criterion service from
non-commercial educational stations, although comments on this were
invited. The 25% "unserved area" test would relate to daytime
area where the AM application is for daytime facilities, either daytime or
nighttime area where the application is for a new Class IV station, and
otherwise to nighttime area.
n4 Thus,
the criteria involving FM actually were two separate tests: the present
existence of FM service, and the availability of an unoccupied FM
channel. Some commenting parties confused the two, as discussed below.
4. It was recognized that these very
restrictive tests would sharply curtail the flow of applications, and indeed,
this was one of the express [*647] purposes of the proposal: to
prevent the large-scale depletion of the limited AM spectrum space remaining
until a more near optimum plan for utilizing it can be arrived at. It was
emphasized (Notice, para. 29) that the proposed rules "are not necessarily
those which will govern the acceptance of applications for new and increased AM
facilities for the indefinite future", but their adoption would give the
Commission time to evaluate the over-all picture of aural development and to
stimulate FM, with a further look at these developments in a few years.
Meantime, we would authorize only stations clearly designed to improve service
substantially.
5. The Notice also emphasized
certain other considerations, including the importance of stimulating FM
development. In was stated that FM provides a superior service in a
number of ways -- full-time as opposed to the daytime-only service contemplated
by the great majority of AM applications, usually a wider and more reliable service
than a nighttime AM operation will provide, a service otherwise technically
superior, with stereo and SCA potential -- as well as being cheaper for the
Commission to authorize and, except as compared to Class IV stations, cheaper
for applicants to design and construct (AM directional antennas are expensive
to design, evaluate, build and "prove out"). The Notice also
referred to the same consideration mentioned in the "freeze" Report
and Order as to the relatively small contribution which current AM grants
appear to be making to the improvement of aural service generally, nearly all
of them representing daytime facilities with their inherent limitations,
providing first or second local outlets in many cases but often only to very
small communities (with most places of substantial size already having
them). It was stated that while the provision of "first local
outlets" is still of importance, "in our judgment it does not
warrant, in itself, acceptance in the near future of applications providing no
other substantial service benefit." (Notice, para. 31.) It was also
pointed out that large-scale grant of applications for daytime-only facilities
tends to preclude use of the channel and adjacent channels for full-time
operations, which would bring service generally much more needed. With
respect to increases in nighttime facilities -- which have not up to now been
subject to a "25% unserved area" test -- it was stated that while
these are sought on the ground that they are needed to cover expanding urban areas
at night, often this is an excuse to propose facilities serving areas well
removed from the station's city. (Notice, para. 19.)
6. The Notice also discussed
certain subjects which the Commission hopes to explore in the course of its
evaluation of the total AM picture. These included: (1) the possibility
of requiring, in AM, a "preclusion showing", somewhat similar to that
required with many petitions for additional FM assignments, showing what uses
of the channel and adjacent channels would be precluded by the proposal, and
what other assignment possibilities exist to meet such future needs and uses;
and (2) the possible formulation of rules designed to cut down the tremendously
burdensome and expensive work involved in the processing of AM applications,
for example a rule to the effect that when one application providing certain
service benefits has been accepted (e.g., one which would serve unserved area
or provide a first [*648] local outlet), no other conflicting
application would be accepted unless it would provide at least as great
benefits. The Notice also invited comments on some alternative approaches
in various respects (Notice, para. 33(a) to (e): attaching more importance to
providing a second service as well as a first; possibly requiring service to
only a smaller percentage of "unserved area"; provision of first or
second local outlets as well as a first or second primary service; ways of
avoiding intentionally inefficient proposals designed to meet the
"25%" test simply by serving an unduly limited area; and possible
exclusion of "distant" signals in determining whether an area is
presently served, on the theory that service from a distant source, while it
may be technically good, is not equal to a closer service in being meaningful
to listeners.
II. A BRIEF HISTORY OF AM
ALLOCATION RULES
7. Historically, and at
present, except to the extent the "freeze" prevails, AM applications
have been accepted and considered on a "demand" basis: an applicant
chooses and proposes a particular community, frequency, power and directional
or non-directional mode of operation, and his application is evaluated on this
basis. Assuming he is qualified in non-technical respects, and his
application does not involve objectionable interference to other stations or
receive objectionable interference to an extent prohibited by the rules, it is
granted. In general, no consideration is given to other possible uses of
the channel (or of adjacent channels) in the area, or to other possible
frequencies, powers or directional modes which the applicant could employ and
which might represent a more efficient allocation. This contrasts sharply
with the approach used in assigning "commercial" FM and all
television stations. In these services, channel assignments are listed in
Tables of Assignments (Section 73.202 for FM and 73.606 for TV), one or more
assignments being listed for these communities throughout the United
States. An applicant must apply for one of these assignments, either for
a station in the listed community or for an unlisted community within a short
distance. n5
These assignments have been made, and must be used, on the basis of minimum
mileage separations between stations on the same and adjacent channels (e.g.,
in "Zone I", the Northeast, 170 miles co-channel for VHF TV and 155
miles for UHF TV, 150 miles for Class B FM stations and 65 miles for Class A FM
stations). These separations are based on the assumption that all
stations operate with maximum facilities and, on that assumption and given interference
ratios, are designed to afford stations a reasonably large interference-free
coverage area. Directional antennas are not used in Tv/ and FM as an
assignment tool, although they are used by a number of stations to increase
signal strength in certain directions and avoid wasting coverage in others
(e.g., over water). The pre-engineered Tables of Assignments are
designed [*649] both to provide for an adequate number of channels
in each community and area, and a high degree of efficiency of channel
usage.
n5 In FM, a Class A channel may be used at an
unlisted community within 10 miles of the listed community and a Class B/C
channel at a community within 15 miles; the distance in television is 15 miles
(Sections 73.203(b) and 73.607(b)).
8. This planned approach has two great
advantages over the "demand" system: it permits the reservation of
channels to meet anticipated future needs and developments rather than allowing
immediate demand to determine the disposition of spectrum space; and, by assuming
maximum facilities, it permits stations to increase their facilities in an
orderly fashion even where they start modestly. In AM, by contrast,
stations are often "squeezed in", the assignment being made possible
only by a combination of minimum power and, sometimes, a rather elaborate
directional antenna intended to minimize interference to other stations; this
presents problems when the station later wishes to increase its
facilities. On the other hand, the AM approach obviously has a great deal
more flexibility, and probably permits assignments in more places than are
possible under the other system.
9. Changes adopted in 1964 for
AM assignments. Prior to 1964, AM assignments were made on the basis of
"normally protected" contours; an applicant's proposal would be
accepted and considered even if it involved some "objectionable
interference", as defined in the Rules, to existing stations, and if that
was the case, a hearing was normally required in which the service gains and
the interference detriment could be weighed (Section 73.24(b) which still
applies to applications which were filed before the adoption of the new
rules). The rules (Section 73.28(d), adopted in 1954 to replace and
modify the earlier engineering standards), n6 also provided a test to insure that an operation
would either be a reasonably efficient one or one providing a significant
service benefit: the so-called "10-percent rule", to the effect that
a proposal must either provide interference-free service to at least 90% of the
population within its normally protected contour, or, for nighttime operation,
that the station must either be a first local nighttime AM outlet or provide a
first primary service to 25% of the area within its interference-free
contour.
n6 This
rule, also, still applies to applications on file before adoption of the 1964
rules.
10. Following a
"freeze" adopted in May 1962, the Commission in 1963 proposed tighter
rules to govern the consideration of new and increased AM facilities (Docket
15084). These were adopted pretty much as proposed, in July 1964.
The chief changes involved were three: (1) previous concept of a "normally
protected contour", which could be invaded by a proposed new or increased
operation if the gain would outweigh the loss, was replaced by a strict
"go-no-go" principle, embodied in Section 73.37, making the
application unacceptable if it would cause interference to other stations
within their protected contours; (2) the test as to "interference
received" was also made "go-no-go" and tightened somewhat as
compared to the "10 percent rule" mentioned; a proposed station must
not receive any interference within their protected contours, unless it was
either a first local outlet (in a community outside an urbanized area, or of
25,000 or more population within an urbanized area), or would provide a first
primary service to 25% of the area within the interference-free contour, in
which case interference might be received up to the 1 mv/m [*650]
contour; and (3) the 25% "unserved area" test was made an absolute
condition to the acceptance of any application for new nighttime facilities (a
new full-time station or a daytimer seeking full-time operation), though not
for increases in such facilities. n7
n7 In 1968
this 25% test was modified to permit acceptance where a first primary service
would be provided to 25% of the area or population to be served.
11. Probably the chief purpose
of the 1964 rules was to prevent the deterioration of existing service through
a series of grants of applications involving some interference to existing
stations, each in itself small but cumulatively significant. As noted in
the 1968 "freeze" Report and Order mentioned above, in this respect
the new rules have been successful, although in other respects perhaps less
so. The imposition of a "25% unserved area" requirement as an
absolute criterion for new nighttime facilities was a recognition of the fact
that any new nighttime operation is a source of interference to other
co-channel stations over long distances, even though under the
"R.S.S." method of computation, applying the "50%
exclusion" rule, it may not be counted as objectionable
interference. n8 Therefore, it was believed, rather than tighten the
interference-computation rules to a point where virtually no additional
facilities could be sought, it would be better to leave the computation rules
as they are, and, instead, provide that, to justify the small incremental
interference, a really substantial benefit be provided by the new
proposal.
n8 See Section 73.182(o).
12. The "clear channel
freezes". Another aspect of recent AM history, referred to by a
number of commenting parties, is the "freeze" on the 25 I-A and some
other channels, which has existed in one form or another since 1946. Section
73.25(a) presently in effect imposes a "freeze" to these channels,
which have the 25 dominant I-A stations, plus 12 authorized full-time stations
in the conterminous 48 states (10 II-A stations plus one at San Diego and one
at Albuquerque), and 57 daytime-only or limited-time secondary stations, all
authorized before 1946 (there are also some secondary stations in Alaska,
Hawaii and Puerto Rico on these channels). Also partially
"frozen", in order to protect future allocation possibilities on the
I-A channels, are 26 other channels adjacent to I-A frequencies. n9
n9 These frequencies are specified in Section 1.569,
adopted in 1962 following the clear channel decision. That section lists
33 frequencies, within 3 channels of a I-A channel. However, 7 of these
have in effect been unfrozen now that all of the II-A assignments except that
on 890 kH/s have been authorized. The extent to which the other 26
channels are "frozen" varies with the channel: on some the restraint
is very small, but on some it is quite large (e.g. 630 kc/s, to protect the
"higher power" potential of both the 640 and 650 kHz I-A stations).
13. The "II-A"
assignments mentioned in the last paragraph represent the one departure, in the
AM field, from the "demand" principle. They date from the Clear
Channel decision of 1961 (in Docket 6741), in which the Commission "broke
down" 13 of the I-A channels, to a limited extent, providing for one
additional full-time assignment on each. Two of these were existing
stations in San Diego, Cal. and Anchorage, Alaska; 11 other were for new class
II-A assignments specified in Section 73.21 of the Rules, to be used in a
specified state or group of states (one in the Plains states and 10 in the
West). All but one of these, the 890 kHz assignment in Utah, have now
been authorized.
[*651] 14. It
should also be noted that liberal assignment principles for Alaska were adopted
at the time of the Notice herein; these have apparently worked well and no
comments of the subject were filed in this proceeding. At the same time
as the Notice, the "freeze" was also lifted to permit the filing of
power increase applications by the few Class IV stations not now having maximum
power; this is discussed below.
III. COMMENTS FILED IN THIS
PROCEEDING
15. Some 94 parties filed
formal comments herein (counting individually about a dozen parties joining in
certain comments). There were also some informal letters received.
(Commenting parties are listed in Appendix B hereto). Of the parties
filing formally, nearly all opposed the Notice proposal partly or entirely; the
closest to total support came from Clear Channel Broadcasting Service (CCBS), a
group of 12 Class I-A licensees, as discussed below. There was particular
opposition from licensees, engineers, and others, to the restrictions proposed
on modifications of existing facilities (or "improvements"). n10 Some parties, such as Association
on Broadcasting Standards, Inc. (ABS, a full time station group) took the
position that the tight restrictions proposed for new stations are justified,
but not those on increases in facilities. More than half of the comments
dealt entirely, or largely, with the proposed restrictions on improvements in
facilities. To a large extent, some of these parties' objections have
been met by a subsequent (1970) Commission pronouncement clarifying the type of
modification applications which are considered "major" and
"minor" changes (i.e., applications proposing only changes in
transmitter location, or directional or non-directional mode of operation, are
normally considered "minor"); but their argument still must be
considered in connection with other types of modification which are definitely
"major": increases in power, changes in frequency, and applications
by daytime-only stations for nighttime facilities. n11 We do not attempt herein to discuss
all of the comments individually; the following discussion will indicate the
main lines of argument.
n10 The
term "improvement" in facilities is used herein, as it was by some of
the commenting parties, to include all of the types of modification mentioned
in the text, both "major" and "minor": changes in
transmitter site, directional or non-directional mode of operation, power
increases, changes in frequency, and new nighttime facilities for daytime
stations. Another type of "change" mentioned by a few parties
-- change in station location (community of license) -- falls into a different
category, being in a sense an application for a new facilities.
n11 See Policy Statement Concerning Standard
Broadcast Applications for Major and Minor Changes, FCC 70-260, F.C.C. 2d, 18
R.R. 2d 1763 (April 14, 1970).
16. Views of industry
groups. Six industry groups filed comments, including CCBS and ABS
(mentioned above), National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), National
Association of FM Broadcasters (NAFMB), Community Broadcasters Association (a
group of Class IV stations), and the Association of Federal Communications
Consulting Engineers (AFCCE). As indicated above, CCBS was the closest of
all parties to supporting the Notice proposal entirely. It favored the
proposed restrictions particularly as to new stations, as avoiding further
over-crowding of the AM band and encouraging [*652] FM, which, now
that FM set circulation is large, should definitely be included in any
"unserved area" determination and should be relied on to fill the
need for additional stations. It is also urged that the Commission take
steps to "clear" as many as 40 AM channels for higher-power Class I
operations, or national and regional stations, by reallocating stations engaged
primarily in local broadcasting to the FM band. n12 CCBS also asserts that the
"25%" standard should be tightened to require that 25% of the area
and population be "unserved", citing in this connection the case of
some of the II-A stations authorized, which serve large areas but small
populations having no other nighttime primary service. CCBS also opposed
any idea that, in making "unserved area" determination, distant signals
should be ignored; it asserted that any mileage test of this sort would be
arbitrary and its Class I members feel obligated to, and do, render truly
meaningful service to rural areas many miles away from their locations.
CCBS also renews its oft-made plea for "higher power" for the I-A
stations, at least on an experimental basis, urging that skywave service is
really the only way to provide good AM service to the present "unserved
areas" in substantial amount, and that the present 50 kw level is not sufficient
to do so, in view of increasing man-made noise, interference from Latin
American stations, and the poor selectivity of present transistor radios.
n12 CCBS cites, in this connection, the views
expressed in the 1964 Report on Radio Spectrum Utilization issued by the Joint
Technical Advisory Committee (JTAC), to the effect that in view of the crowded
condition of the AM band in the U.S. and elsewhere, it would be in the
long-range public interest to move local broadcasting (as opposed to national
and regional) to the FM band, which is better suited for it because it offers
superior technical characteristics, more consistent coverage, and better
interference protection.
17. ABS agreed with the
Notice's view as to the desirability of restricting new facilities to those
substantially serving "unserved area", saying that in this respect an
"unrestricted demand" system is not justifiable, since it inevitably
leads to a concentration of stations in and around large cities where there is
is a high level of economic support (often in "suburban" communities
because of the more or less automatic "307(b)" preference which such
stations receive despite the many outside signals available, and even though
such proposals often present problems as to whether they are really not for large-city
stations in fact if not in name). Thus, any AM stations to be permitted
from now on should provide service where it is needed. Thus, it supported
generally, for new stations, the "25%" standard. On the other
hand, ABS vigorously opposed the restriction proposed on improvements in
facilities, asserting that this would prevent stations making changes necessary
to adequately serve their rapidly growing metropolitan areas, and thus improve
the quality of existing service (this point is discussed separately
below). It is asserted that if such restrictions are adopted, AM
broadcasting will sink into obsolescence. n13 ABS also raised certain specific points: (1) where existing FM service
is to be considered in relation to "unserved area", probably it should
be on the basis of such service to 100% of the area instead of 75%; otherwise,
some "unserved [*653] area" would still remain; (2)
educational FM stations should be included in this determination, since they do
render service; (3) including in the FM availability test "unassigned but
assignable" channels may present serious administrative problems; (4)
there should not be an exception for proposals competing with renewals, since
(with other new facilities not available) this would simply encourage such
activity and this is particularly bad since the new applicant could propose
greater facilities whereas the existing station could not; n14 (5) any consideration of "across the
board" power increases, urged by some other parties, is much too complex
for consideration at this time (involving both international and domestic
problems); and (6) any consideration of permitting assignments which would
provide a second primary service, or a first or second local service, should be
only on a waiver basis, or otherwise the whole purpose of the rule would be
thwarted (it is pointed out that many, probably most, recent and pending new
applications are for a first or second station in their communities. It
was urged that no such blanket restrictions are justifiable and that increases
should simply be subject to the usual "no interference" tests.
n13 This type of argument was urged
also by several other parties, to the effect that with both other
communications media and AM in other nations developing rapidly, it is not
appropriate to restrict improvements in U.S. AM service.
n14 A number of existing licensees
made one or both of these points in their comments, particularly the second.
18. NAB's comments related
entirely to the proposed restriction on facility improvements, which, it points
out, in some parts of the country would completely "freeze" AM
stations at their present levels (e.g., North Carolina, where all but a very
small part of the state receives 1 mV/m or better FM service from existing FM
stations). NAFMB, n15 as might be expected, supported the
proposed inclusion of FM in the determination of what is "unserved
area" and the concept that a new applicant should look first to FM, and in
general treating that service as an integral part of a total aural
service. It was asserted that both AM and FM are needed if the nation is
to receive adequate radio service -- AM for its extensive groundwave and
skywave coverage potential -- and that too many substandard AM operations have
been authorized (because FM has lagged) and this has hurt the development of
FM. In sum, NAFMB supported the proposal so to new stations, and urged us
to proceed with the type of reallocation recommended by JTAC (footnote 12,
above). On the other hand, in its reply comments it expressed opposition
to the proposed restrictions on improvements in existing stations, urging that
effective AM service is needed, to rapidly burgeoning urban areas. This,
it was said, should be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
n15 The NAFMB is composed of FM
broadcasters, some independent and some also licensees of companion AM
stations.
19. The AFCCE comments opposed
the idea of an "unserved area" criterion, or, indeed, any restriction
beyond the overlap standards (adopted in 1964) to prevent objectionable
interference, which, it stated, have worked well. It was stated that
channel usage is going to be largely determined by presently existing stations
in any event, so that no additional restrictions at this point are
warranted. It was asserted that demand should determine what is possible,
and the real [*654] needs for radio service do not really relate to
"unserved area." n16 It was also
urged that FM should not be taken into account, for reasons discussed
separately below; and AFCCE made some specific suggestions also mentioned
below. The comments of the Community Broadcasters Association related
entirely to the one-year limitation adopted in 1969 on the filing of
applications by Class IV stations for power increases (only a few had not previously
applied), urging that such a deadline should not be set.
n16 AFCCE used as an example Ventura
County, California, which has had a tremendous growth in recent years, with new
cities of large size, but where the availability of AM facilities is sharply limited
by the numerous Los Angeles stations. It was stated that, while these
stations provide it with signals and thus it is not "unserved area",
it is doubtful that they can do much to meet its particular needs, since the
needs of that city itself are great enough.
20. Other general
comments. A number of other comments generally opposing the proposal --
which is claimed to represent a near-total "freeze -- were filed, which
advanced among them in various forms the following views and ideas (some of which
have been indicated above). n17
n17 The comments chiefly dealt with
in these paragraphs are those of McKenna and Wilkinson and Robert L. Booth,
Esq. communications attorneys, and the following communications engineering
firms; Ralph J. Bitzer, Jules Cohen and Associates, Cohen & Dipell,
Commercial Radio Equipment Co., Peter J. Gureckis (John Mullaney &
Associates), Vir James, Jansky and Bailev, L. J. du Treil, Robert J. Jones,
George Lohnes (Lohnes & Culver), E. Harold Munn, Silliman, Moffatt &
Kowalski, Carl Smith, A. Earl Cullum & Associates, and J. G. Rountee.
21. The great need for
increased facilities. It is urged that there is a tremendous general need
to increase facilities (as noted, some of the arguments on this score, but not
all, have been rendered moot by the 1970 pronouncement concerning major and
minor changes). This is said to be true because of: (1) the great and
rapid increase in the size of urban areas, which make more power or changed
transmitter locations necessary to serve them and which will continue for a
long time; (2) the unsuitability or future unavailability of present
transmitter sites, because of the building up of surrounding areas (with
re-radiation problems), freeway construction or urban renewal, requiring
relocation and, often, a power increase from the new location to continue to
serve the whole urban area adequately; (3) increased man-made noise levels; (4)
the need to correct antiquated directional arrays. Many parties also urge
the need for nighttime service by daytime-only stations, which is discussed
below in connection with three particular comments by such licensees.
22. Nighttime interference
levels have not increased and will not increase if new nighttime facilities are
permitted. One of the key concepts in the restrictions adopted by the
Commission in 1964 on new nighttime authorizations was that any new nighttime
operation is a source of additional interference to co-channel stations, even
though -- under the "50% exclusion" concept embodied in Section 73,182(0)
-- it does not increase the nighttime limit of any station enough to be
cognizable under the rules as "objectionable interference." Many
parties, particularly engineering, argued with this idea. It was asserted
that while some interference is thus added, it is minuscule and
insignificant. In this connection reference was made to a study sponsored
by the NAB in 1962 (prepared by George Davis), concerning interference levels
on certain channels in 1960 as compared to 1940. It was found
[*655] in the study that, despite a tremendously increased number of
stations and virtual elimination of "unserved" and "gray"
daytime area in the Southeast, the nighttime limits of many stations on these
channels had increased little or none, and in some cases had been reduced as
stations directionalized their nighttime operations. n18 Attention was also called to the KWK (St. Louis)
situation, where, when that license was not renewed and multiple new applicants
competed for the frequency, the result was a substantial improvement in the
service areas of 9 co-channel stations. Some of the parties urging this
point claimed that the impression of increased nighttime interference is
basically a subjective, psychological one resulting from two factors: (1) with
the movement to the suburbs, a listener may well now live outside of his local
station's interference-free nighttime contour, and thus experience
interference, whereas if he had remained in his earlier in-city location he
would find no more now than formerly; and (2) tuning across the band at night
today, the listener may encounter many fairly new stations, with high
interference limits, in places on the dial where 30 years ago there was only
silence; but the stations which were there then can still be received just as
well.
n18 In the same inquiry, NBC made a
study of the 1941 and 1962 limits of three Washington, D.C. stations, including
its own WRC, computed by the 50 percent RSS exclusion method. It showed
two as declining (2.8 to 2.6 mV/m and 2.6 to 2.3 mV/m) and WRC increasing, 3.5
to 3.6 mV/m. NBC also carried the analysis of WRC's limits out on the
basis of 10% exclusion and found limits of 4.3 mV/m in 1941 and 4.7 mV/m in
1962.
23. On this basis, a number of
parties urged not only that no restrictions be imposed here on nighttime
authorizations, but that the "25% unserved area" criterion adopted in
1964 for new nighttime operations be abandoned. It was claimed that this,
not any reluctance of parties to establish new nighttime facilities, is the
reason why very few such proposals have been advanced in recent years;
correspondingly, if the restriction were removed, needed expansion of nighttime
service would result. It was also asserted that this restriction is
undesirable in presenting a choice of nighttime local services and attainment
of competitive equality.
24. Emphasizing "unserved
area" at the expense of other needs. Many parties urged that the
emphasis on "unserved area" embodied in the Notice is both useless
and wrong, pursuing an impossible objective at the expense of other needs for
increased service. It was urged that: (1) there simply is not and will
not be economic support in these areas for stations in any number sufficient to
make a substantial dent in the "unserved area" (day or night); (2)
the granting of new or increased facilities in other parts of the country, at
least daytime, will not generally have any significant preclusionary effect on
later facilities serving "unserved area" if and when there is any
demand for them (or, at least, that this could be handled on a case-by-case
basis by way of a "preclusion study"); (3) the most likely way to
serve some of this "unserved area" is permitting increased facilities
for existing stations, which would also tremendously improve their coverage of
their own urban areas; (4) this emphasis, which includes "service"
from distant sources, ignores the tremendous need for and importance of local
service, a key objective of the Commission for many years under Section 307(b)
of the Communications Act; (5) it also ignores the importance
[*656] of a choice of service -- at least two, and likely more -- and
thus tends to preserve monopoly and diminish competition, for example, in a
number of cities of over 25,000 population (outside of urban areas) having only
one station; (6) there are other pressing needs much more likely of
fulfillment, including that for adequate coverage of burgeoning urban areas and
shifting populations, for local outlets in "new towns" such as
Columbia, Maryland (projected to have a population of over 100,000 by 1980),
outlets for minority groups, and greater service generally to fulfill the
specialized, localized role of modern radio. n19
n19 It was pointed out that rather recently
(1968) the Commission found the city of Elizabeth, N.J. to be sufficiently
needful of local service, despite the plethora of New York City signals, to
warrant a local outlet as compared to a more distant community.
25. The significance of FM.
While NAFMB and a few other parties supported the Notice's treatment of
FM, many parties vigorously opposed it. Their arguments included the
following: (1) it is essentially immoral to create an "artificial
shortage" in AM just to stimulate FM; rather, the people of the area
involved, and applicants proposing to serve them, should have a choice as to
which they wish to use; (2) FM does not need any stimulation, shown by the
great increase in stations between 1962 and 1969 (nearly 60%) and the occupancy
of all or nearly all channels in much of the country including areas around
large cities; (3) FM is still not the equivalent of AM in ability to serve the
public, in view of limited set circulation and particularly the absence of FM
sets in automobiles during highly important "drive time"; (4) terrain
problems in rough or mountainous areas which seriously limit FM service range
in some cases; (5) the very limited extent to which FM channels are in fact
available, in much of the country, for a potential applicant to use; (6) the
utter impossibility of establishing a viable FM station in some parts of the
country where it has not developed at all outside of large centers (e.g.,
Wyoming, with the only stations those in Casper and Cheyenne, and northern
Maine); (7) FM is not cheaper than AM as the Notice claimed, but in fact AM is
less expensive even if it involves a simple directional array (parties gave
various figures in this connection). It was urged that -- with only 25%
of assigned channels vacant as of the end of 1969, and only 13% east of the
Mississippi -- telling potential applicants to "look to FM" is
largely illusory, and, also, that any concept of using "unassigned but
assignable" channels in this connection is an administrative impossibility
and grossly unfair to applicants, in view of the delays and problems involved
in FM rule making; (8) FM and AM are and should be treated as complementary,
each being used where it best serves.
26. Whether there is an
"AM shortage". Many parties argued with the concept that there
is in fact any shortage of AM spectrum space, as the Notice indicated. It
was claimed that, in much of the country away from urban centers, this is not
true even under present assignment policies, and it is certainly not true in
view of the potential for further assignments if and when the various clear
channel "freezes" are lifted. For example, it is said, the 25
Class I-A channels represent nearly 25% of AM spectrum space, which could be made
available [*657] for daytime, if not full time, stations; and the
same is true of adjacent channels which are likewise partially
"frozen" under Section 1.569, and to some extent other channels (I-B
frequencies) which were unfrozen earlier only to have the general 1962
"freeze" quickly super-imposed on them. In any event, it was
urged, this reservoir makes it inappropriate to impose a freeze such as that
involved in the Notice proposal. Rather, it was said, AM is really as
available as FM, if not more so, and therefore a concept of looking to FM in
order to avoid depletion of AM is basically fallacious.
27. The Commission's role and
obligation. A number of parties claimed that the Notice proposal, and
sharp restrictions involved, really reflected the Commission's effort to
further "administrative convenience" by simply choking off
applications. It was asserted that, while there are problems in AM
processing and determination, they certainly do not warrant this approach, but,
rather, efforts to deal with them as such. Some suggestions made are set
forth below. It was also claimed (e.g., in the McKenna and Wilkinson
comments) that these are largely of the Commission's own making, in the context
of some Court decisions such as Ashbacker and KOA, which have imposed substantial
requirements. n20 For example, it was argued that the
Commission for a long time made substandard, interference-causing AM grants as
a matter of policy, and existing stations, realizing this, asserted their KOA
hearing rights in every case even where the interference was minuscule, lest
the grant become a precedent and also because the Commission's consideration
did not take into account the cumulative effect of such impingements on a given
existing station. Also, some parties urged that the assertedly erratic
treatment of AM over the years -- "freezes", thaws, and then
"re-freezes" -- created uncertainty and a pent-up demand, which
resulted in the filing of numerous applications involving "chain
reaction" conflicts, particularly when certain frequencies were
unfrozen. In general, it was urged that the Commission cannot properly
use these considerations as ground to support the near-total "freeze"
contemplated by the Notice, but must do the best it can to improve its
procedures and seek the necessary additional staff to handle applications which
reflect a genuine demand and therefore, in general, applications which reflect
a genuine demand and therefore, in general, a need. In this connection,
two other points were also urged: (1) while the Notice spoke generally of the
proposal as an interim measure pending further in-depth study, there was
nothing specific as to what would be studied or when, so that it must be
assumed the near-total freeze would last indefinitely; (2) some parties accused
the Commission of having in mind, without saying so, a form of "birth
control", an idea that a given community or area simply does not need, or
cannot well support, any more stations than it now has.
n20 Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC,
326 U.S. 327 (1945); FCC v. National Broadcasting Company (KOA), 319 U.S. 239
(1943). The former established the right of copending mutually exclusive
applicants to a full hearing against each other; the latter established the
right of a station, which would receive objectionable interference, to a
hearing on that issue.
28. "Foreign
preemption". A number of parties, particularly engineers, urged that
any restrictions on U.S. AM assignments -- beyond [*658] those
necessary to avoid interference -- are undesirable because foreign nations on
the continent are not bound by such restrictions and will make use of the
frequencies in places near the border, to the exclusion of any later U.S.
use. It was also claimed that when the foreign use is nighttime, as it
often will be, this means additional interference to U.S. stations even though
it is not cognizable under the international R.S.S. rules just as it would not
be domestically. This argument was one urged for repeal of the "25%
unserved area" criterion of new nighttime assignments adopted in 1964.
29 Use of preclusion studies.
One of the matters mentioned in the Notice -- not as part of the present
proposal but for possible ultimate use -- was a requirement of a
"preclusion study", from which it could be determined what the impact
from a given application proposal would be on other possible uses of the
channel and adjacent channels in the general area, and what other assignment
possibilities remain to meet the needs in the "preclusion
area". Such a study is now required in connection with many
petitions for FM rule making.
30. Some parties, e.g.,
Silliman, Moffat and Kowalski, supported this as a useful and feasible concept;
as mentioned above, some parties suggested it as a method of "case by
case" evaluation, for example showing whether or not a proposed use would
preclude an assignment which would serve "unserved area". On
the other hand, at least one party (Booth) opposed it as unworkable, in view of
the tremendous differences which exist in AM propagation (ground conductivity
and frequency) and the many variables involved in possible directional
operations.
31. The "demand"
system. Many commenting parties praised the traditional
"demand" system of AM assignments, as the basis of the country's
unparalleled AM system (with its tremendous number of stations and local
outlets), and urged that it be continued, although perhaps with some
modifications to encourage service to "unserved areas". On the
other hand, others (e.g., McKenna and Wilkinson) urged that this system be
considerably modified or abandoned, for example with a Table of Assignments
containing initially existing stations, with additions thereto as a result of
rule making, just as in the FM. and TV service.
32. The concept of
"waste". It was said by some parties that the whole idea that
AM spectrum is "wasted" by grants on a "demand" basis is
basically wrong, for one reason because spectrum, while every much a valuable
and scarce national asset, is not a "wasting" one in the sense that
minerals or petroleum are. It was asserted that later shifts in station
location or facilities -- either voluntarily or through Commission "show
cause" proceedings -- are always possible. Therefore, it was said,
the "waste" involved is in not permitting use of the frequencies now.
33. Comments urging the
importance of nighttime AM service. A number of parties, many of them
licensees of daytime-only stations, urged the importance of their being able to
obtain nighttime facilities to better serve their communities and surrounding
areas. n21 Three comments [*659]
illustrate some aspects of these suggestions and possible approaches. Sea
Broadcasting Corporation is the licensee of Station WVAB, the only station
licensed to Virginia Beach, Virginia, a city which is one of the four large
cities making up the Norfolk-Portsmouth Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
(SMSA), and had a 1970 Census population of 172,106. WVAB is
daytime-only, and the licensee urged that there is a great need for a local
nighttime facility to meet the substantial particular needs of Virginia Beach,
including matters such as elections, weather and school closings, local
emergencies, discussion of public issues, and provision of time for local
advertisers and political candidates. It was asserted that the only
full-time station generally received throughout this city, WTAR, Norfolk,
simply does not meet these needs because it has 16 major communities to serve
and, for example, mentioned Virginia Beach material only four times in a week
of evening news programs (three of them on one evening about the same
item). It was claimed that, while Virginia Beach is part of an SMSA with
a larger city, the Commission should adhere to the policy applied in
Monroeville Broadcasting Company, 12 FCC 2d 359 (1968), where it recognized the
need of Monroeville, Pennsylvania, for an outlet despite a plethora of primary
service from nearby Pittsburgh stations, finding that none of the latter showed
"an above average sensitivity to the needs" of the city of
Monroeville. FM was claimed not to be the answer, at least as to present
needs, in view of the still much greater circulation and universality of
AM. The suggestion was that the Commission adopt a rule to the effect
that when a "major political unit" of over 50,000 lacks a local AM
nighttime service, the "25% unserved area" and other technical rules
should not apply if it is shown that the proposed facility would not cause
interference to other stations (under the traditional nighttime standards) and
that the proposed station would serve nighttime a substantial part of the
population within the political unit. n22
n21 At least one station whose
licensee made this argument, WPVL, Painesville, Ohio, has since applied for and
received grant of nighttime facilities.
n22 The latter part of the proposal
apparently represents the fact that a nighttime facility would not include all
of Virginia Beach -- which has a very large area -- within its
interference-free contour. Sea proposed that the Commission make this
"substantial" determination on a case-by-case basis.
34. Another aspect of such
situations is presented in the comments filed by Gordon A. Regers, President of
Radio KGAR, the licensee of daytime-only Station KGAR at Vancouver,
Washington. Vancouver, a city of about 43,000 in southwestern Washington,
in the Portland, Oregon SMSA, has two other AM stations assigned, one full time
(KISN), but, as Mr. Rogers pointed out, this station is actually located in
Oregon (both studio and transmitter location) and has been the subject of
Commission action because of improper identification as a Portland station
(continuation of its operation is now the subject of a hearing proceeding,
although not chiefly for this reason). Mr. Rogers claimed that this
station really is designed to serve Portland and Oregon, and, in fact, does not
serve Vancouver at all as a local outlet; and, that city and its county
therefore do not have local nighttime service (no FM channel is assigned to
Vancouver, nor, in view of its proximity to Portland, is such an assignment
likely). Mr. Rogers vigorously opposed the Notice proposal, as stifling
AM development, instead urging that daytimers should be permitted to "go
nighttime" if they can [*660] meet the traditional
non-interference tests. It was pointed out that with Station KOIN-FM,
Portland, having a very large 1 mV/m coverage area, if FM service is taken into
account as a bar to AM improvement, this would preclude AM facilities in an
extremely large area in Oregon and Washington. If this is going to be the
case, it was urged that KOIN should be required to give its AM facility to KGAR
and take the present KGAR frequency, which has less coverage potential but
would still leave KOIN with its wide-coverage FM and television
facilities. It was urged that no "unserved area" test is
appropriate in such cases.
35. The comments of Tri-State
Broadcasting Company, licensee of of daytime Station WGTA, Summerville,
Georgia, present another type of situation. Summerville is the county
seat of Chattooga County, with populations of about 5,000 and 20,000
respectively, and WGTA is the only station in the county. No FM channel
is assigned in the city or county, nor, in all probability, could an assignment
be made. The only nighttime AM service in the area is from Class I
Station WSB, Atlanta, which puts a 0.5 mV/m signal, but not a 2 mV/v signal
into Summerville and thus provides primary service to the surrounding area but
not to the city itself. Two Chattanooga FM stations provide predicted 1
mV/m signals to the city and area; but it is claimed that these do not in fact
provide adequate service because of rough terrain (they are respectively 32 and
44 miles distant). There is no local daily newspaper. Tri-State
urged the great need of this area for local nighttime service (particularly in
view of the large "three shift" work force which travels to and from
work during nighttime hours), and, also, and in particular, the economic
impossibility of building a directional array which would enable it to meet
interference protection requirements at night with the normally permissible
power level of 500 watts (regional channels). It was asserted that this
(including the acquisition of a large enough site) would cost over $115,000,
which is simply not justifiable in a community of this size. Therefore,
Tri-State's basic request is for a rule which would permit it to operate
non-directionally with less than the minimum power, or 100.5 watts, which it
could use and not raise the interference limit of co-channel stations. So
operating, with a 9.73 mV/m limit to it (a radius of about 4 miles), it would
provide a primary service to some 8,221 persons, of whom 4,706 now receive no
nighttime AM primary service and 3,472 receive only one, and would thus meet
the "25% unserved area" test as modified in 1968 to include a 25%
population criterion. It asked for a rule which would permit
non-directional operation with sub-minimum power at night if the applicant
shows that a directional array necessary to meet protection requirements with
the regular minimum power would be either impossibly complex or economically
unfeasible. It was urged that this approach would solve the problem of
providing local nighttime service in many U.S. communities.
36. The "minority
group" problem: comments of Dr. Wendell Cox. The comments of Dr.
Wendell Cox, D.D.S., a principal in, and general manager of black-owned
full-time AM Station WCHB, Inkster, Michigan, and FM Station WCHD, Detroit,
related to the possible acquisition of broadcasting facilities by "minority
groups" -- blacks [*661] in his case -- pointing out that
while there are some 700 stations presenting at least some programming aimed at
the black audience, there are very few black-owned stations (they include the
stations mentioned, and assertedly only about seven other AM and fewer other FM
stations; but the number has increased somewhat since these comments were filed
in November 1969). Dr. Cox urged that rules not be adopted which would
restrict the opportunity for ethnic and racial minorities to compete for
additional facilities in markets where they constitute large portions of the
population. He asserted that -- with the disadvantaged position of the
black population during the period when facilities in large markets were
available, and the present impossibility of adding any new ones in most large
cities -- steps should be taken to make more frequencies available to such
groups, rather than adopting further restrictions of the type contemplated by
the Notice. It was asserted that, while "militant" groups have
approached this problem by renewal challenges, it should not be necessary to
take something away from an existing licensee in order to achieve a minority
voice, if there are other ways by which such groups can obtain new facilities.
A re-shuffle of frequencies in places such as New York, it was claimed, could
provide an additional channel which minority groups could seek. n23 Dr. Cox claimed that FM is not a substitute in this
respect; Black taxi drivers, filling station workers, etc., are
"transistor oriented" and FM sets are less available to poor black
homes. Therefore, as shown by his experience with the Detroit FM station,
the potential black FM audience at this time is small, even if FM channels were
available in large cities, which they usually are not (and existing FM
licensees, it was asserted, put prices on their existing FM stations which make
purchase out of the question even for a fairly successful black group).
Specifically, Dr. Cox opposed the Notice proposal, urged that the Commission
take steps (by reshuffling channels) to provide at least one frequency in major
markets where there is now not a black-owned or controlled station, and stated
that he is not asking that channels be available only for black applicants, but
that they be given an opportunity to compete for them.
37. Suggestions advanced by
the parties. Besides general opposition to the restrictive aspects of the
Notice proposal, a number of parties advanced affirmative suggestions which
they claim will improve aural broadcast service and the assignment
process. Some of these -- including the general elimination of the
"25% unserved area" requirement for new nighttime facilities,
possible use of "preclusions studies" as a basic allocation tool, the
specific suggestions of the Virginia Beach and Summerville, Georgia, applicants
for getting nighttime facilities in their particular situations, and the
suggestions of Dr. Cox concerning a voice for minority groups -- have been
mentioned. Others are discussed in the next few paragraphs. Some of
these ideas are clearly beyond the scope of this proceeding; others could
conceivably be adopted herein but in our view should be the subject of more
exploration [*662] if they are to be considered at all; and still
others, such as those relating to processing and procedures, do not require
rule making.
n23 These comments were accompanied
by an engineering statement of E. Harold Munn, Jr., to the same effect as part
of his separate engineering comments, including data as to channel spacing and
the date of authorization of stations in large cities.
38. "Across the
board" power increase. The engineering firm of Cohen and Dippel --
supported by a number of parties, particularly Class IV licensees seeking
increased nighttime power -- proposed an "across the board" power
increase for all classes of stations. The proposal was that: (1) Class I
stations could increase from 50 to 250 kw, with I-A stations directionalizing
(on the "broken down" I-A channels) to protect II-A stations; and I-B
stations similarly protecting co-channel I-B stations where there are any; (2)
Class II stations to be permitted 100 kw, with full-time Class II stations on
I-B channels to protect the new 1 mV/m 50% contour of co-channel I-B stations
(which is farther out than the present 0.5 mV/m 50% contour), and Class II-A
stations protecting Class I-A stations on the present 0.5 mV/m 50% basis; (3)
regional (Class III) stations to be permitted 25 kw (the Munn Engineering
comments suggested consideration of an increase to 50 kw); and (4) Class IV
stations to go to 500 watts at night with a 5/8 (0.625) wave length
antenna. The latter is designed to reduce high-angle radiation, the chief
source of interference to other stations within 300 miles. Studies on Class
IV situations in Illinois and Tennessee, said to be typical, showed increases
in interference limits of 35% and 12%, respectively, but increase in groundwave
field intensity of 116% and 100%, resulting in a considerable net gain in
service areas. In connection with the Class I power increase also, it was
asserted that this would result in over-all improvement, improving both
groundwave and skywave coverage despite increased interference. It was
recognized that these changes might involve some adjacent problems in some
cases, and also would often require modification of international
agreements. ABS, in reply comments, urged that such changes would be very
complex and should not be undertaken at the present stage of this proceeding.
39. Treatment of I-A and
adjacent channels. A number of engineering, and other parties, suggested
that the Commission take steps to make additional assignments (daytime if not
full-time) on I-A channels, and wholly, or partly, lift the "freeze"
on use of adjacent channels presently contained in Section 1.569. On the
other hand, CCBS, urging the importance of skywave service from unduplicated
I-A stations, asked that steps be taken to "clear" a number of
additional channels for wide-coverage operation, by moving to the FM band
stations designed primarily for local coverage.
40. Use of a Table of AM
Assignments. Some parties, such as McKenna and Wilkinson and Ralph
Bitzer, supported the idea of a Table of Assignments for AM, which would
contain initially only existing stations, with additional assignments requiring
amendment of the Table through rule making.
41. Suggestions concerning
procedures and processing. Other suggestions related to the Commission's
procedures and methods used in handling and consideration of applications, in
an effort to deal with the problems mentioned in the Notice without the
Draconian measure of a near-total "freeze". These included:
[*663] (a) Relying on
licensees to check for interference. The AFCCE specifically, and other
parties more generally, suggested that the Commission abandon the system
whereby every AM application is carefully checked as to interference to
existing stations, and instead, rely on the existing stations themselves for
this, with the Commission staff initially only spot-checking and examining
applications only where international considerations are involved. The
AFCCE's suggestion was that a system (using only clerical personnel and a
computer) be worked out for notifying existing stations on a monthly basis of
all applications for facilities on their channels or up to 30 kHz removed, with
the licensee to have the burden of objecting if interference to it would be
involved. The licensee would have 60 days to file objections, with a
complete engineering showing, and if objection is filed, the applicant and
other parties would have 45 days to reply. The staff and the Commission
would then consider the matter. If no objection is received and the
application appears otherwise in order, it would automatically be granted.
(b) Filings only by professional
engineers. The AFCCE and other engineering parties urged that
applications be required to be prepared by professional engineers, as a way of
insuring engineering showings of good quality, accuracy and completeness.
It was said that this requirement -- under which persons of "proven ethics
and expertise" would be putting their reputations "on the line"
-- would go far to cut down the staff and Commission problems in dealing with
inferior engineering submissions. In this respect, these parties make the
same arguments urged by the AFCCE in a pending petition to adopt this
requirement for all of the Commission's processes which involve engineering.
(c) Furnishing an extract of
material in the application. McKenna and Wilkinson, noting that one of
the time-consuming aspects of application processing is the preparation of
memoranda setting forth the important facts as to an application -- not only
engineering but finances, ownership, programming, etc. -- suggested that
applicants be required to file with their applications an extract of key
information in these categories, which would shorten the time involved in
presenting items for consideration at higher staff level or by the Commission.
(d) Increased filing fees.
Silliman, Moffat and Kowalski suggested that application filing fees might well
be raised, to cover the substantial costs of AM application processing if it is
to be continued on its traditional basis (as the parties generally believe it
should). In 1970, of course, the Commission raised its fees, for AM and
other applications, substantially compared to what they were when these
comments were filed, and further increases are currently under consideration.
(e) Use of computers. A number
of parties suggested that the Commission should make more use of computers in
AM processing. The Silliman comments suggested the accumulation of
information concerning AM stations in a "computer bank", which would
be available to the public and also supported, at least in part, by public
users.
42. Suggested broadening of
the proceeding. Some parties, notably E. Harold Munn, Jr., urged
that the scope of the proceeding should be broadened by a Notice of Inquiry and
Further Notice of Proposed Rule [*664] Making. Munn suggested
that such a document might well look toward the following, in addition to
further breakdown of the I-A channels already discussed:
(a) "Show cause" orders to
daytime-only licensees as to why they should not be required to install nighttime
facilities, in cases where it appears that they feasibly could and particularly
where FM channels are not available;
(b) Steps to meet the needs of
minority groups for increased ownership of facilities.
(c) Moving I-A stations out of the
large cities, where they are now located, to smaller places where they could do
a much better job of serving "unserved area", replacing them in the
large centers by Class II or III stations.
(d) "Show Cause" orders to
full-time stations which cause high nighttime limits to stations in
"unserved area" portions of the country, as to why they should not be
required to improve their arrays so as to reduce interference to these
stations.
(e) Setting a time limit for
resolution of the Clear Channel proceeding.
43. Other suggestions.
Other suggestions made included the formation of a Joint Government-Industry
Committee to undertake a sweeping evaluation and reform of the aural
broadcasting assignment structure; that the Commission urge adoption of
"all channel" AM-FM receiver legislation as really the only effective
way of bringing these two aural services to parity; and various fundamental
changes in AM and FM technical rules (suggested in the Booth Comments). n24
n24 These included, in FM, reducing
both the bandwidth (to 100 kHz) and the adjacent-channel requirements, and, in
AM, deleting the allegedly obsolete "blanketing" and second and third
adjacent channel separation requirements, and liberalizing the rules concerning
principal-city coverage; and exploration of "single sideband" AM
operation.
We have not mentioned specifically
herein the longest comments of all, those filed by Coastal Broadcasting
Company, Inc., licensee of WBEA and WBEA-FM, Ellsworth, Maine. These
largely were related to that party's pending petition for breakdown of the
Class I-A channel 820 kHz to provide a new Class II-A assignment in
Maine. They made the same point urged by others herein as to the
inadequacy of FM as a substitute for additional FM development in places such
as northern Maine, and of the alleged difficulty in getting coverage via FM
comparable to that which a II-A station could provide.
IV. THE DISTRIBUTION OF AM AND
FM SERVICE AND FACILITIES IN THE CONTERMINOUS 48 STATES
44. For reasons discussed
below, rather than the "rules pending further study" contemplated by
the Notice herein, we have decided to adopt, instead, rules which are expected,
with minor modifications, to govern the assignment of new and increased AM
facilities for some time to come. Therefore, it is appropriate to examine
the picture of aural broadcast service as it is today in the United States,
both with respect to reception of the availability of a usable signal from a
nearby or distant source, and as to transmission, the existence or absence of a
local station, or full-time service or a choice of local service, in
communities, or nearby communities. It is of course well settled that
under Section 307(b) of the Communications Act, the Commission's mandate to
provide for a "fair, efficient and equitable distribution of radio
[*665] service" includes both of these concepts, as do the various
statements of Commission allocation principles such as the Sixth Report and
Order (1952) in television, and the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in Docket
15084 (1963), the proceeding which led to the 1964 AM rules. The
discussion below relates to the 48 conterminous States; we discuss later herein
the situation in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, which
present different considerations because of their distance from the rest of the
nation.
A. AM
and FM reception and service
45. Daytime AM service.
With more than 4,200 stations in the 48 States, all operating daytime, daytime
AM service in the nation is extremely widespread, and -- except in the West and
certain limited areas elsewhere -- all but very small areas have at least one
daytime primary service. n25 Daytime
"gray" areas, which receive only one primary service, appear to be
somewhat larger (especially in view of the extent, discussed below, to which
many counties in the U.S. have only one station); but even here there is
relatively little absence of a choice of service. As indicated in
paragraph 22, above, the 1962 NAB-George Davis study showed that in the
Southeast, by 1960, only 0.6% of that region's area had no primary service, and
only 1.4% of the area was limited to one primary service.
n25 There are extensive
"unserved areas" in the Plains and Mountain States (and the interior
portions of some of the Pacific States), and smaller areas farther east,
including northern New England, northern New York, upper Michigan and northern
Minnesota, and possibly north central Pennsylvania. In the East and
Southeast there are small interstitial unserved areas, particularly where
ground conductivity is low.
46. Nighttime primary
service. "Unserved areas", those without primary service, are
substantially larger at night because of the high interference levels which
prevail (limiting the service areas of those stations which operate at night).
The tool usually used in evaluating this situation is a map originally prepared
by CCBS in the 1940's for the Clear Channel proceeding and updated in January
1962 to reflect 1961 conditions (it is generally agreed that in over-all terms,
night-time "unserved area" has not been significantly changed
since). This shows some 1,726,000 square miles, or over half of the land
area of the conterminous 48 states, as without nighttime "Type B"
groundwave service. n26 This area in
1961 contained some 25,106,000 people. n27 The amount of "gray" area, receiving only one primary service
at night, is also substantial. The unserved area includes a considerable
portion of the three Pacific Coast states, the bulk of the Mountain and western
portion of the Plains states, and the bulk of the South and Southeast, Virginia
and West Virginia, and northern New England as well as substantial portions of
Michigan and Pennsylvania and parts of most other states. An important
factor in the provision of service, in overall [*666] area terms,
is the wide primary services areas of the Class I clear channel stations, such
as those at New York, Chicago, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Des Moines, Minneapolis,
New Orleans, Forth Worth, and elsewhere. n28 One factor reinforcing this pattern, as elaborated below, is that the
bulk of Class II and III full-time stations are also located in or near the
large cities of the country (Class IV stations also operate full time and are
much more widely distributed geographically, but they have very small nighttime
coverage areas principally because of the very high interference levels which
result from the great many co-channel stations).
n26 The "Type B"
groundwave nighttime service shown on the CCBS map is roughly equivalent to
primary service, representing more sophisticated concepts evolved during the
clear channel proceeding, whose validity the Commission recognized but whose
complexity was held to make it unsuitable for ordinary application processing.
n27 The "unserved area"
actually increased slightly from 1957 to 1961, but the population declined
slightly. In the portion of the pre-sunrise proceedings concerning the
I-A channels (Dockets 17562 et al.), some of the Class II opponents of the I-A
stations urged that the decline in population, despite an increase in area and
the great population growth of the United States generally, meant that this
largely rural "unserved area" was losing population so that providing
it with nighttime service is a matter of smaller importance. See the
Report and Order in Dockets 17562 et al., 18 FCC 2d 705, 715 (1969).
n28 One of the oft-mentioned aspects
of this situation is that the bulk of the nighttime "unserved area"
is in the West; but the bulk of the "unserved population" is in the
East and Southeast.
47. Skywave (secondary)
service from Class I stations. In order to offset these limitations on
nighttime primary service, reliance is placed on the skywave, or secondary,
service rendered at night by Class I stations (25 I-A and 33 I-B) assigned to
operate with high power and afforded a high degree of protection so that they
can provide this service. Skywave service is recognized as somewhat
intermittent and subject to "fading"; but it is a useful way of
providing at least a modicum of service to the large "unserved
areas". This service is regarded as generally useful out to about
the station's 0.5 mVm/ 50% skywave contour, which for a non-directional
operation is 700 to 750 miles from its transmitter. All parts of the U.S.
receive skywave service from these Class I stations, usually from several.
48. FM service. FM
service, From more than 2,200 stations, is likewise widespread in most of the
nation, generally excepting the areas mentioned above for daytime AM
service. The FM coverage map published periodically by the NAB shows the
U.S. as completely covered, except for very small areas, about as far west as
the 98th meridian in the Plains states, and then largely a coverage void until
the Pacific states are reached. However, this is based on coverage out to
a station's 50 uV/m contour, which does not always represent reliable service
and is not the basis of interference protection. n29 As mentioned in para. 18, above, the NAB introduced
a map herein showing almost complete coverage of the State of North Carolina by
1 mV/m signals from existing North Carolina facilities. However, since
North Carolina is and has long been a state of widespread FM development, this
is not necessarily typical of all of the nation. The engineering comments
prepared by Peter V. Gureckis contained a similar map of all of the U.S. east
of the Mississippi (1 mV/m coverage of all existing stations and assuming use
of unoccupied channels); it shows only a small number of "unserved
areas", of which the only ones of real size are northern Maine, northern
New York, upper Michigan, central West Virginia and western Virginia, and
southwestern Florida. Nighttime FM is in general considerably more
widespread than AM primary service. Limited FM set circulation still
remains a problem, although this is improving except possibly in the important
auto radio market (see the Notice herein, para. 5).
n29 Section 73.315(b) states that a
signal as low as 50 uV/m may provide service in rural areas. However,
stations have never been protected against interference out to this contour;
and in Commission proceedings the 1 mV/m contour is usually the
signal-intensity contour considered. Applicants are required to show the
location of the 1 mV/m and the 3.16 mV/m (principal-city signal) contours.
[*667] DISCUSSION AND
DECISION
49. In deciding upon the
nature of the rules to be adopted in this proceeding pursuant to our proposals
herein, and in the light of the comments filed, we have explored in depth
approaches which would be "fine-grained" -- would take into detailed
account the actual distribution of aural broad cast service over the country,
and result in rules aimed at remedying service deficiencies, if not on a
case-to-case basis, in a manner approximating it. However it soon appeared
that the body of rules necessary to mount this kind of attack on the problem
would be formidably complicated, and their implementation would impose a heavy
administrative burden on the Commission and on licensees and applicants -- all
without any firm assurance that the result, as evidenced by a more equitable
and efficient distribution of broadcast facilities, would be sufficiently
significant to justify the attendant effort and expense.
50. Therefore, we have
abandoned this approach, and are adopting comparatively simple rules in an
attempt to accomplish our objective -- to control the expansion of standard
broadcast service in such a manner that, in the future, grants of new standard
broadcast stations or changes in existing stations will be limited largely to
those situations in which improvements in the existing level of aural service
are clearly needed, and cannot readily be achieved by alternative means.
In following this course of action, we are rejecting the suggestions of these
parties who urge that we revert to an unrestricted "demand" system --
that we accept and process any standard broadcast application which meets the
basic technical standards, and abandon rules tailored to limit the addition of
new stations to communities which we deem to have sufficient aural
service. These parties tend to argue that the tremendous number of AM
stations which have been assigned under this system is a demonstration of the
excellence of the system, and that "demand" can be considered as a
true indicator of the public need for additional broadcast service. We do
not believe that effectiveness of a system of broadcast allocations can be
measured solely or even primarily by the fact that it provides an open-ended
avenue for the apparently unlimited expansion in the number of stations.
As we have often observed, the unrestricted operation of such a system almost
inevitably results in an inequitable distribution of facilities, with an undue
concentration of stations in the larger communities. Nor do we believe
that "demand", as evidenced by the willingness of entrepreneurs to
hazard funds for the establishment or purchase of stations is a true reflector
of the public need for additional broadcast service. Typically, any of
the largest cities have a multitude of aural services, and it is difficult to
conceive a substantial public requirement for any greater number, yet the
"demand" remains, as demonstrated by the prices commanded by standard
broadcast stations which change hands in those cities. Accordingly, we
find no justification for jettisoning rules designed to direct the future
growth of the standard broadcast service into areas where there is inadequate
existing service by any reasonable standard.
[*668] 51. The
major rule amendments which we are adopting are embodied in a new paragraph,
which, together with pertinent notes, would be added to present Section 73.37
of the rules. This paragraph sets forth requirements bearing on the
acceptability of applications in addition to the no overlap and non-interference
showings presently required by the rule. A discussion of the positions
advanced by the parties to this proceeding, and our reasons for adopting these
particular rules, can be conducted most fruitfully if we here set forth the new
paragraph, and examine its provisions and their implications in the light of
the considerations involved.
52. � 73.37(e) in
addition to a demonstration of compliance with the requirements of paragraph
(a), and, where appropriate, paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section, an application
for a new standard broadcast station, or for a major change (see �
1.571(a)(1)) in an authorized standard broadcast station, as a condition for
its acceptance shall make satisfactory showings as indicated below for the kind
of application submitted.
(1) Application for a new daytime
station, or for a change in the frequency of an existing daytime station.
(i) That at least 25 percent of the
area or population which would receive interference-free primary service from
the proposed station does not receive such service from an authorized standard
broadcast station or receive service from an authorized FM broadcast station
with a signal strength of 1 mv/m, or greater, or
(ii) That no FM channel is available
for use in the community designated in the application and that at least 20
percent of the area or population of the community receives less than two
daytime aural services. For the purpose of this showing an aural service
shall be deemed to be provided by an interference-free groundwave signal from
an authorized standard broadcast station of a strength of 5 mv/m, or greater,
or by an F (50, 50) signal from an authorized FM broadcast station of a
strength of 70 dbu (3.16 mv/m), or greater.
(2) Application for a new unlimited
time station, for a change in the frequency of an authorized unlimited time
station, or for night-time facilities by an authorized daytime station, a
satisfactory showing under (i) (except for a Class IV station), and under
either (ii) or (iii):
(i) That objectionable interference
at night will not result to any authorized station, as determined pursuant to
� 73.182(o).
(ii) That at least 25 percent of the
area or population which would receive interference-free primary service at
night from the proposed station does not receive such service from an
authorized standard broadcast station, or service from an authorized FM
broadcast station with a signal strength of 1 mv/m, or greater, or
(iii) That no FM channel is
available for use in the community designated in the application, and at least
20 percent of the area or population of the community receives less than two
nighttime aural services. For the purpose of this showing, an aural
service shall be deemed to be provided by an interference-free ground wave
signal from an authorized standard broadcast station with a strength of 5 mv/m,
or [*669] greater, or by an F (50, 50) signal from an authorized FM
broadcast station with a strength of 70 dbu (3.16 mv/m), or greater.
(3) Application by an authorized
station (other than a Class IV station) proposing changes in facilities, other
than a change in frequency, must make a satisfactory showing, where
appropriate, under (i), and under either (ii) or (iii).
(i) For a change in nighttime
facilities, that the proposed change will not result in objectionable
interference to other stations as determined pursuant to � 73.182(o).
(ii) For an increase in power,
either daytime or nighttime, that the authorized operation, during the portion
of the broadcast day for which power increase is sought, includes less than 80
percent of the area or population of the community to which the station is
assigned within its 5 mv/m ground wave contour (or within its interference-free
groundwave contour, if of a higher value), or,
(iii) For an increase in power, that
at least 25 percent of the area or population which, as a result of the power
increase, for the first time would receive interference-free primary service
from the station, is without primary service from any other standard broadcast
station.
New notes appended to Section 73.37
define the circumstances controlling the availability of an FM channel, and,
with respect to the determination of existing services, stipulate that signals
from stations located more than 50 miles from the community for which the
station is proposed will not be considered, and that co-owned FM and standard
broadcast stations shall be considered as providing a single aural
service. A study of the provision of this paragraph will reveal the
following additional criteria which will henceforth govern the acceptance of
applications for standard broadcast stations:
(1) A showing, for a new daytime
station that 25 percent of the area or population within its proposed service
area is without primary service from any existing standard broadcast station,
or comparable service from an FM broadcast station, and, for a new unlimited
time station, that this condition exists during nighttime hours.
(2) An alternative showing that the
community for which the new station is proposed receives from existing stations
a degree of service which, for the purposes of this document will be referred
to as "inadequate" -- that the community is not substantially covered
by at least two independent (not commonly owned) aural (AM or FM) services with
field strengths of a level normally required to be provided by a station
assigned to that community -- and that an FM channel is not available to the
community which might be utilized to rectify the service inadequacy. In
the determination of the adequacy of existing service to the community for
which the application is designed, we have further provided that signals from
distant stations -- that is, from stations whose transmitters are located more
than fifty miles from the community -- are not to be considered.
(3) Subject to the overlap and
interference restrictions of 73.37 we will accept applications from existing
stations for increased power within the limits permitted the class of station
involved on a showing either that at least 25 percent of the newly served
population or area would receive a first primary service, or that, with
existing facilities, [*670] the station does not adequately cover
its community -- inadequate coverage being presumed if less than 80% of the
population or area of the community receives an interference-free signal of 5
mv/m or greater. For an unlimited time station, this test is applied
separately nighttime and daytime, and an application for such a power increase
based on inadequate community coverage is accepted only for the portion of the
broadcast day during which inadequate coverage is shown.
53. The Commission has found
in numerous cases that coverage of a community approximating 90% of its area of
population with a signal of required strength is in substantial compliance with
the service requirements of its rules. The 80% figure used herein as the
minimum level for adequate coverage of its community by an existing station was
chosen as a figure below which service can be deemed clearly inadequate, even
in the light of existing Commission policy. For a similar reason, we have
used the complement of this figure, 20 percent, as the criterion to be employed
by the applicant for a new station in a demonstration of the area or population
of a community unserved by existing stations.
54. It will be observed that,
in the provision of aural service, we are treating FM as a full and viable
partner of AM, in that we both accord existing FM service equal status with AM
in the determination of whether a particular community is being "adequately"
served, and, where service can be shown to be inadequate, that we point to FM
as the favored means for correcting this deficiency.
55. We have given full
consideration to the arguments filed in opposition to our proposal to accord a
major role to FM in future endeavors to improve aural broadcast service, and
have concluded that it is in the overall public interest that existing and
potential FM service be relied on to the extent feasible. It is quite
clear that, under the allocation practices prevailing heretofore, nighttime
primary service from AM broadcast stations has not improved appreciably in
areas where it is most needed, and, considering the nature of the problem, is
unlikely to. FM is virtually the only means by which admittedly inadequate
nighttime primary service may be improved substantially; in contrast to daytime
stations, which have constituted the bulk or new standard broadcast stations
authorized in the recent past each new FM station provides a new and
significant nighttime service. The argument has been advanced that the
typical FM station does not provide service over an area as extensive as that
usually served during daytime hours by a standard broadcast station. This
is certainly true if the areas within the respective 1 mv/m and 0.5 mv/m
protected service contours of such stations are compared. However, we
believe that this advantage of AM, as demonstrated in this manner, becomes of
far less significance when service comparisons are made under actual operating
conditions. At locations where the extent of service provided by the FM
or an AM station is effectively limited to its protected contour by
interference from other stations, there is usually a plethora of service from
such stations, and wide area coverage by either station, in all probability,
contributes little to the revenues received by the station or service needed by
the public. In less densely populated areas, where stations are
fewer [*671] in number and more widely separated, the effective
service areas of the FM and standard broadcast stations may approach
comparability, since, as is widely recognized, in the absence of interference
from other stations, an FM station will provide service roughly equivalent in
quality to the 0.5 mv/m service from a standard broadcast station, out to its
50 uv/m contour.
56. Whether or not an FM
station is less expensive to install than an AM station of comparable size (in
our Notice, we asserted that this was the case, but several of the comments
asserted this was not necessarily so, and offered typical cost data in support
of this contention), the differential one way or another, does not appear so
great as to influence our action in this matter. While it has been urged
that there is still an insufficient number of sets capable of receiving FM
signals in the hands of the public to make the AM and FM services fully
comparable, we find that this situation is one that is rather rapidly being
alleviated. For instance, EIA n30
shows for the year 1971 approximately 59 percent of all radios, other than
those for automobiles, produced or imported, had FM capability.
Admittedly, automobile radios which include FM constituted only about 19% of
such radios produced or imported in 1971, but this percentage has risen from a
figure of around 11% for the year 1968. Those opposing the adoption of
rules according coequal status to FM have emphasized that an extremely
important section of the aural market is the commuting public, and the small
proportion of cars equipped to receive FM programs present a serious threat to
the economic viability of FM stations. However, it should be noted that
the rules which we are adopting generally favor the growth of stations in the
smaller, and more isolated markets when existing aural service can be demonstrated
to be less than adequate. In such markets extensive commuting to and from
work may be expected to be relatively less important, both as to the number of
persons involved and the average duration of the trip. It is urged that,
in such markets, FM has had little previous acceptance, and, accordingly, the
percentage of FM receivers in the hands of the general public is considerably
lower than the national verage. This seems essentially a "chicken
and egg" proposition. Until FM service is available to those
communities it is probably futile to expect that listeners will undertake to
provide themselves with equipment for the reception of FM programs. The
most potent impetus to the growth of the number of such receivers, is the
existence of satisfactory service from FM stations. We do not believe,
with the general availability of suitable receivers at reasonable prices, the
fact that, in a particular instance, the radio audience has had no incentive to
purchase such receivers is reason to refrain from supplying that
incentive. At the present time, in excess of 2,300 FM stations are on the
air, more than half the number of AM stations. This FM total,
furthermore, does not include in excess of 500 non-commercial educational
stations. Taking all of these factors into consideration, we are
convinced that FM is ready and able to assume its full share of the burden for
improving aural service to the American [*672] public. Our
rules recognize this fact and assign to FM the role which it merits.
n30 Consumer Electronics -- 1972
Annual Review -- published by Consumer Electronics Group of the Electronic
Industries Association.
57. However, the amended rules
provide that the determination of the adequacy of aural service to a community
from existing stations be made without the inclusion of service which may be
provided by noncommercial educational standard broadcast and FM stations.
Our decision on this point has been arrived at with full recognition of the
importance of the service rendered by such stations. Nevertheless, we
have endeavored to tailor our rules so as to make possible the provision to
each community of two "competing voices". These "competing
voices" will be sources, not only of two program services, but, hopefully,
will present two independent viewpoints on matters of community concern.
Over 60% of the FM educational stations in the United States are Class D
10-watt stations operated by educational institutions, both at the college and
secondary school levels. These stations are operated primarily for the
benefit of the student body, their effective service area is very limited, and
they very often are off the air during school vacation periods. Further,
many of this class of stations serve primarily as training facilities to teach
students the art and science of broadcasting. For these reasons, these
stations are not truly voices in the community and should not be counted as
such. Although other classes of educational FM stations may actually
provide adequate signals to the communities to which they are licensed, they,
like the Class D station, are exempted from many of the operating requirements
imposed upon commercial stations. For example, educational stations have
no minimum hours of operations; they are not required to provide their
community of license with a minimum required field intensity; and they are not
presently required to ascertain community needs and interests and provide
programming to meet such ascertained needs and interests. With respect to
noncommercial educational AM stations, their numbers are so small -- less than
30 out of more than 4,000 AM stations -- that as a practical matter, we believe
that they should also be excluded from consideration. Accordingly, for
the purposes herein, we will exclude such station from consideration in an
assessment of existing aural service to the community. We do this with no
intention of diminishing the value of educational broadcast service, which,
where it exists, provides a desirable and unique bonus in available programming.
58. The rules provide that
where a prospective applicant intends to rely on a demonstration that service
to a community is inadequate, he must also show that no channel is available
for a new FM station serving the community. A channel assigned to the
community is considered unavailable if occupied by an authorized station,
whether or not the station is in actual operation. If the channel is
unoccupied, but applied for in that community, it is still "available",
since, whatever applicant finally gains an authorization on the channel, the
station will supply service to the community. A channel is also available
if it is unoccupied, and can be used in the community pursuant to 73.203(b) of
the FM rules (the 10-15 mile rule).
[*673] 59. The FM
Table is not "saturated" in the less populated areas, and we had
considered the advisability, where no FM channel had been assigned to a
community, or requiring, as a necessary condition for the acceptance of an application
for an AM station in that community, a showing that it was not technically
feasible to make such as assignment. However, we have decided that the
complications involved in such a negative showing are not warranted, and we,
accordingly, have determined upon the simpler formulation.
60. Also, it may be noted, we
have not specified a preclusion showing in the acceptability criteria -- that a
station assigned to the proposed community will not preclude a more needed or
more efficient assignment elsewhere. This kind of showing had been
considered as particularly appropriate with respect to daytime stations, whose
proliferation might limit opportunities for new unlimited time assignments,
with their greater service potentiality. When we invited comments
concerning the possible adoption of rules requiring such showings, we indicated
we had rather strong reservations about their practicability, when considered
with respect to AM allocations. While one or two of the parties who
discussed this matter believed that preclusion studies might usefully be
required, at least on a case-to-case basis, others opposed their employment
under any circumstances. Upon further consideration of all facets of this
matter, not only the many variables which affect AM signal propagation, but the
kinds of decisions, both economic and engineering, which must be made
concerning the use of directional antennas, decisions particularly within the
purview of each applicant proposing such an antenna, we have concluded that
such studies, while inevitably being complicated and costly, would still be
unlikely, in most instances, to provide definitive "yes" or
"no" answers to the preclusion question. Rather, the
requirement for such showings would introduce a new element of uncertainty and
complication in our application processing procedures which we can well do
without.
61. As we proposed in our
Notice in this proceeding we are requiring a showing of service to twenty-five
percent unserved area or population as an application acceptability criterion
for daytime proposals, and are retaining this requirement where nighttime
operation is contemplated. This requirement represents an effort to
channel new AM assignments to locations where each contributes materially
toward the achievement of the first of the traditional service priorities --
the provision of service to all of the U.S. population. While this
remains a desirable aim, long experience has demonstrated that it cannot be
fully achieved under a system of broadcasting where each station must be financially
self-sustaining, and accordingly, must be located where population is
sufficiently concentrated to provide the necessary support. Accordingly,
we have offered an alternative test, applicable to both daytime and nighttime
operation, which reflects our aim toward attainment of two other important
priorities, the provision of first and a second locally oriented service to
each community.
62. For present purposes,
these priorities are observed in modified form, in that:
[*674] (1) The
contributions of two aural services, AM and FM, are considered together in the
satisfaction of these priorities.
(2) Existing aural services to a
community, if they are of adequate strength and are provided by stations not
too distant from the community, are considered to satisfy these
priorities. Traditionally, the priorities have been applied with respect
to stations which are assigned to the community.
63. We have already discussed
our reasons for treating AM and FM as a single service in this context.
Insofar as the second point is concerned, we have remarked that while the
assignment of first and second stations to each community traditionally has
been an important allocations objective, that many communities are very small,
and the full achievement of this objective in the limited spectrum space
available is not feasible. In recent years, we have placed considerable
emphasis on the obligation of each station to tailor its programs to serve the
needs of all substantial population segments in its service area. Thus,
if a community is served with a 5 mv/m signal from a nearby AM station (or 3.16
mv/m signal from an FM station) it obviously receives a technically adequate
service from that station, and, we believe, could expect that station to give
adequate attention, in its programs, to the purely local concerns of the
community.
64. In the determination of
existing service to each community, however, we have provided that service from
stations whose transmitter sites are more than fifty miles from the community
be excluded, on the assumption that stations at such distances from the
community could not reasonably be expected to devote a substantial part of
their broadcasting time to the particular needs of the community. The
choice of this distance, of course, has been, to some extent, arbitrary, but we
believe it is a good compromise. As the distance of a station from a
particular community increases, the likelihood that the station, as a practical
matter, can give a substantial degree of attention to the specific needs of the
community rapidly lessens. For instance, a station delivering a mv/m
signal at a distance of ten miles has a service area which is roughly 1/25 of
the service area of a station delivering a signal of comparable strength at 50
miles. The latter station obviously will have a very much greater number
of separate communities within its service area, and would be much less able to
concentrate on the needs of specific communities in that area, than would a
station with more restricted service contours.
65. We were also concerned, in
our aim to provide each community with two adequate aural services, that these
services be "competing voices". Thus, for the purpose of the
existing service determination, we have treated service rendered by commonly
owned FM and AM stations as a single service. This is the only kind of
common ownership situation which will encountered in this connection, since in
meeting the requirements of � 73.35 and � 73.240 of our rules,
commonly owned AM stations or commonly owned FM stations would be so separated
geographically that under no circumstances would the 5 mv/m contours (of AM
stations) or the 70 dbu contours (of FM stations) encompass the same areas.
[*675] 66. While
we are adopting rules with respect to new daytime stations which are
substantially more restrictive than the present rules, the rules for nighttime
AM service, even though making the presence of availability of FM service as a
new consideration, have been somewhat liberalized, since we have provided alternative
tests for application acceptability which are the same as we have prescribed
for daytime applications -- rather than continuing to rely solely on a showing
of proposed service to unserved area or population. In situations where
FM is not available to a particular community, we are ready to accept an
application contemplating a nighttime operation when it is shown that the
proposed station is necessary to ensure that the community receives two
adequate aural services at night, and it offers protection for other stations
which our rules require. We believe a new nighttime assignment may be
justified under such circumstances as an exception to a policy aimed at
avoiding an undue proliferation of such assignments.
67. Some of those commenting
hold that we are unduly concerned with the effect an existing service of adding
new stations for operation after nightfall, and dispute our claim that each new
assignment, regardless of the degree of protection offered pursuant to existing
rules, imposes its modicum of interference, with some effective limitation to
the service provided by existing stations. It is suggested that this, in
fact, does not occur -- that an older station continues to provide
interference-free service to as large areas as in former years, but many of the
listeners to this station are now in suburban areas, more remote from the
station than previously. While they may find reception unsatisfactory,
and ascribe this condition to a shrinkage in the interference-free service area
of the stations, in reality their poorer reception results from the fact that
they reside at more distant locations. This opinion is offered without
supporting evidence, which admittedly could be developed only by a great many
observations of a number of stations over a long period of time. Our own
observation, offered similarly without technical support, has led us to a
distinctly contrary conclusion -- we believe that regional stations, in
particular, despite computations made under existing rules which may demonstrate
that limitations remain unchanged, have suffered a progressive deterioration in
the extent of the areas over which they can provide interference-free
service. If this conclusion is correct, there are at least two cause to
which the effect might be ascribed -- (1) that our methods of predicting
interference do not fully take into account the cumulative effect of
interference from many sources and (2) that the directional antennas used by
most regional stations for restricting radiation toward other co-channel
stations do not, in many cases, limit interference produced by skywave
transmission to a degree which might be predicted from consideration of the
antenna design. At least one study has been made tending to show that
this can be the case -- that directional antennas designed for a high degree of
suppression of radiation at angles above the horizontal produce interfering
skywave signals substantially exceeding those which would be predicted under
the Commission's [*676] rules. n31 This last consideration is particularly important in considering the
addition of new nighttime services to already overcrowded regional
channels. Stations "shoehorned" in under such conditions almost
invariably require the use of directional antennas designed to radiate very
little energy in various directions above the horizontal plane, so as to
provide the degree of nominal protection for other stations required by the
Commission's rules. If this protection is not, in fact, achieved, as it
well may not be, the result is a higher level of interference to these stations
than was anticipated.
n31 Suppression Performance of
Directional Antenna Systems in the Standard Broadcast Band -- FCC Office of
Chief Engineer -- TRR Report 1.2.7. This Report analyzes the results of
skywave measurements on directional arrays made in April, 1949, by NARBA
Preparatory Committee IA.
68. For these reasons, and
because, in general, such new stations, subject to interference from many other
stations, have very limited interference-free service areas and contribute
little to overall nighttime service, we will continue to restrict new nighttime
assignments to those cases where they can provide clearly needed new service
and there is no available alternative means for providing this service.
69. Because we recognize the
problems faced by many existing stations in continuing to serve satisfactorily
communities which, over the years, have expanded to geographic extent, the
amended rules are framed so as to permit stations able to demonstrate that
their existing community coverage is inadequate to increase power within the
limits specified by our rules, subject to compliance with overlap and
interference considerations. However, permissible power increases are
selective -- an unlimited time station will be permitted to increase power only
during the portion of the broadcast day when existing community coverage is
shown to be inadequate (or it can be shown that 25% of the area or population
newly served as a result of the power increase would receive its first primary
service). Of course, power increases permitted on such a selective basis
may result in cases where some unlimited time stations are authorized to
operate with higher power at night than during the daytime. While this
result may be at variance to the usual situation, in which the station's
daytime power is equal to or greater than its nighttime power, there appears
little justification for permitting a power increase during a portion of the
broadcast day for which the applicant is unable to make a satisfactory showing,
pursuant to the rules, of service benefits resulting from the increase.
70. We have not adopted any
rule provisions, as suggested by some of the parties, directed specifically
toward making easier the acquisition of nighttime facilities by daytime
stations. Indirectly, we believe we have done this, however, by upgrading
the requirements for adequate service to each community from existing
stations. Thus, if the licensee of a daytime station can demonstrate that
no unused FM channel is available to his community, and that other stations
fail to provide at least two "adequate" nighttime aural services to
that community, he is eligible, if his proposal will meet the nighttime
protection requirements for other stations, to apply for full time
operation. However, he would not be permitted to tailor the proposed
nighttime power, as Tri-State requests, to whatever level might be necessary to
provide [*677] protection, with non-directional operation, for other
stations. An appealing case might be made for this kind of operation in
an individual instance. However, the net effect of a rule relaxation
permitting such operation would be a proliferation of many low cost, but
substandard nighttime facilities, generally providing inadequate service to
their communities, and contributing to a level of actual (as distinguished from
computed) interference far outweighing the service benefits which they might
provide.
71. As indicated in our
earlier discussion of these matters, proposals for an across-the-bank power
increase, and involving changes in the rules governing the use of the clear
channels are beyond the scope of this proceeding. Any broadening of its
coverage to include such questions could result in an extension of the
"freeze" on the acceptance of applications into the distant future, a
result which we believe is undesired by any of the parties. We have given
full consideration to those suggestions aimed at mitigating the Commission's
workload in the processing applications for standard broadcast stations, and
may eventually test the feasibility of certain of the ideas presented. At
the present, since we are unable to forecast accurately the degree to which
application filings pursuant to the amended rules will present a major problem,
we intend to proceed in this area as described in paragraph 77 of this Report
and Order.
72. A petition for special
consideration of minority groups presents not a requirement for more stations
serving the special interests of these groups (on the contrary, it is claimed
that approximately 700 stations carry at least some programming directed
especially to the black audience), but seeks an opportunity for new stations
which are black owned. This need is seen as especially great in the
larger markets, where the greatest concentrations of minority groups are found;
it is also in these markets, however, where new facilities are less likely to
be available, both because the plethora of existing stations diminishes the
possibility of technically feasible new assignments, and because the
Commission's policies are generally aimed toward precluding further additions
to the many broadcast services already provided such cities. It is urged,
however, that, it is only recently that the blacks' financial and social
position has advanced to a degree that broadcast station ownership has become
possible -- meanwhile, the available assignments in these population centers
have been utilized. It is further stated that the purchase of existing
facilities in these markets by black groups is either not possible, or involves
prices so monumentally high as to be prohibitive. Accordingly, the only
practical avenue through which black ownership of broadcast facilities can be
accomplished is through allocation policies which make additional assignments
possible.
73. Conceding the truth of all
of these allegations, and that the promotion of minority group ownership of
broadcast facilities is a socially desirable end, we are unable to see how this
objective may be furthered effectively in a proceeding, such as this, and
within the framework of the statutory scheme which circumscribes our
actions. Obviously, should we modify and relax all non-technical rules
which tend to restrict additional assignments, the opportunities in general for
minority controlled applicants to seek new facilities may be increased,
[*678] but at the expense of basic allocation objectives, and without any
real assurance that these opportunities can or will be effectively exercised.
In any event, the availability of new assignment opportunities in the larger
cities, in which the largest minority groups reside, is not controlled by rules
such as we now adopt, but by the basic technical standards. The
petitioner demonstrates this in a study appended to his filing which shows in
the "top ten" markets, nearly all of the existing standard broadcast
stations were assigned in these markets prior to 1950, long before the
Commission became actively concerned with the undue concentration of stations
in the larger population centers, and adopted rules designed to directed the
future growth of stations to areas where additional service is more greatly
needed. Thus, absent a revision of the standards which now define the
limits of service and interference, a revision which is clearly beyond the
ambit of this proceeding, there is no action the Commission could appropriately
take which would further the particular objectives of the petitioner.
74. The new showings as to the
extent of existing AM and FM service, and the availability of FM channels will
not be required in applications for new AM broadcast facilities in Alaska,
which will continue to be governed by the more liberal policies which are
presently set forth in paragraph (5) of Note 2 in Section 1.571. These
policies, which were adopted on an interim basis at the time of the freeze,
will be made permanent. Accordingly, the substance of aforementioned
paragraph (5) is being added as a new paragraph (f) to Section 73.37.
Moreover, we have decided to apply these policies with respect to applications
submitted for new facilities in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Hawaii, Guam
and American Samoa as indicated in paragraph (f). While the aural
broadcast coverage of Alaska is, of course, inadequate on an area basis, this
limitation is presently imposed by economic considerations (the sparseness of
population with respect to the area of the State), rather than by any scarcity
in available standard broadcast spectrum space, and the restrictions which
accordingly are imposed are only those intended to limit interstation
interference and insure that each new assignment will contribute efficiently to
the improvement in broadcast service. Hawaii and Guam are both limited in
geographical extent, and so isolated from other populated areas that standard
broadcast stations can be assigned with only a limited need to consider
interference effects external to the particular state or territory. We
see no need to apply any more restrictive rules in these cases than with respect
to Alaska. While the availability of standard broadcast service in Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands is limited primarily by their proximity to Cuba,
where many stations operate, and to Haiti and the Dominican Republic, this
limitation is not sufficient to preclude adequate coverage of these
comparatively small islands by standard broadcast facilities assigned to the
communities therein, and we do not feel justified in imposing the more
restrictive standards of the new rules to these territories. While the
distances of these outlying states and territories from the conterminous states
vary greatly, all are sufficiently far away that assignment policies which
place relatively few obstacles in the way of new daytime and unlimited time
standard [*679] broadcast assignments in these areas can have
little preclusionary effect on assignments in the conterminous states.
75. Having extracted the
useful substance of Note 2 to � 1.571, as above described, we are
deleting this Note, thereby, in effect, lifting the "freeze" on the
filing of certain categories of applications.
76. When an applicant relies
on a demonstration that the existing aural service to the community which he
serves or proposes to serve is inadequate as a basis for the acceptance of his
application, it should be evident that his application, to be eligible for a
grant without hearing, must propose an operation that itself will provide an
adequate service to the community. As is well known, the Commission
consistently requires that a new standard broadcast station provide an
interference-free signal of 5 mv/m or greater over the entire community to
which it is assigned. This long standing requirement is presently not
stated directly in the rules, but may be derived from � 73.188(b)(2), which
requires that the transmitter site for a proposed station be so selected that a
signal of 5 mv/m minimum strength will be delivered over the most distant
residential section of the designated community, read in connection with the
textual material of � 73.182(f) which makes it clear that service is
considered to be provided only when the signal is interference-free, which, at
night, may require a signal in excess of the 5 mv/m minimum. Since this
requirement bears an important relationship to the application of the new
rules, we consider it desirable that it be stated clearly and directly, and we
have included it, together with the concomitant requirement for a 25 mv/m
signal over business areas of the community in a new paragraph added to �
73.24, a section of the rules which specifies the showings which must be made
prerequisite to the authorization of a new station or an increase in the
facilities of an existing station. It is recognized that, in the
individual case, an existing station proposing an increase in power within the
power ceiling imposed on the class of station involved, or because of
interference considerations, may be unable to meet fully the service
requirements discussed above. In such an instance, if the proposed
operation would provide service to the community substantially superior to that
provided by the existing operation, and is otherwise in compliance with the
rules, the Commission will give favorable consideration to a request for waiver
of the community service requirement.
77. During the year following
adoption of the current AM rules in 1964, over 400 major applications were
filed. This total was due in part to pent-up demand created by the
"freeze" period preceding adoption of the rules. Due to this
large influx and the complex nature of the studies required under the
"go-no go" system, a large backlog soon developed. As the
average length of time to dispose of applications grew, so did the necessity to
amend and update them. Consequently, the backlog tended to become self-perpetuating.
Because of a reduction in personnel available to process AM applications, the
filing of new proposals in numbers even approaching the total filed subsequent
to the lifting of the last "freeze" will result inevitably in another
large backlog. Thus steps may be necessary to control the influx of
applications. Considerable thought has been given to the design of an
acceptable [*680] method to accomplish this result. We have
concluded, however, that it would be premature to institute control measures at
the outset, when we are unable to predict accurately the rate of incoming
applications. Accordingly, at this time, no restrictions will be placed
on the potential number of proposals which may be filed. If the number
submitted, however, becomes administratively burdensome, we will give further
consideration to the imposition of control measures. These measures will
probably involve the declaration of periodic "open" and
"closed" seasons for the filing of applications. If it becomes
necessary to institute such measures, they will be temporary in nature, and
advance notice will be given, so that all parties will have ample time to
complete and submit any applications which are in preparation.
78. The amendments to the
rules, as discussed herein, are set forth in the attached Appendix. The
additional requirements will apply to all applications filed after the
effective date of these rules.
79. Accordingly, IT IS
ORDERED, That, effective April 10, 1973, Part 73 of the Rules and Regulations
IS AMENDED as set forth in the Appendix hereto. Authority for this action
is found in Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended.
80. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
that this proceeding IS TERMINATED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, BEN F. WAPLE, Secretary.
CONCURBY:
WILEY
CONCUR:
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER
RICHARD E. WILEY
The Commission announces today what
I regard as a carefully structured plan designed to improve aural service, both
daytime and nighttime, in communities where service is presently absent or
inadequate.
Contrary to Commissioner Johnson's
view, I do not believe that the creation of a limited opportunity for new
nighttime AM service in underserved areas, or the improvement of existing
facilities which are no longer adequate because of burgeoning population growth
and urban expansion, will lead to increased and unacceptable disruptions to our
present broadcast service. In this connection, it should be noted
initially that, in every circumstance where new or improved aural service is
proposed, we will continue to consider the availability of FM as the primary
means of remedying service deficiencies. Moreover, the clear import of
our Report and Order is that the introduction of new standard broadcast
transmission stations, as well as the upgrading of existing facilities, will be
permitted only after a satisfactory showing that objectionable interference
will not result (see Sections 73.87(e) (2)(i), 73.87(e)(3)(i) and 73.87(f)(2)).
Let us be very clear on this point: the Commission's action effects absolutely
no relaxation of our present rules controlling the level of interference
between stations.
Accordingly, our partial lifting of
the AM freeze seems to me to be an intelligent, carefully measured and
altogether salutary administrative response to legitimate and pressing needs
for broadcast service in areas presently unserved or inadequately served, while
in no way diminishing the Commission's long-standing requirement that new or expanded
service shall not result in objectionable interference. Thus, it seems to
me that the Commission's action clearly serves the public interest.
DISSENT:
[*684] DISSENTING
OPINION OF COMMISSIONER NICHOLAS JOHNSON
The Commission majority today ends
its four year "freeze" on new or increased AM services. In
doing so, and agreeing to accept new applications once again, they insure that
the current garbled reception experienced by most of us on our AM band will
soon be suitable only for the uses of John Cage and our other electronic
musicians.
We must assume from the language of
the majority's document that they contemplate additional night-time AM service
in many regions of this country. If that is the case, then the more rigid
"tests" or "requirements" they announce of "no locally
available service," "expanding suburbs" or "FM channel
availability" are little more than illusory means to a continued
destruction of the "public convenience, interests of necessity."
To agree to accept new AM
applications or applications for increased service from existing standard
stations on theories of "need" for first or second local service,
when it is acknowledged that, even absent "short space" violations,
existing ground and skywave patterns will be disrupted by each new signal, is
to do an extreme disservice to a great many listeners for the momentary
convenience of a few. I say "momentary" because even the
benefits of a new low power AM service to a relatively sparsely populated region
would disappear as still more stations are added or services increased in other
parts of the country.
I would much prefer to see a
vigorous effort to increase FM usage and penetration in those less populous or
rapidly growing regions where the majority today announces its willingness to
reopen the AM band. The majority claims its new rules (which are
admittedly even less severe than those we originally suggested might one day
replace the freeze) will give an added fillip to FM broadcasting. But if this
Commission is truly committed to the full utilization of FM and the prevention
of any further interference in the clear-channel dominated night-time AM band,
it would not countenance the least backsliding from its admirable 1968 position
to channel all new services into the FM band.
Surely it would not be difficult to
write legislation, similar to that which has so aided UHF penetration, which
would require all newly [*685] manufactured radios to contain FM as
well as AM tuners. And that is just one way of putting the full weight of
this Commission behind a full-service AM-FM radio commitment. Glowing
language to the contrary, however, reopening the AM band once again to
additional applications unfortunately does not evince a sufficient commitment to
FM to elevate it from its current status as a second class citizen in many
parts of this country.
I have consistently opposed the
increases in interference in aural reception that have been caused, first in AM
and more recently even in FM, by waivers of our various technical rules and by
the inadequacies of the rules themselves. See my numerous shortspacing
dissents, e.g., WHLN, F.C.C. 2d
(decided December 1, 1972); Storer Broadcasting Co., 12 P & F Radio Reg. 2d
815 (1968). The AM freeze was a fresh breath of reason and sanity amidst the
normal regulation-by-deterioration that constitutes the traditional approach of
this Commission to the radio frequencies -- but before we have time to breathe
clearly long enough to assess its effect, we find it is being eliminated.
I dissent.
APPENDIX:
APPENDIX A
1. Section 1.571 is amended by
redesignating Note 1 As Note and amending the text, and deleting Note 2 to read
as follows:
�
1.571 Processing of standard broadcast applications.
* * *
NOTE: No application for broadcast
facilities in the conterminous United States tendered for filing after July 13,
1964, will be accepted for filing unless it complies fully with the provisions
of � 73.24(b) and � 73.37(a) through (d) of this chapter, and no
application for broadcast facilities in the conterminous United States tendered
for filing after July 18, 1968, will be accepted for filing unless it complies
fully with the provisions of � 73.24(b) and the provisions of �
73.37(a) through (e). No application for new or changed broadcast
facilities in the states of Alaska, and Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, and the territories of the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa,
tendered for filing after July 18, 1968 will be accepted for filing unless it
complies fully with the provisions of � � 73.24(b) and 73.37(a) through
(f).
2. In � 73.24, par (b)
& Note are amended, present par (j) becomes par (k) and a new par (j) is
added to read as follows:
�
73.24 Broadcast facilities, showings required.
* * *
(b) That a proposed new station (or
a proposed change in the facilities of an authorized station) complies with the
pertinent requirements of � 73.37.
NOTE: The provisions of �
73.37 shall not be applicable to new Class II-A stations or to stations for
which applications were accepted for filing before July 1o, 1964. With
respect to such stations, the provisions of � 73.28(d), and the
provisions of NOTE 1 of � 73.37 shall apply. Special provisions
concerning interference from Class II-A to stations of other classes authorized
after October 30, 1961 are contained in � 73.22(d) and NOTE 3 to �
73.21. The level of interference shall be computed pursuant to � �
73.182 and 73.186.
* * *
(j) That the 25 mv/m contour
encompasses the business district of the community to which the station is
assigned, and that the 5 mv/m contour (or, at night, the interference-free
contour, if of a higher value) encompasses all residential areas of such
community.
(k) That the public interest,
convenience and necessity will be served through the operation under the
proposed assignment.
[� 73.30 Amended]
3. Section 73.30 is amended by
deleting paragraph (c).
4. In Section 73.37, amend the
headnote & and new paragraphs (e), (f), and Notes 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, to
read as follows:
�
73.37 Applications for broadcast facilities, showing required.
* * *
(e) In addition to a demonstration
of compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a), and, where appropriate,
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, an application for a new standard
broadcast station, or for a major change (see � 1.571(a)(1)) in an
authorized standard broadcast station, as a condition for its acceptance, shall
make satisfactory showings as indicated below for the kind of application submitted:
(1) Application for a new daytime
station, or for a change in the frequency of an existing daytime station:
(i) That at least 25 percent of the
area or population which would receive interference-free primary service from
the proposed station does not receive such service from an authorized standard
broadcast station, or receive service from an authorized FM broadcast station
with a signal strength of 1 mv/m, or greater, or
(ii) That no FM channel is available
for use in the community designated in the application and that at least 20
percent of the area or population of the community receives less than two
daytime aural services. For the purpose of this showing an aural service
shall be deemed to be provided by an interference-free groundwave signal from
an authorized standard broadcast station of a strength of 5 mv/m, or greater,
or by an F (50, 50) signal from an authorized FM broadcast station of a
strength of 70 dbu (3.16 mv/m), or greater.
(2) Application for a new unlimited
time station, for a change in the frequency of an authorized unlimited time
station, or for nighttime facilities by an authorized daytime station, a
satisfactory showing under (i) (except for a Class IV station), and under
either (ii) or (iii):
(i) That objectionable interference
at night will not result to any authorized station, as determined pursuant to
� 73.182(o).
(ii) That at least 25 percent of the
area or population which would receive interference-free primary service at
night from the proposed station does not receive such service from an
authorized standard broadcast station, or service from an authorized FM
broadcast station with a signal strength of 1 mv/m, or greater, or
(iii) That no FM channel is
available for use in the community designated in the application, and at least
20 percent of the area or population of the community receives less than two
nighttime aural services. For the purpose of this showing, an aural
service shall be deemed to be provided by an interference-free groundwave
signal from an authorized standard broadcast station with a strength of 5 mv/m,
or greater, or by an F (50, 50) signal from an authorized FM broadcast station
with a strength of 70 dbu (3.16 mv/m), or greater.
(3) Application by an authorized
station (other than a Class IV station) proposing changes in facilities, other
than a change in frequency, must make a satisfactory showing, where
appropriate, under (i), and under either (ii) or (iii).
(i) For a change in nighttime
facilities, that the proposed change will not result in objectionable
interference to other stations as determined pursuant to � 73.182 (0).
(ii) For an increase in power,
either daytime or nighttime, that the authorized operation, during the portion
of the broadcast day for which the power increase is sought, includes less than
80 percent of the area or population of the community to which the station is
assigned within its 5 mv/m groundwave contour (or within its interference-free
groundwave contour, if of a higher value), or,
(iii) For an increase in power, that
at least 25 percent of the area or population which, as a result of the power
increase, for the first time would receive interference-free primary service
from the station is without primary service from any other standard broadcast
station.
(f) Applications for new or changed
facilities in the states of Alaska and Hawaii, in the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, and in the territories of the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa
will be accepted for filing only if satisfactory showings are submitted with respect
to the following:
(1) The proposed operation complies
with the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of this section.
(2) Unlimited time operation, by
other than a Class IV facility, will not cause objectionable skywave interference
at night to an existing station, pursuant to � 73.182(o). In
addition, each proposal for unlimited time operation (including Class IV
proposals) shall meet at least one of the following conditions:
(i) Not more than 10 percent of the
population included within the normally protected nighttime contour would
receive objectionable interference.
(ii) The proposed operation would be
the first standard broadcast facility assigned to the community which would
provide nighttime service.
(iii) For a proposed new station,
that at least 25 percent of the area or population included within the
nighttime interference-free primary service contour is without nighttime
primary standard broadcast service, or, for a proposed change in the nighttime
facilities of an authorized station, that at least 25 percent of the area or
population which would receive interference-free nighttime primary service from
the station for the first time as a result of the change in facilities is
without nighttime primary standard broadcast service.
* * *
NOTE 4: All applications for new
stations, or for major changes in existing stations tendered for filing after
July 18, 1968, for facilities in the conterminous United States, shall be
subject to the provisions of paragraph (e) of this section, or, for facilities
in the states of Alaka and Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the
territories of the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa, shall be subject to
the provisions of paragraph (f) of this section.
NOTE 5: In making determinations of
"aural service" to the community from standard broadcast or FM
broadcast stations in showings pursuant to (e)(1)(ii) and (e)(2)(iii), service
provided by any standard broadcast station or FM broadcast station whose
transmitter site is located more than 50 miles from the nearest boundary of the
community designated in the application shall be excluded from consideration.
NOTE 6: No FM channel is available
for use in the community (see (e)(1)(ii) and (e)(2)(iii), if no channel is
assigned to the community for commercial use in the FM Table of Assignments
(� 73.202(b)), as amended by Commission action as of the date the
application is tendered, or, if assigned, is occupied by an authorized
facility, and no unoccupied channel can be utilized to serve the community
pursuant to � 73.203(b).
NOTE 7: In the determination of the
extent of existing aural service to a community, areas and populations of the
community receiving service from a standard broadcast station and an FM
broadcast station which are commonly owned shall be considered as receiving a
single aural service from these stations. Service provided by
noncommercial educational FM stations and standard broadcast stations shall not
be included in the determination of existing aural service.
NOTE 8: An application for a new
unlimited time station, other than a Class IV station, even though including a
satisfactory showing pursuant to paragraph (e)(2) of this section will not be
accepted for filing if the proposed daytime power is greater than the proposed
nighttime power, unless it contains an additional satisfactory showing pursuant
to (e)(1) of this section for daytime hours of operation.
APPENDIX B
|
Parties filing comments: |
|
|
Robert D.
Zellmer |
National
Association of FM Broadcast- |
|
Oil Shale
Broadcasting Co. (KWSR) |
ers |
|
Carl Como |
The
Outlet Co. (WJAR, WDBO, |
|
Heart
O'Wisconsin Broadcasters, Inc. |
WDBO-FM) |
|
Ralph J.
Bitzer, Consulting Engineer |
Ben F.
Dawson (KAYO) |
|
Waldron Broadcasting
Co. (WCIR) |
|
|
|
Clear
Channel Broadcasting Service |
|
WPVL,
Inc. |
Association
on Broadcasting Standards, |
|
WMRR
Broadcasting Co. |
Inc. |
|
Ashdown
Broadcasters, Inc. |
James S.
Rivers, Inc. (WJAZ) |
|
Dr.
Wendell Cox |
Douglas Properties
Corp. (WOIO) |
|
Vir
James, Consulting Radio Engineers |
Storer
Broadcasting Co. |
|
E. Harold
Munn, Jr., Consulting Engi- |
Triangle
Publications, |
|
|
Inc.
(KFRE, |
|
neer |
WFBG,
WFIL, WNHC, WNBF) |
|
Gordon A.
Rogers (KGAR) |
Mark/Way,
Inc. (KAKC, KAKC-FM) |
|
Willam O.
Barry |
Broadcast-Plaza,
Inc. (WTIC) |
|
Community
Service Broadcasters |
Southwestern
Broadcasting Co. |
|
(WTCA/WTCA-FM) |
(WAPF) |
|
L. J.
duTreil and Associates, Inc., Con- |
Hudson
Horizons, |
|
|
Inc./Jersey
Hori- |
|
sulting
Radio Engineers |
zons,
Inc. (WGNY, WRAN) |
|
Angel M.
Rivera |
Silliman,
Moffet, and Kowalski, Con- |
|
James R.
Coursolle (KKIN) |
sulting
Engineers |
|
Lloyd E.
Kolbe (KVLG) |
McKenna
and Wilkinson |
|
Frederick
Eckardt (WCLW) |
Coastal Broadcasting
Co., Inc. (WDEA, |
|
Robert Z.
Morrison (KCLN) |
WDEA-FM) |
|
Clearwater
Radio, Inc. (WTAN) |
WFLI,
Inc. |
|
Scott
McQueen (Sconnix Radio Enter- |
Rober M.
Booth, Jr. |
|
prises) |
Wycom
Corp. (KODI) |
|
Bradley
University |
Kingsley H.
Murphy, Jr. (WISS) |
|
Hugh J.
Williams |
Plough
Broadcasting Co., Inc. |
|
WMLP,
Inc. |
(WMPS,
WCAO, WPLO, WJJD, |
|
Tri-State
Broadcasting Co. (WGTA) |
WCOP) |
|
Golden
West Broadcasters, et al. |
KULA
Broadcasting Corp, et al. |
|
Cohen and
Dippell, Consulting Engi- |
Commercial
Radio Equipment |
|
|
Co., |
|
neers |
Consulting
Engineers |
|
Hubbard
Broadcasting, Inc. |
KBAR-AM |
|
Mid
America Audio-Video, Inc. |
John H.
Mullaney and Associates, |
|
|
Con- |
|
(WKAN) |
sulting
Engineers |
|
Jansky
and Bailey, Consulting Engi- |
Fetzer
Broadcasting Co. |
|
|
(WKZO) |
|
neers |
Cedar
Valley Radio |
|
Kona
Koast Broadcasting Co. (KKON) |
Midwest
Television, Inc. |
|
|
(KFMB) |
|
Jules
Cohen and Associates, Consultin |
WAAM |
|
Electronic
Engineers |
Owen G.
Shinn, et al. |
|
National
Association of Broadcasters |
Gates
Radio Co. |
|
Association
of Federal Communications |
KIKX
Radio |
|
Consulting
Engineers |
KDHN
Radio |
|
Carl E.
Smith, Consulting Radio Engi- |
KVRH-AM |
|
neers |
Star Broadcasting
Co. (KSXX) |
|
Capital
Broadcasting Co., Inc. (KDXE) |
Norman A.
Thomas |
|
|
(WDNT,
WJSO, |
|
Sea
Broadcasting Corp. (WVAB) |
WENR) |
|
Westchester
Cop. (WIXZ)hWPBC AM-FM Radio |
|
|
KITN
Radio |
Gunnison
Broadcasting Co. |
|
Robert A.
Jones, Consulting Engineer |
KTRT
Radio |
|
Community
Broadcasters Association |
KFJB and
KFJB-FM |
|
Progressive
Broadcasting Corp. |
Korral
Radio, Inc. (KRAL) |
|
(WINU) |
Southern
Broadcasting Co. (KOY, |
|
Hubbard
Broadcasting, Inc. (Further |
KTHT, WKIX,
WKIX-FM, WRVA, |
|
Comments) |
WRVA-FM,
WSGN, WTOB) |
|
Jet
Broadcasting Co., Inc. and WHOT, |
Dairyland
Broadcasters, |
|
|
Inc.
(KEYL) |
|
Inc.
(WJET, WHOT) |
Jerome
Orr |
|
KWCO
Radio |
Midwest
Television, Inc. (KFMB) |
|
Charles Smithgall
(WRGA, WAAX, |
Association
on Broadcasting |
|
|
Standards, |
|
WRNG) |
Inc. |
|
KDBM
Radio |
National
Association of FM Broadcast- |
|
Prairie
States Broadcasting Co., Inc. |
ers |
|
(KAWL) |
Cohen
& Dippell, Consulting Engineers |
|
National Broadcasting
Co., Inc. |
Coastal
Broadcasting Co., Inc. |
|
Parties
filing reply comments: |
Westchester
Corp. (WIXZ) |
|
Welcome
Radio, Inc. (WSLR, WOKO, |
KAIR --
Number One Radio, Inc. |
|
KTLK) |
A.
Earl Cullum, Jr. and Associates, |
|
KLCB |
Consulting
Engineers |
|
Robert A.
Jones, Consulting Engineer |
KPOP
Radio |
|
National
Enterprises, Inc. (KDRY) |
|