FCC Web Documents citing 73.3591

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-375A1.txt
  • listed in some unidentified television guide publication. Those listings do not establish that KPCB is viewable off-the-air in the Communities at issue here as PTCB claims. Moreover, evidence of monetary contributions for station operations, without more, is not evidence of viewership. Petition at 15 & Exhibit 33. Brownwood Order at ¶ 14. See 47 U.S.C. § 309(a); 47 C.F.R. § 73.3591(a)(4). Brownwood Order at ¶ 14. Petition at 6 & Exhibit 10. 47 U.S.C. § 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(IV). Petition at 15-17. 12 FCC Rcd 12262 (1997). 163 F. 3d 187 (2d Cir. 1998). 47 C.F.R. § 0.321. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 01-375 Federal Communications Commission DA 01-375 - < À Á � �@ˆþÿ � @& „0ý „0ý „0ý „0ý „0ý „0ý „ðñ
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-387A1.txt
  • Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Broadcast License Renewal Procedures), 11 FCC Rcd 6363, 6364 (1996) ("[A]pplications filed on or before May 1, 1995 will be subject to our current renewal standards and procedures, while applications filed after May 1, 1995 will be subject to the new renewal provisions adopted in Section 204 of the Telecom Act."); see also 47 C.F.R. § 73.3591(d). See 47 C.F.R. § 73.3523(c). At the time the hearing was designated, comparative renewal proceedings remained frozen in the wake of Bechtel v. FCC, 10 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1993). See FCC Freezes Comparative Proceedings, 9 FCC Rcd 1055 (1994); Modification of FCC Comparative Proceedings Freeze Policy, 9 FCC Rcd 6689 (1994). The HDO also denied a petition to deny
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.txt
  • that was filed against the Pembroke Stations' pending applications. See id. In fact, as discussed below, the Diocese and SCAD indicated in cover letters accompanying their applications that the Commission's ``acceptance'' of their applications was ``contingent upon the outcome of a petition to deny'' that had been filed against the Pembroke Permittees. Letter at 2; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.3591; 73.3593 (1995). See Letter from Sarah H. Efird, Esq., Rini, Coran & Lancellota, P.C., to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (Oct. 20, 1995); Letter from Sarah H. Efird, Esq., Rini, Coran & Lancellota, P.C., to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (Oct. 20, 1995) (collectively, Cover Letters). Specifically, the ``acceptability'' of the Savannah Applications was ``contingent upon the outcome
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00120.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00120.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00120.txt
  • governed by Sections 73.5006 and 73.7004, respectively. For all other applications the following rules will govern. *** 15. Section 73.3593 is amended by adding a new last sentence to read as follows: § 73.3593 Designation for hearing. If the FCC is unable, in the case of any application for an instrument of authorization, to make the findings specified in § 73.3591(a), it will formally designate the application for hearing on the grounds or reasons then obtaining and will forthwith notify the applicant and all known parties in interest of such action and the grounds and reasons therefor, specifying with particularity the matters and things in issue but not including issues or requirements phrased generally. If, however, the issue to be resolved
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00343.pdf
  • stations from 5 years to 8 years. See Implementation of Section 203 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, MM Docket No. 96-90, 12 FCC Rcd 1720 (1997). The 1996 Telecom Act also eliminated comparative renewals and directed the Commission to grant a broadcaster's renewal application if statutory renewal standards are met. See 47 U.S.C. § 309 (k); 47 C.F.R. § 73.3591. 56 See In the Matter of Policies and Rules Concerning Children's Television Programming, MM Docket No. 93-48, FCC 96-335, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 10660, ¶ 1 (1996). 57 Id, ¶ 5. Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-343 24 comfortable that the modifications were modest and served valid purposes. I do, however, write separately to highlight what I believe are
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/amfmrule.html
  • assignment or transfer of control. [672]TEXT [673]PDF 73.3580 Local public notice of filing of broadcast applications. [674]TEXT [675]PDF 73.3584 Procedure for filing petitions to deny. [676]TEXT [677]PDF 73.3587 Procedure for filing informal objections. [678]TEXT [679]PDF 73.3588 Dismissal of petitions to deny or withdrawal of informal objections. [680]TEXT [681]PDF 73.3589 Threats to file petitions to deny or informal objections. [682]TEXT [683]PDF 73.3591 Grants without hearing. [684]TEXT [685]PDF 73.3592 Conditional grant. [686]TEXT [687]PDF 73.3593 Designation for hearing. [688]TEXT [689]PDF 73.3594 Local public notice of designation for hearing. [690]TEXT [691]PDF 73.3597 Procedures on transfer and assignment applications. [692]TEXT [693]PDF 73.3598 Period of construction. [694]TEXT [695]PDF 73.3601 Simultaneous modification and renewal of license. [696]TEXT [697]PDF 73.3603 Special waiver procedure relative to applications. [698]TEXT [699]PDF 73.3605
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fc00019a.doc
  • 73.3561-Staff consideration of applications requiring Commission consideration. Section 73.3562-Staff consideration of applications not requiring action by the Commission. Section 73.3566-Defective applications. Section 73.3568-Dismissal of applications. Section 73.3584-Procedure for filing petitions to deny. Section 73.3587-Procedure for filing informal objections. Section 73.3588-Dismissal of petitions to deny or withdrawal of informal objections. Section 73.3589-Threats to file petitions to deny or informal objections. Section 73.3591-Grants without hearing. Section 73.3593-Designation for hearing. Section 73.3598-Period of construction. Section 73.3599-Forfeiture of construction permit. Section 73.3999-Enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1464-restrictions on the transmission of obscene and indecent material. 8. A New Section 73.805 is added, as follows: § 73.805 Availability of channels. Except as provided in Section 73.220 of this Chapter, all of the frequencies listed in Section 73.201of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00120.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00120.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00120.txt
  • governed by Sections 73.5006 and 73.7004, respectively. For all other applications the following rules will govern. *** 15. Section 73.3593 is amended by adding a new last sentence to read as follows: § 73.3593 Designation for hearing. If the FCC is unable, in the case of any application for an instrument of authorization, to make the findings specified in § 73.3591(a), it will formally designate the application for hearing on the grounds or reasons then obtaining and will forthwith notify the applicant and all known parties in interest of such action and the grounds and reasons therefor, specifying with particularity the matters and things in issue but not including issues or requirements phrased generally. If, however, the issue to be resolved
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00343.pdf
  • stations from 5 years to 8 years. See Implementation of Section 203 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, MM Docket No. 96-90, 12 FCC Rcd 1720 (1997). The 1996 Telecom Act also eliminated comparative renewals and directed the Commission to grant a broadcaster's renewal application if statutory renewal standards are met. See 47 U.S.C. § 309 (k); 47 C.F.R. § 73.3591. 56 See In the Matter of Policies and Rules Concerning Children's Television Programming, MM Docket No. 93-48, FCC 96-335, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 10660, ¶ 1 (1996). 57 Id, ¶ 5. Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-343 24 comfortable that the modifications were modest and served valid purposes. I do, however, write separately to highlight what I believe are
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-00-120A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-00-120A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-00-120A1.txt
  • governed by Sections 73.5006 and 73.7004, respectively. For all other applications the following rules will govern. *** 15. Section 73.3593 is amended by adding a new last sentence to read as follows: § 73.3593 Designation for hearing. If the FCC is unable, in the case of any application for an instrument of authorization, to make the findings specified in § 73.3591(a), it will formally designate the application for hearing on the grounds or reasons then obtaining and will forthwith notify the applicant and all known parties in interest of such action and the grounds and reasons therefor, specifying with particularity the matters and things in issue but not including issues or requirements phrased generally. If, however, the issue to be resolved
• http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/93-301.pdf
  • 8.To,theextentthatOpenMediaarguesthatthestaffs actionisinconsistentwithCommissionprecedent,wedis- agree.Thestaffproperlyconcludedthatouractionin changingthemethodofcalculatinginterferencefroma ratiotoanoverlapbasisdidnoteffectuateapolicychange towardswaiversofSection73.509(a).SeeEadsletteratn.2. Moreover,thestaffalsocorrectlydistinguishedthecases citedbyOpenMediainsupportofitswaiverrequest.With respecttoNewCovenantEducationalMinistries,Inc.,No. 1982.releasedJanuary23,1984(M.M.Bur.)wehave subsequentlyoverruledthestaffsholdingthereinwhich allowedapplicantstonegotiateacceptableinterference.In ourAmendmentofPart73oftheCommission'sRulesto PermitShort-SpacedFMStationAssignmentsbyUsingDirec- tionalAntennas,6FCCRcd5356,5361(1991),weestab- lishedthatwewerethesolearbiterindetermining interferencestandardsanddisallowedapplicantsfromnego- tiatinginterferencestandardsonacase-by-casebasis.There- in.wefurthernotedthatonestation'sacceptanceof interferencewouldprecludesomefuturefacilitychanges bythestationwhichcausestheinterference.'Furthermore. NewCove-nantinvolvedthirdadjacentchanneloverlap, whereasthiscaseinvolvesfirstadjacentchanneloverlap.In EducationalInformationCorporation,6FCCRcdat2208, wedistinguishedfirst-adjacentchanneloverlapfromsec- ond-orthird-adjacentchannelcontouroverlap: Overlapofco-channelorfirstadjacentchannelsig- nalsisamoreseriousmattersincetheinterference thatmayoccurresultsinthelossofserviceovera widearea.Secondorthirdadjacentchanneloverlap mayresultinthereplacementofonesignalbyan- other(notthecompletelossofservice)andiscon- finedtoaverysmallareaaroundthetransmitterof theinterferingstation.Inaddition.thepotentialfor suchinterferencetooccurdependstoagreatextent onthequalityofthereceiversusedwithintheaf- fectedarea. Finally.wenotethatinNewCovenantthestaffwaivedas deminimisthirdadjacentinterferencewithin2.1%ofthe protectedservicearea.whereasintheinstantcaseap- plicantsseekawaiveroffirstadjacentinterferencewithin 6.9%oftheprotectedservicearea.Inshort.theNewCoven antdecision,totheextentitremainsviable.isnotanalo- (e.g.coveredbyalake),whichhasbeenaconsiderationin previouswaivers.Finally,thereisnosignificancetothefact thatthestationfromwhichOpenMediawouldreceiveinterfer- encereceivesinterferencefromyetanotherstation,asallegedby OpenMedia. FCC93-301 goustothecircumstancespresentedhere.Weconclude thatawaiverinthiscaseongroundsthattheproposed overlapisdeminimisisnotwarranted. 9.Insummary,theoperativefactsarethatOpenMedia's noncompliancewithSection73.509(a)oftheCommission's RulesisvoluntaryandthatOpenMediahasfailedto demonstrateitsentitlementtoawaiver.Absentsucha demonstration,itsapplicationwasproperlyreturned.Ac- cordingly,weaffirmthestaffaction. 10.ReconsiderationofGrantofNIU/REBFApplication.In itspetitionforreconsideration,OpenMediaarguesthatthe staffviolateditsAshbackersrightsandSection73.3591 (Grantswithouthearing)oftheCommission'sRulesin makinganexpartegrantofaconstructionpermitto NIU/REBF.OpenMediaalsoallegesthatNIU/REBFmis- representedandfailedtodemonstrateitsfinancialquali- fications.failedtocomplywithSection1.65ofthe Commission'sRulesandviolatedtheCommission'sex parterules.OpenMediafurtherarguesthatgrantofthe NIU/RBEFapplicationviolatesSection307(b)oftheCom- municationsActof1934,asamended,aswellasSections 73.3517(Contingentapplications),73.3518(Inconsistentor conflictingapplications)and73.3520(Multipleapplica- tions)oftheCommission'sRulesandiscontrarytopublic policy.Finally,petitionerclaimsthatinquiryiswarranted todeterminewhetherNIU/REBFfalselystateditsintended communityoflicense. 11.Wedenyreconsiderationforthefollowingreasons. Initially,thereisnoviolationofOpenMedia'sAshbacker rightsnorviolationofSection73.3591oftheCommission's Rules.Initsletterissuingtheconstructionpermitto NIU/REBFwhileOpenMedia'sapplicationforreviewof thedismissalofitsapplicationwaspending,thestaffcited MeridianCommunications,2FCCRcd5904(Rev.Bd. 1987).ContrarytoOpenMedia'scontentions,wefindthat casetobeapposite.Meridianholdsthatasamatteroflaw andCommissionapplicationprocessingpolicy,grantofan applicationcannotbecomefinaluntilthepetitionforre- considerationorapplicationforreviewchallengingdis- missalofamutuallyexclusiveapplicationisadjudicated. Simplystated,thecloudoverthegrantedapplicationwill notdissipateuntilreconsiderationorreviewisgrantedor denied.Thus,thegranttoNIU/REBFdoesnotprevent OpenMediafromhavingitsapplicationforreviewdecided bytheCommissionandNIU/REBFareonnoticethatthey proceedtoconstructattheirownrisk.Indeed,atpage4of theJanuary23.1990,constructionpermittoNIU/REBF thefollowingstatementappears: Theissuanceofthispermitisconditionedonthe outcomeoftheapplicationforreviewfiledbyOpen MediaCorporation.Accordingly.anyconstruction undertakenpursuanttothispermitisatthe permittee'ssolerisk. Thus.OpenMedia'sAshbackerrightswerenotviolatedby issuanceoftheconstructionpermittoNIU/REBF.More- over,sinceOpenMediahasnotbeenprejudicedbythe grantoftheconstructionpermit,itsallegationswithrespect 5 AshbackerRadioCorp.v.FCC,326U.S.327,333(1945). 6Similarly,NIU/REBF'sfailuretoserveOpenMediawithits December5,1989,responsetotheCommissioninquirydoesnot raiseasubstantialandmaterialquestionoffact.Itiswell FederalCommunicationsCommissionRecord 8FCCRcd.No.13 tononcompliancewithSection73.3591oftheCommis- sion'sRulesareimmaterial.Similarly,totheextentthat theremayhavebeenatechnicalviolationoftheCommis- sion'sexparterulesinthatOpenMediawasnotsenta copyoftheJanuary23,1990,constructionpermitissuedto NIU/REBF.--itwasharmlesserror.WenotethataPublic Notice(ReportNo.20776)oftheactiongrantingthecon- structionpermitwasreleasedonJanuary29,1990.Accord-
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/amfmrule.html
  • assignment or transfer of control. [672]TEXT [673]PDF 73.3580 Local public notice of filing of broadcast applications. [674]TEXT [675]PDF 73.3584 Procedure for filing petitions to deny. [676]TEXT [677]PDF 73.3587 Procedure for filing informal objections. [678]TEXT [679]PDF 73.3588 Dismissal of petitions to deny or withdrawal of informal objections. [680]TEXT [681]PDF 73.3589 Threats to file petitions to deny or informal objections. [682]TEXT [683]PDF 73.3591 Grants without hearing. [684]TEXT [685]PDF 73.3592 Conditional grant. [686]TEXT [687]PDF 73.3593 Designation for hearing. [688]TEXT [689]PDF 73.3594 Local public notice of designation for hearing. [690]TEXT [691]PDF 73.3597 Procedures on transfer and assignment applications. [692]TEXT [693]PDF 73.3598 Period of construction. [694]TEXT [695]PDF 73.3601 Simultaneous modification and renewal of license. [696]TEXT [697]PDF 73.3603 Special waiver procedure relative to applications. [698]TEXT [699]PDF 73.3605
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/includes/63-amfmrule.htm
  • assignment or transfer of control. [625]TEXT [626]PDF 73.3580 Local public notice of filing of broadcast applications. [627]TEXT [628]PDF 73.3584 Procedure for filing petitions to deny. [629]TEXT [630]PDF 73.3587 Procedure for filing informal objections. [631]TEXT [632]PDF 73.3588 Dismissal of petitions to deny or withdrawal of informal objections. [633]TEXT [634]PDF 73.3589 Threats to file petitions to deny or informal objections. [635]TEXT [636]PDF 73.3591 Grants without hearing. [637]TEXT [638]PDF 73.3592 Conditional grant. [639]TEXT [640]PDF 73.3593 Designation for hearing. [641]TEXT [642]PDF 73.3594 Local public notice of designation for hearing. [643]TEXT [644]PDF 73.3597 Procedures on transfer and assignment applications. [645]TEXT [646]PDF 73.3598 Period of construction. [647]TEXT [648]PDF 73.3601 Simultaneous modification and renewal of license. [649]TEXT [650]PDF 73.3603 Special waiver procedure relative to applications. [651]TEXT [652]PDF 73.3605