Document text
240 Federal Communications Commission Reports
Educational Noncommercial FM Station
Žnd Report and Order re changes in rules relating to Noneommer-
cial Educational FM b/c stations. Discussed are allocations, classes
of stations, low power stations, interference standards, respon-
siveness of stations to local needs, efficiency of channel usage.
Rules amended.
F.C.C. 78-384
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of |
CHANGES IN THE RULES RELATING TO Docket No. 20735
NONCOMMERCIAL EDUCATIONAL FM RM-1974
BROADCAST STATIONS RM-2655
SECOND REPORT AND ORDER
(Adopted: June 7, 1978; Released: September 1, 1978)
BY THE COMMISSION:
1. This proceeding was inaugurated on March 17, 1976 [41 Fed. Reg.
16973], stimulated by a petition from the Corporation for Public Broad-
casting, to explore various issues relating to the efficient use of the
FM radio channels set aside for noncommercial educational purposes. !
In this document we will be resolving many of the issues raised in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and others may be the subject of
future Orders. Some issues do remain, however, particularly relating to
CPB's proposal for a Table of Assignments for the noncommercial
educational portion of the FM band which cannot be resolved based on
the data now on hand. In order to obtain the additional information we
need in that regard, we are issuing a Further Notice in this proceeding.
2. The issues raised by this proceeding were far ranging, involving
technical engineering matters of great complexity as well as legal or
policy issues of considerable importance and sensitivity. As will be
clear from the discussion below, if we are to act to foster the most
effective use of these channels, it is unavoidable that a number of
adjustments will have to be made in current approaches to channel
usage. Clearly, some of the options would entail changes which could
affect the private interests of existing licensees, and we have given
careful consideration to the filings of these parties. Nonetheless, we
eannot limit ourselves to an exercise of picking and choosing between
the sets of views based upon private interests, no matter how legiti-
mate or understandable they may be. Rather, we are charged with
finding the best way to serve the public interest. In order to under-
1M Channels 201 through 220 are set aside for such use in the 48 conterminous states. Because
part of the FM band in Alaska is set aside for other (non-broadcast) use, including Channels 201
through 220, they are not available for educational use. That State does not have reserved channels.
Instead, the channels normally used for commercial purposes are available for noncommercial educa-
tional use. Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are treated in the same manner as the 48 states.
69 F.C.C. 2d
Noncommercial Educational FM B/C Stations 241
stand how the Commission approached this subject, it will be helpful if
we begin with an examination of the history of noncommercial educa-
tional FM and the context in which the current proceeding arose.
Introduction
3. Interest in noncommercial radio is not new but was expressed
even before this Commission was established. Thus, in enacting the
Communications Act of 1934, the Congress included a provision [Sec-
tion 307(c)] which called upon this Commission to study and promptly
report back to the Congress on the proposal to allocate by statute a
fixed percentage of radio broadcasting facilities to nonprofit programs
or entities. In its 1935 report to Congress, the Commission recom-
mended against such an approach, and the idea was never pursued
further. At that time, broadcasting was limited to AM radio, which,
with a few exceptions, was operated on a commercial basis. Then, some
years later, frequencies were set aside for FM radio" and TV broad-
casting. This gave the Commission an opportunity to examine the idea
of reserving channels as a means of responding to specific noncommer-
cial needs of an educational nature. The Commission decided in favor
of doing so. In 1952, it set aside individual television channel assign-
ments on a community-by-community basis for noncommercial educa-
tional use and they were (and are) so designated in the Table of Tele-
vision Assignments.
4. FM was treated differently, with the lower 20 channels being set
aside generally for noncommercial educational use but no city-by-city
allocations were made. On July 5, 1961, the Commission issued a Notice
of Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Memorandum
Opinion and Order in Docket 14185, 26 Fed. Reg. 6130, 21 R.R. 1655,
in order to reexamine the allocations policies followed in assignment of
both commercial and noncommercial educational FM stations. At the
time that proceeding began, all applications for FM stations were
treated on a demand basis. This is, the applications were judged
strictly on their own engineering terms, not on the basis of the impact `
on future assignment needs. The only test applied was compliance with
the requirements that 1 mV/m interference would not be caused or
received. Because of its developing concern that this approach did not
make any provision for future need, the Commission decided to estab-
lish a Table of (commercial) FM Assignments. This Table, which does
not cover the group of channels reserved for noncommercial educa-
tional use, was designed to anticipate future need for new stations or
enlargements in coverage and make it possible to protect those needs
against encroachment. This was done through use of mileage separa-
tion criteria that were incorporated into an FM Table. Under the Ta-
ble, channels were reserved for use in or near particular assigned
communities. The protection provided was solely in terms of mileage
separations. Proposed stations were no longer obliged to protect an-
other station’s 1 mV/m contour.*
2 At first another frequency band, 42-50 MHz, was set aside for FM but this was later changed by
the Commission to the present band, 88 to 108 MHz. . E
3 In effect, the separations protect the following contours of Class A, B and C stations at maximum
facilities: ,
A. 927". Vim
B. 5607, V/m
C. 944 uVim
69 F.C.C. 2d
242 Federal Communications Commission Reports
5. All the matters in that 1961 Notice were disposed of with the
exception of certain issues relating to noncommercial educational radio,
including the possible establishment of a Table to govern usage of the
20 FM channels, 201 through 220 (88.1 through 91.9 MHz) which are
reserved for educational use. That matter was raised in the First Re-
port and Order in Docket 14185, 33 F.C.C. 309, 23 R.R. 1801 (1962), and
in a later Notice of Inquiry, FCC 66-1007, 31 Fed. Reg. 14755 (1966).
Although that issue remains unresolved,* the Commission did take
certain other actions relating to the noncommercial educational chan-
nels, particularly by placing certain mileage separation restrictions on
the use of noncommercial educational FM Channels 218, 219 and 220.
Stations on these channels were to be assigned in such a manner as to
protect assignments on commercial Channels 221A, 222 and 228. Like-
wise, the educational stations on Channels 218, 219 and 220 were to
receive the same mileage protections. Except for (1) these three chan-
nels (218, 219 and 220) in all parts of the country and (2) all channels
in the Mexican and Canadian border areas, noncommercial educational
FM stations continue to be assigned. exclusively on the basis of not
causing or receiving interference within their respective 1 mV/m con-
tours. (See Section 73.509 of the Rules.) In the Mexican border areas of
the states of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas, noncommer-
cial educational FM radio assignments are governed by an agreement
between the governments of the United States and Mexico, which
became effective August 9, 1973. An Educational Table of Assign-
ments pursuant to this agreement was adopted. ê Although the Canadi-
ans have their own Table which includes noncommercial educational
FM radio assignments, we do not have one governing assignments on
the U.S. side of the border.
6. The Notice in the present proceeding raised a number of issues
relating to channel use. The Commission hoped to continue its exami-
nation of the question of whether to establish a Table of Assignments
or other means of anticipating future need. Among other things, the
Commission raised the possibility of altering the present classes of
stations or the facilities which can be used by these classes of stations.
We also re-raised the question first raised in Docket No. 14185 of what
to do with the low power (normally 10-watt) Class D stations." We
were concerned about the impact these 10-watt stations could have on
channel usage. In the earlier docket, we observed that, “In our view,
... the time may well be at hand when proper use of the increasingly
crowded educational FM band requires restrictions on the future au-
thorization and continuance of 10-watt operations. . . .” 31 Fed. Reg.
14755 at 14756 (1966). Although no action was taken on this issue in
Docket 14185, the issue remained an important one. In fact, recent
developments have given it a greater sense of urgency. The Corpora-
tion for Public Broadcasting (“CPB”) filing with the Commission dated
May 12, 1972, offered a focus for consideration of various possible
ways of responding to that concern.
4The Commission in 1976 terminated Docket 14185 and transferred the remaining noncommercial
educational FM issues to this proceeding where action could be taken on our updated record.
5The Table, which governs use of noncommercial educational FM channels in the border area
covered by the U.S.-Mexico FM Broadcasting Agreement, appears in Section 73.507 of the FCC
Rules (50 F.C.C. 2d 172 (1974) ). :
Unlike other stations whose facilities are based on effective radiated power and a computed
figure for height above average terrain, these stations are allowed 10 watts transmitter power output
and are assumed to have an antenna height that does not exeeed 100 feet.
69 F.C.C. 2d
Noncommercial Educational FM B/C Stations 243
7. The central question of efficiency in channel use involves many
more engineering and policy issues than simply deciding between a
Table and a demand system. It can involve a wide range of questions
regarding what facilities to be used by what classes of stations. It also
involves how much of the time available for use is actually used by a
particular licensee. At present there is no specific requirement that a
noncommercial educational station in either service, TV or radio, be
operated for any minimum period. The only existing rule (Section
73.561) suggests that the degree of use (or more exactly the lack of full
use) of a channel could be considered if other parties sought to sup-
plant the renewal applicant. In our experience, this rule has had little
or no effect on the operating schedules of existing stations. Thus, we
wish to consider whether to adopt a rule that would deal with the
situation more effectively.
8. The passage of time and resulting changes in spectrum needs
requires us to examine all these matters anew. Although the noncom-
mercial educational FM channels have long been reserved, it has only
been recently that the demand for their use has increased greatly.
Because noncommercial FM growth was slow at first, the Commission
chose not to impose specific requirements, believing that by avoiding
possible burdensome requirements, it was creating an environment,
fostering establishment of these stations. Gradually noncommercial
FM did grow. Even so, in many areas of the country, much spectrum
space continued to remain unused. Eventually this changed. The Public
Broadcasting Act of 1967 established the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting. CPB began to make grants for publie radio station op-
erations and initial funding for new public radio stations which operate
in the noncommercial educational FM band. Also, since 1967, direct
facility grants have been made to public radio stations by the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. Pending legislation would
transfer this role to the Commerce Department’s National Telecommu-
nications and Information Administration. Because of the congestion
which has developed, demands for noncommercial FM spectrum could
not always be accommodated. No longer did the Commission have the
luxury of a “hands-off” approach. With congestion came a need to
reexamine the nature of channel use, and in the words of Section
307(b) of the Communications Act, to take steps to insure a “fair,
efficient and equitable distribution of radio service.”
9. The present Notice of Proposed Rulemaking raised the following
key issues: (1) What changes should be made in the allocations meth-
ods used for noncommercial educational FM? (2) Should there be
changes in the classes of noncommercial FM stations or in the facilities
available to these classes of stations? (3) How should 10-watt (or other
low power) stations be treated? (4) Should a new Channel 200 be
established? (5) What standards should be used regarding determining
the potential for interference to television Channel 6 reception? (6)
Should steps be taken to insure that a noncommercial FM station is
operated and programmed in a fashion that is responsive to local
needs?" and (7) Should steps be taken to improve the efficiency of
channel usage through requiring a minimum schedule, time sharing or
otherwise?
TThis an issue we have decided to sever and to pursue in connection with related issues regarding
licensing eligibility. It is treated in a separate Notice of Inquiry in BC Docket No. 78-164 published
July 18, 1978, 43 Fed. Reg. 30842.
69 F.C.C. 2d
244 Federal Communications Commission Reports
10. The first two of these issues constituted a central focus of the
CPB petition. They received a good deal of attention from it and other
parties in their responsive filings. Although we raised the question of
whether we should end our practice of operating on a demand system
and should switch to a Table of Assignments or some other approach
instead, we expressed some doubts about the workability of alterna-
tive approaches. Nonetheless, we indicated our willingness to consider
use of a Table and to examine possible changes in the classes of sta-
tions and their facilities. CPB has, in fact, submitted a proposed Table
of Assignments. This Table is based on what, in effect, would be nine
classes of stations (3 classes with 3 subcategories each). Arguably, we
could act on this part of the proceeding now and decide whether to
make such a change in our approach to assignments. We think, how-
ever, that important benefits could flow by issuing a Further Notice.
By setting forth the specific Table and related items in such a docu-
ment and by inviting comments on it, our deliberative process could
gain insights from other perspectives. At the moment we have little
More than comment on the abstract issue of a Table. Other comments,
directed to a specific proposal, can carry this process further. In any
event, changes would have to be made in the CPB Table’s Channel 6
protection standards. We hope to be able to adopt such standards soon,
but it is clear that those used by CPB in its proposed Table do not
provide an adequate degree of protection against interference. Also,
the Table is based on the current Class D usage of channels. But that
too is expected to change as a result of the actions we are taking today.
For these reasons the issue of a proposed Table for noncommercial FM
channels will not be resolved here. Almost all of the remaining mat-
ters, however, lend themselves to at least partial disposition now.
10-Watt Operations
11. The first issue is what to do about the 10-watt (and other low
power) operations. Low power (Class D) stations are intended to serve
limited areas as, for example, a college campus. CPB suggested treat-
ing these as secondary operations. Even before the Notice was issued
and the comments were received, it was clear to us that there was a
sharp divergence between those who focus on the inefficiency they see
in devoting a-significant amount of spectrum space to Class D opera-
tions and those who emphasize the value they see in the service these
stations can provide. It also was clear that whatever general state-
ments could be made regarding the current situation, there would be
exceptions. Thus, even if permitting many 10-watt operations was in-
efficient, this did not necessarily mean that a given 10-watt operation
was inefficient. Nor did it mean that a limitation on a particular 10-
watt station’s coverage was necessarily paralleled by a limitation on its
service through educational and other programs responsive to local
needs. Overall, it did mean that serious questions had arisen generally
on both efficiency of spectrum use and breadth of community service,
and we proposed steps to deal with this problem.
12. Because of our concern about the impact of future grants of low
power station authorizations, we put forward a proposal under which
10-watt operations would have to protect all stations from interfer-
ence. However, they no longer would be protected themselves from
69 F.C.C. 2d
Noncommercial Educational FM BIC Stations 245
interference except from that which would be caused by another 10-
watt station. Moreover, any Class D station would be required to
change its channel to accommodate the establishment of a new full-
fledged station or an increase in facilities of such a station even if they
were to take place after the Class D station went on the air. This could
mean that the Class D station would have to change channel or leave
the air entirely if a new channel could not be found for it. The choice
of a channel to use would not be limited to those in the noncommercial
educational portion of the FM band but would include the commercial
FM portion as well.
18. This proposal sparked substantial response. A number of parties
shared CPB’s views of the need for noncommercial FM stations with
more substantial facilities to provide effective public radio service
throughout the country. Other parties, with different goals in mind,
asserted that CPB’s proposals regarding 10-watt operations were un-
acceptable. They argued that often a station can only be started on a
small scale * and that it is only after its public acceptance grows that it
is realistic to expect that such a station could extend its coverage.
Closing the door on future 10-watt stations was seen as putting a halt
to this process. Also, some parties claimed that certain operations are
best conducted with limited facilities. Limited power, they say, is an
appropriate way to reach a small community or a neighborhood which
is a part of a larger city of license. According to this view, operation on
a greater scale with substantial facilities could even bring about a
separation of the station from its more limited community and thereby
cause a loss of effective station/eommunity dialogue and involvement.
CPB’s response is that it has no desire to eliminate these stations but
only is pointing out that a comparison between types of stations ap-
pears necessary in view of the existing congestion in the noncommer-
cial part of the FM band. Thus, CPB says its purpose is only to deal
with the comparative worth of a Class D and a higher power station if
a choice must be made between them.
14. There was a third view, expressed by licensees of Channel 6 TV
stations and by commercial broadcasters generally, who argued that by
virtue of their low power these Class D stations would cause less
interference to reception of Channel 6 TV stations than stations oper-
ating with greater facilities." Commercial broadcasters were also less
than enthusiastic about moving Class D stations into the commercial
part of the FM band.
15. Responding ten-watt stations said that CPB’s suggestions were
self serving. They opposed CPB’s focus on using larger stations to
offer its public radio programming. Instead, they suggested that CPB
and the National Public Radio (“NPR”) should drop the limitation on
the availability of CPB funds and NPR programming to stations which
operate with certain facilities and which have a minimum operating
8In the Notice we referred to this phenomenon. We noted that forty percent of these stations
which began with 10 watts have sought or obtained inereased facilities, with 60-70% of them at least
reaching the equivalent of Class A maximum facilities. A number of others that increased did so to
a greater amount (or increased a second time) and obtained Class B or Class C facilities. Although
it may be that some of the stations which have not increased their facilities are precluded by
engineering considerations from doing so, the record does not show the degree to which this is true.
Because of their proximity to Channel 6 TV's frequency band, some educational stations have the
potential of causing interference to Channel 6 reception, a point taken into account in authorizing
these FM stations.
69 F.C.C. 2d
246 Federal Communications Commission Reports
schedule and meet other qualifications. They urge that CPB funds and
CPB funded programming over NPR be offered to all noncommercial
stations. These are now available only to stations meeting certain eri-
teria in terms of facilities, staff size, ete. CPB replied, quoting 47
U.S.C. Section 396(a)(5), that its mandate is not to serve all noncom-
mercial radio stations, as the Class D stations claim, but to make non-
commercial broadcasting services available to all citizens. According to
CPB, dividing the available radio funds among all existing noncommer-
cial educational radio stations would be one of the least effective ways
of making the service available. It asserts that the amount available
per station would not even cover the salary of a single half-time em-
ployee. In fact, CPB contends that the cost to NPR simply to intercon-
nect all the more than 906 noncommercial radio stations would require
more than the combined CPB-NPR radio budget.
16. The National Federation of Community Broadcasters (“NFCB")
made several studies to determine what the actual effect of the pro-
posed rules would be. It found that were it not for existing Class D
stations, at least 40-45 new high-power noncommercial FM stations in
the top 100 markets could be established and that significant power
inereases could be obtained for another 25-30 existing stations. This
theme was taken up by other parties who commented on their diffi-
culty in being able to increase power. One party said that it could not
even establish a station due to a Class D’s “cluttering” of the spectrum
around it. As to the effect on Class D stations, NFCB also found that
few of them would need to be forced off the air. Their study indicated
that it would be possible to locate one or more 10-watt stations in the
commercial FM spectrum in all but the three largest markets, and it
expected some other 10-watters to apply for higher power and thus
get protection. CPB also commented that disruption of Class D service
in small markets where they are most useful is likely to be minimal,
since the present shortage of channels is in Jarge markets. However,
the problem was not seen as limited to 10-watt stations, as they also
found that in many instances new stations or better facilities also were
blocked by low power Class A’s.
17. On the specific question of whether displaced Class D’s should
be allowed in the commercial part of the FM band, the arguments pro
and con were sometimes joined in a single pleading. Such was the case
with the party that warned us not to consider this step a panacea, but
nonetheless observed that it was unlikely that there would be harm in
letting Class D’s operate in the commercial band. Another party said
that the commercial portion of the band is more stable, due to the
existence of a Table of Assignments, so that locating a Class D station
there would be less likely to produce problems for existing commercial
stations and the Class D stations would be less likely to encounter
problems from new commercial facilities, Another party, opposed to
allowing Class D’s on commercial channels, argued that even if the
Class D stations are accorded secondary status, it would create bad
will for a new commercial station to push such a Class D off the air.
There was concern also that some interference from Class D’s might
go uncorrected and it was emphasized that several small pockets of
interference to one station could add up to a large amount.
18. Three basic argument were offered in favor of continued protec-
tion for 10-watters: (1) they offer truly local service; (2) they provide
69 F.C.C, 2d
Noncommercial Educational FM BIC Stations 247
training; '° and (8) they represent a stepping stone to larger facilities.
A number of 10-watt stations desorbed their programming at some
length. Some stressed how their stations had strong local ties and gave
truly local service. One station claimed that it had two or three times
the audience of a local 50 kW noncommercial station. This it attributed
to its close attention to local needs. There was something approaching
general agreement that Class D’s could be useful in small towns. But
there was a dispute over the claim by some stations that they have
close ties with a particular neighborhood in a larger city. To the con-
trary, CPB alleged that the service contours of these stations do not
usually encompass an identifiable neighborhood but instead are deter-
mined by the accident of the transmitter location, most frequently on
the campus of some educational institution. In fact, in larger markets,
some parties thought that low power would lead to low level of public
awareness of a station’s existence, thus lessening its potential for in-
volvement with the community. The problem 10-watt stations face in
having to compete for funds and listeners with higher power stations
was also noted.
19. While on the one hand there was criticism of Class D stations for
operating with restricted hours and for failing to involve themselves in
the community, other parties felt that training in itself was sufficient
reason for the continued existence of Class D stations. ™ This was in
contrast to those that felt that it was only through programming that
a station could serve the public interest. These parties argued that
most Class D’s were not providing much program service. Although
some commercial broadcasters commented favorably on the training
function, one party pointed out that the more complex training needed
for TV personnel has been accomplished without using the equivalent
of a Class D TV station. Many parties insisted that training could be
done equally well on carrier current stations as on Class D stations,
but this was not considered a satisfactory alternative by most of the
schools that have 10-watt stations. Thus, one university said it needed
an over-the-air station as a high percentage of the students live off
campus. Also, carrier current operations were said to cost more and to
be unpopular with staff and listeners. Finally, one 10-watter said its
training program includes a special scholarship for minority students.
20. NFCB strongly disputed the argument that Class D’s could be
expected to be a stepping stone to higher power facilities. It and other
parties argued that it cost only a little more (perhaps as little as $1,500
more) to build a higher power station and that such stations were
easier to support financially from the very beginning because of the
wider audience they would reach. Thus, if these stations desired higher
power they would have sought it initially. NFCB also thought it un-
likely that 10-watt stations would continue to increase facilities. It
stated that in the past the applications to increase facilities came
10The issue of the legitimacy of using 10-watt stations entirely or principally for education for
their own staff as distinguished from providing an educational service to the listener was separately
raised in this proceeding. The overall issue of community service requirements for noncommercial
FM stations, however, will be handled in a related proceeding which we inaugurated to deal with
noncommercial radio and television license eligibility.
1 This is to be distinguished from the general question, referred to in the previous footnote, of how
stations on reserved noncommercial educational frequencies are to be used. Here, the point is
whether such a function particularly relates to 10-watt stations.
69 F.C.C. 2d
248 Federal Communications Commission Reports
mainly from stations licensed to institutions of higher education. It
asserted that many past increases could be traced to funding by CPB
and HEW of universities that had 10-watt stations. But now that the
Class D service has an increasing share of secondary schools and a
decreasing share of institutions of higher education, it expected this
process to slacken.
21. A number of other points received attention. Few thought that
10-watt stations would have substantive value for enhancing the op-
portunity for minority ownership. Some even charged that this empha-
sis could give the appearance of directing minority ownership to infe-
rior facilities. Although there are no reserved educational frequencies
in Alaska, the Alaska Broadcasting System (“ABS”) requested that we
reserve assignments for 10-watters in Alaska, which ABS notes is
characterized by small settlements separated by vast unpopulated ter-
ritories.
22. Finally, we were offered arguments on what to do if changes are
to ordered. On the one hand we were told that even if we halt further
authorizations of Class D’s we should protect existing ones. On the
other hand, we were told that Class D’s should be protected only for
one year, or until their next license renewal, not longer. Several parties
opposed establishing a 100-foot antenna height limit on Class D sta-
tions, citing their own situations. They asserted that such a limit would
have a harmful effect since their campus was located more than 100
feet above average terrain or their antenna had to be mounted on a
high building to be above obstructions. One party said severe power
losses in excessively long transmission lines at the 10-watt level would
deter abuse of excess height. NAB proposed moving 10-watt stations
to the lower channel exclusively so as to minimize interference on
Channel 6.
23. In reaching a decision on these difficult issues, we have been
forced to recognize that there is no solution that would satisfy all of
the conflicting interests involved. The fact that we raised questions
about the continuation of 10-watt operations has led some to misunder-
stand the Commission’s view of 10-watt or other low power operations.
It was not our view then that these stations have no value, nor do we
believe that now. Likewise we have never operated on the belief that
these stations do not respond to discrete local needs. Even granting
the value these stations can have and the service they can provide, we
still must concern ourselves with the question of efficient channel us-
age. This means that choices have to be made between worthwhile
services. In the allocations area, such choices cannot be resolved en-
tirely on a case-by-case approach, evaluating the operation of individ-
ual stations. Only through the adoption of general allocation standards
(with appropriate exceptions where the public interest requires) can
we provide some measure of certainty, efficiency, and cost-effective-
ness in our allocations and licensing of stations.
24, Having balanced the competing equities, it has become clear that
these low power operations cannot be permitted to function in a man-
ner which defeats the opportunity for other more efficient operations
which could serve larger areas, and bring effective noncommercial edu-
cational radio service to many who now lack it. When both types of
services can no longer be accommodated, action is required. We think
the public interest requires moving these low power operations to
69 F.C.C. 2d
Noncommercial Educational FM BIC Stations 249
other channels where they would not impede the development of new
or extended educational radio services. Since the commercial part of
the FM band already has a Table of Assignments it is easier to accom-
modate these low-power stations in a manner which avoids interfer-
ence concerns and, equally important, helps avoid uncertainty and un-
predictability. In our view, doing nothing more than having 10-watt
stations move to a different channel in the reserved noncommercial
educational portion of the FM band would not be sufficient. At best it
would reduce the impact of the inefficiency of an individual assign-
ment. But, it would do little in terms of the cumulative impact of such
inefficiencies. In order to deal with that a broader step involving a
move to the commercial part of the FM band is necessary.
25. Theoretically, such a move could be postponed until a request
was received for use of the particular channel that a 10-watt station
presently occupies. While this seems less harsh than requiring all 10-
watt stations to vacate their present channels, it offers little benefit in
making frequencies currently available. Instead, uncertainty about
such availability could ensue. And, just as important, proceeding in this
fashion would only serve to greatly delay inauguration of needed ser-
vice. In addition, moving low-power stations out of the educational part
of the FM band could have advantages beyond just freeing frequency
space. It could help avoid Channel 6 TV interference through making
a higher frequency available ' which until then had been employed by
a low power operation. With all of these reasons in mind we believe it
is necessary to require all low power operations that are able to do so
to move to open places in the commercial part of the FM band.
26. We expect that there will be space in the commercial FM band
to accommodate many of the 10-watt stations that will be required to
change channel. We recognize that some 10-watt stations will not be
able to find such space, and upon documentation of this fact, such
stations may seek to use Channel 200 instead. “ If, in turn, that is not
possible, they will be required to determine which channel in the re-
served noncommercial portion of the FM ban poses the least preclu-
sionary impact on other potential stations and will be required to move
to that channel. Through the use of these three approaches, we hope to
be able to avoid the necessity for terminating any of these low power
operations. However, that may not be possible in all cases, as where a
proposal is filed in conflict with a 10-watt renewal application which
would more effectively respond to a community’s need for expanded
educational service. That fact, of course, will be taken into account in
choosing between the proposals. Although they still will not be permit-
ted to cause 1 mV/m interference, those 10-watt operations which
remain in the educational portion of the band no longer will be af-
forded protection against such interference except that caused by oth-
er 10-watt stations. Continuing to give full protection to 10-watt sta-
tions could only lessen otherwise possible gains in spectrum use
efficiency.
12 Although there is disagreement about the degree of the potential for interference from FM
frequencies to Channel 6, there is agreement that the further the FM frequency is from Channel 6,
the lower the potential.
18 Later in this document we discuss our decision to establish a new FM Channel 200 and our
reasons for so deciding.
69 F.C.C. 2d
250 Federal Communications Commission Reports
27. In moving to the commercial part of the FM band, these 10-watt
stations will be like FM translators. This is, they will be considered
secondary operations. ' Thus, it is possible that future changes in the
FM Table could require the termination of an operation that had
moved to a commercial channel, because of its secondary status, or it
could mean that the station might have to move a second (or even
third) time if this proved necessary as a result of changes in the FM
Table. Hopefully, this will be a rare result.
28. We believe that there is no present reason to apply our general
policy on 10-watt stations announced here to Alaska. At this time it is
clear that 10-watt operations can be accommodated there without
great harm. In fact, they seem well designed to serve the small and
often isolated settlements of that State. However, if facts change as to
spectrum crowding in Alaska, we can take such additional steps as
later prove to be needed. In the meantime, we will allow Class D
assignments in the commercial FM Table and will designate them by
an asterisk.» This arrangement allowing operation with 10 watts will
apply to educational stations only. Commercial operations will continue
to be governed by the Class A minimum of 100 waits.
29. A second exception is necessary in the border areas where
agreements with Canada and Mexico restrict our ability to move the
10-watt stations. We intend to explore possible steps including, if nec-
essary, seeking to amend these agreements to increase our flexibility
to do so. Even without including these areas, however, the steps we
are taking will help bring about better use of what up to now has been
inefficiently used spectrum space.
30. This brings us to the final point: when to apply these new stan-
dards and to whom to apply them. First, no additional 10-watt applica-
tions will be accepted for filing. To that end, in a separate First Report
and Order we amended our rules to impose a “freeze” on the accept-
ance of any additional 10-watt applications. For those applicants al-
ready on file or whose application was filed before the “freeze” was
imposed, we will process them under the old rules. However, like all
other existing stations, they will become subject to the new require-
ments. If they prefer, they can anticipate the process and seek to move
to a new channel immediately without waiting for this to be triggered
by the Commission’s requirements. Applicants that do prefer this
course should file an appropriate amendment to their pending applica-
tions.
31. Existing stations may also seek to move now if they choose. But
the rules will also provide an opportunity for Class D stations to
exempt themselves by increasing facilities to at least the minimum
Class A level of 100 watts ERP. And, to avoid wholesale disruption, we
shall allow all stations until January 1, 1980, to file the necessary
application to increase facilities to this level. In the meantime, all Class
D license renewals shall be granted on the basis of the secondary
status of the station. Then, for all renewal applications which are to be
filed January 1, 1980, or later, all 10-watt stations must include (1) a
full engineering showing of the commercial channel to which the sta-
tion would move or (2) if that is not possible, how the station is pro-
\4Where a 10-watt station conflicts with an FM translator, the translator will have to yield.
15 As noted, the usual educational frequencies are not available for use in Alaska, and instead are
interspersed through the commercial channels which are used in that state.
69 F.C.C. 2d
Noncommercial Educational FM B/C Stations 251
ceeding with either of the alternatives discussed above. If its request
to change channels is found to be in proper form, a temporary author-
ity to operate on that channel will be granted with the regular renewal
on the new channel following upon completion of the change-over and
submission of the necessary filings.
32. It may well be that as the process we are adopting is followed,
there may be mutually exclusive applications for use of Channel 200 or
of a particular commercial or noncommercial frequency. A hearing in
such a case could be burdensome, time consuming and costly to the
parties, the public, and the Commission. Thus, wherever possible, we
hope to avoid this and to urge parties to seek agreements that would
avoid such hearings. If necessary we will offer a later policy statement
to implement this intent, but its need is not yet clear.
Operating Schedule
33. We have examined the degree to which noncommercial radio
stations use the time available to them on their frequency. Although
noncommercial educational FM stations are licensed for unlimited op-
eration, there is no rule which requires them to operate any minimum
number of hours. The only requirement is stated by Section 73.561 of
the Commission’s Rules. This indicates that the extent to which the
frequency is used is a matter of importance only at renewal time, and
even then, only if spectrum space is inadequate to accommodate any
additional demand. The rule is not self-enforcing. In fact, it virtually
never has been invoked. Even if this rule could function in individual
cases where complaints are lodged about the limited hours of a particu-
lar station, it certainly lacks any value in bringing about across-the-
board changes to insure a fuller use of these frequencies. Also we have
observed that many noncommercial stations have operated only rather
limited schedules and that many also have been off the air for pro-
longed periods, as, for example, when a college-licensed radio station
observes the institution’s curricular summer vacation. With the grow-
ing scarcity of spectrum space, this has caused us concern. Conse-
quently, in issuing the Notice we expressed the tentative view that
some constructive response to this situation might well be needed. To
this end we proposed adoption of a minimum schedule requirement.
34. Tentatively, we proposed to establish a 36-hour-per-week mini-
mum which would consist of at least 5 hours per day, on at ieast 6 days
per week. These figures were tentative ones which were selected be-
cause they had been applied to commercial FM stations in past years
before they were succeeded by more stringent requirements. In addi-
tion to inviting comments on the need for a minimum schedule and on
the specific proposal of a 36-hour minimum, we offered for comment
another suggestion of a possible way to increase efficient channel us-
age. Under this suggestion: (1) operating less than 36 hours (or any
other minimum figure selected) would not be acceptable; (2) operating
between 36 and 72 hours would be acceptable but would not provide
protection against proposals for time sharing; and (8) over 72 hours of
operation would be considered enough to demonstrate such full use of
a frequency as to exempt a station from the necessity for time sharing.
Finally, we asked whether special treatment should be afforded those
college-licensed and other stations which observe school vacations. One
69 F.C.C. 2d
252 Federal Communications Commission Reports
thought was to permit such stations to continue to observe these vaca-
tions but to require a sufficient number of additional hours of opera-
tion at other times so that, averaged over the year, they would reach
the minimum level of any minimum operating schedule rule which is
adopted.
35. The responses to these proposals varied. Various parties op-
posed our adopting any minimum operating schedule requirement.
Some took the view that even if we allowed a college station to adjust
its hours when it is closed for vacation, this still would impose a bur-
den. These parties believed that such a requirement could force some
school stations off the air and could have the effect of sacrificing the
9-month value of a station because of a three-month concern. The costs
of year-round operation were also thought to be a problem if we were
not to allow vacations to be observed. A number of such stations
pointed to their reliance on student staff members, most of whom, they
said, would not be available during vacations and holidays. Other costs
involved in extending the hours of operation such as maintenance,
security, engineering supervision, tape rental costs and utility cost
were also mentioned. Some felt that even if stations were not forced
off the air, they could be put in the position of having to ask students
to withdraw from their other activities if they were required to par-
ticipate on the level required by a minimum operating schedule. In
many cases, stations said volunteers are an important part of their
staff and that it would be unrealistic to expect that their time at the
station could be increased to meet a minimum schedule.
36. The proposal for a minimum schedule was also attacked as a
hardship for high school stations. Since state law typically requires
such students to be supervised at all times when participating in school
activities, a minimum schedule, we were told, would mean a significant
increase in cost to provide such supervision. We were warned that in
times of severe budget restrictions, the necessary funds might not be
available. This concern led one party to suggest exempting elementary
and high school stations but not college stations from a minimum
schedule requirement. Alternatively, parties argued that it should be
left to the listener to determine whether a particular station operates
a sufficient number of hours,“ or even whether any quantitative re-
quirement should be applied to a station since the limited program-
ming it does offer is particularly desirable.
37. Finally, among the opponents are those who charge that the
proposal is really an effort by CPB to force small stations off the air
to make way for the powerful, professionally funded, public radio op-
erations it supports. Since CPB already requires a minimum schedule
of the stations it supports, they point out that our proposal would not
place a burden on these stations even if it would on others. These
parties urge us to continue to use the present rule with its focus on
renewal time and ask us to consider the hours of operation of a station
only in the context of another specific interest in using the channel
more fully. In their view, the Commission’s present rule already could
be taken as inviting challenge to a renewal of a station using little of
the time available to it, either by way of petition to deny or a compet-
ing application.
16In effect, they would have us formulate a rule which could take into account the individual
circumstances applying to each station.
69 F.C.C. 2d
Noncommercial Educational FM B/C Stations 253
38. On the other hand, quite a large number of parties supported the
proposal in full or even urged that a more stringent approačh be taken
than the one we suggested. Some parties spoke harshly about inad-
equacies they saw in some existing noncommercial FM operations and
they expressed the hope that a minimum schedule requirement could
encourage serious noncommercial radio operations and discourage
those that lack seriousness of purpose and commitment. Others, taking
a similar tack, directed their remarks to the limited operating sched-
ules of some stations but did not attempt to correlate this to any
overall deficiencies in program operation. Spectrum space, we were
told, is far too valuable to waste, so much so that one party suggested
that in order to be protected against time sharing, a station should be
required to operate 18 hours per day, 7 days per week. Another
thought that we should use the second step figure of 72 hours men-
tioned in the Notice as inviting time sharing as a minimum require-
ment for all stations, or that we should require all stations to operate
at least 10 hours per day on not less than 6 days per week, every week
of the year. The party making this latter suggestion urged that it go
into force on the first anniversary of a station’s going on the air, thus
allowing the licensee one year to get the station properly established.
Another suggestion, not unlike this one, would have the Commission
take into account the years the station has been on the air in fashion-
ing a minimum schedule requirement. Likewise, the size of the sta-
tion’s facilities also could be taken into account, so that all stations
would have to meet a certain minimum but more powerful ones should
have to do more. One suggestion was to combine this with a require-
ment of a minimum number of weeks of operation during the year (34
weeks was suggested for college-licensed stations).
39. Various other parties simply supported the specific proposal put
forward in the Notice and a number more did so with some minor
exceptions such as the exact number of hours to be required. The
arguments put forward on behalf of this general approach were the
traditional ones the Commission has emphasized initially about effi-
ciency of spectrum use, the avoidance of waste and licensee responsi-
bility to serve fully the listener. It was on this latter point that several
parties placed particular emphasis. They argued that our decision re-
garding the question of a minimum operating schedule should be based
on a broadeast station’s responsibility to serve the public, not on the
station’s private interest in preferring to operate on a limited basis.
Thus, they note, a given station might indeed prefer to operate on a
schedule of its own choosing and quite obviously could show that a
more extensive schedule involved added costs. Even so, these parties
urged us to focus on the need for service and to conclude, in effect,
that with the decision to seek a license by any institution or nonprofit
group necessarily came its acceptance of a public responsibility. The
supporters of the minimum schedule requirement argue that it should
be that responsibility which governs the Commission’s actions in this
field.
40. A number of other parties, agreeing that some requirement was
called for, suggested variations on our original proposal. One already
mentioned was that of allowing compensation for vacations by increas-
ing the number of hours during the weeks the station was on the air.
Other suggestions included (1) giving a vacation exemption only during
69 F.C.C. 2d
254 Federal Communications Commission Reports
the station’s first three years of operation, (2) permitting a reduction
in hours during vacations to 50% of normal hours, (8) increasing the
hourly minimum by stages, (4) allowing the station to be silent on the
weekend so long as the requisite hours are offered during the week, (5)
relating the schedule requirements to the size of the market or (6)
taking into account whether the station’s audience was intended to be
or was in fact a general one or was limited to a campus and its imme-
diate environs. A final suggestion was that stations that do not main-
tain year-round schedules of minimum hours lose their protection
against interference.
41. A number of parties thought it might be appropriate to exempt
Class D (40-watt) stations from any minimum operating schedule. Par-
ties expressing this view argued that these stations lacked the re-
sources to sustain such operations and thus should not be required to
meet the requirements applied to other classes of stations. One party
thought 10-watt stations should be exempt except when located in
metropolitan areas. It asserted that in such cases, such a station could
join with another licensee on the channel to meet the requirement. On
the other hand, many parties took exception to the idea of exempting
10-watt stations. Among them were the licensees of 10-watt stations
that operated full schedules themselves. One 10-watt licensee noted
that it operated 133 hours per week (equal to 19 hours per day) and
was able to stay on the air during vacation times at the university. It
fully supported the minimum schedule proposal.
42. Finally, we come to the arguments directed to the proposal for
time sharing. Many of the comments did little more than offer mere
statements of support or opposition without offering much in the way
of explanation of the reasons for holding their views and the conse-
quences they anticipated if time sharing were to be required. Some
parties did offer points for us to consider in deciding whether time
sharing could be instituted on a broad scale. Some doubted whether we
would be able to successfully deal with questions of how many organi-
zations would be allowed to share a frequency, how many hours each
would be granted, and who should be excluded and for what reasons.
Just as some thought that the concept of time sharing could add an
element of complication to broadcast procedures, other endorsed the
approach and were convinced that the Commission would be able to
develop standards that appropriately respond to the situation. In fact,
some parties asked us to express support for time sharing (even if we
did not feel it was appropriate to mandate it). Finally, we were warned
against thinking that time sharing by itself could be a substitute for
applying what otherwise would be a more stringent standard.
43. The comments offer a great deal of insight into the preferences
of individual stations and in particular to the desire of a number of
them to avoid any requirements regarding the number of hours they
need to operate. However, these stations gave little attention to the
publie’s right to expect that a station occupying a frequency would use
it to a reasonable degree to provide a service to the public. Spectrum
space is scarce and is becoming more so. In fact, in many parts of the
country, there is little or no spectrum space available to accommodate
additional services. With this in mind, we think it is clear that some
action is needed to insure reasonable use of a frequency by those that
69 F.C.C. 2d
Noncommercial Educational FM B/C Stations 255
do occupy it. Most of the parties seemed to accept this fact and under-
stood that some action might well be necessary.
44. There are thus many choices before us in how to proceed, which
are not limited to the 36-hour minimum figure mentioned in the No-
tice.’ This figure was not used because it necessarily had greater
innate merit than other figures that might have been used, but it
seemed a good basic measure of minimal service to use. After review-
ing the record the 36-hour figure still seems a logical starting point,
just as it had been for commercial FM before a more stringent require-
ment was imposed. While some parties mentioned other numbers we
could use, these were but minor variations on the original theme and
would have little difference in effect. There also were suggestions for
a major increase from the level originally proposed, but we are con-
cerned about the possibly harmful consequences of imposing too se-
vere a requirement too abruptly. In deciding upon a course to follow
and attempting to balance the interests involved, we have chosen to
follow our original proposal. Although it is a close question whether to
mandate this minimum year-round, for the moment it will be applied
only during the weeks the station is on the air. No additional hours will
be required to compensate for vacation periods.
45. To those who still think this step extreme, we point out that a
36-hour requirement means a station needs to operate only about 21%
of the hours available to it. This can hardly be thought of as imposing
an onerous burden. Instead, it is only an appropriate beginning point.
Even if a more stringent operating requirement is not warranted for
across-the-board application now, we cannot ignore the fact that by
itself the requirement we have chosen is not sufficient to insure maxi-
mum spectrum efficiency. We could go further and require increased
hours of more powerful stations, but this could have the effect of
discouraging power increases to extend coverage to underserved
areas. Other complicated standards could be evolved based on popula-
tion of the city of license or coverage area. But this also does not offer
much more in exchange for the intricacies it would involve. Conse-
quently, we have rejected differing standards based on both these
factors. Conceptually, the keying of a minimum schedule obligation to
a station’s number of years on the air has much to commend it. But it,
too, must be rejected as an administrative nightmare. Likewise keying
the increases to the passage of years (a certain number of hours for
1979, more in 1980, ete.) is far too inexact a way to proceed. To avoid
an excessive burden, we would have to make such increments modest,
and therefore they would be unlikely to afford meaningful relief.
Moreover, such increments would necessarily be based on conjecture
about the future.
46. Since we firmly believe that some additional action is required,
we return to the original idea of time sharing. We are convinced that
except where the channel is efficiently used, at the level discussed
below, time sharing is appropriate. Some have warned that administra-
tive difficulties would ensue. We agree that there could be some initial
confusion in the administration of time sharing arrangements. We also
recognize the fact that some time sharing agreements might not easily
be achieved. Even so, this approach is definitely worth pursuing. We
1 See paragraph 34 above.
69 F.C.C. 2d
303-025 0 - 79 - 18
256 Federal Communications Commission Reports
expect that an approach can be structured in such a way as to avoid
most anticipated problems. One of the advantages of time sharing is
that it ean bring real benefits without imposing real burdens. First of
all it avoids the necessity for a more stringent across-the-board rule on
minimum operating hours. In addition, its primary (and often only)
impact would be on hours that the existing licensee is not using.
47. In our view, another prospective licensee should not be pre-
vented from using hours not utilized by the present occupant of the
channel, The difficulty in negotiations between the parties would be
expected if the second party desired to use some of the hours the first
party is already using. Many times this would not be a problem, either
because they can agree or because they desire to use different hours.
High school stations often do not operate during the very hours in the
evening that a community station might most desire. Unavoidably,
there will be some disputes between the parties—either in arriving at
an agreement or in administering it afterwards. In such cases, the
issue should be brought to the Commission for our resolution. In addi-
tion to advantages in terms of better use of time, if the parties can
agree, it is possible for time sharing to be extended to include impor-
tant cost savings through use of joint studies and/or transmitting
equipment. For all these reasons, we welcome such agreements.
48. If a party is interested in sharing time with a licensee now
operating a station, it should evidence that fact by filing an application
for a construction permit for that channel and specifying that it pro-
poses time sharing. Such applications will be accepted for filing at
anytime but will be acted upon in connection with a renewal applica-
tion.
49. With our decision to establish a minimum schedule and a higher
schedule level that would avoid time sharing, a number of stations will
need to make adjustments in their operations and others may wish to
do so. The minimum schedule requirement will go into effect on Janu-
ary 1, 1979. This should provide adequate time to prepare for the
minimum schedule obligation itself. Then, commencing with renewal
applications due on or after January 1, 1980, time sharing may be
proposed by other applicants for the channel unless the existing sta-
tion (1) is operating at least 12 hours per day and at least 6 days a
week during the entire year or (2) if it observed vacations (of up to
three months) it operated enough hours to meet the test if averaged
over the entire year (the station would be required to file with the
Commission and keep on file at the station a compilation of the hours
broadcast).
50. The provisions we are adopting to increase the hours of station
operation may need to be inereased in the future, as even the levels we
have chosen fall far short of full channel use. At this time, though, we
believe these steps can offer greater opportunity for the public to
benefit from the service these stations can offer. Perhaps this rule can
also make it possible for a number of entities that are now excluded
because there is no available frequency to offer through time sharing
arrangements types of programming not now available to their com-
munities. If so, the rule will bring benefits in diversity as well as
efficiency terms.
69 F.C.C. 2d
Noncommercial Educational FM BIC Stations 257
Channel 200
51. The next issue we turn to is the proposal raised by CPB * and
put forward in the Notice that we establish a new educational FM
channel at 87.9 megahertz, to be called Channel 200. As we pointed out
when inviting comments on this proposal, this frequency is not part of
the band which has been set aside for educational FM use. Actually, it
is part of the frequency band of 82-88 MHz which has been assigned
to television Channel 6. Pursuant to International Radio Regulations
governing the use of this frequency in Region 2 (the area which in-
cludes the United States of America) and pursuant to agreements now
in force between the United States and Canada, ™ and between the
United States of America and the United Mexican States, ? frequen-
cies below 88 MHz are not set aside for FM broadcasting. In fact, both
agreements specifically identify the FM channels as being those begin-
ning with Channel 201 (88.1 MHz) exactly as does Section 73.501(a) of
the Commission’s own Rules. Although treaty restrictions preclude use
of this frequency for FM purposes in areas near the border, ž! no such
restriction exists elsewhere in the country. However, for the balance
of the country there still are serious interference considerations which
must be taken into account. In fact, the interference potential is great
because the center frequency for the TV Channel 6’s FM sound carrier
is 87.75 MHz, which is quite close to the proposed FM frequency of
87.9 MHz. However, even taking into account the need to protect
Channel 6 television stations from interference and to avoid use of
Channel 200 in any location near the border, there still are places
where the frequency could be used. The purpose of this part of the
Notice was to determine to what degree this was true and to explore
whether the frequency 87.9 MHz should be utilized in certain areas of
the conterminous United States for noncommercial educational FM
purposes. No use other than a noncommercial one was contemplated.
52. In raising this issue we pointed out the relationship between the
Channel 200 question and the general problem of Channel 6 interfer-
ence. This is the case because the frequencies in the lower part of the
FM band (the more so the lower they are) have a potential for causing
interference to Channel 6 reception. This arises because TV receivers
do not reject to a sufficient degree the strong FM signals on frequen-
cies some distance from that of the TV channel. However, this is
different from the Channel 200 situation where the undesired signal is
virtually on the same frequency, and thus the television receiver could
not reject it.” Because of the important differences between the
Channel 6 interference question and that posed by Channel 200, we can
proceed to resolve the latter. The Channel 200 question is the easier
IE This proposal was also the subject of RM-2655, which sought the assignment of Channel 200 to
Washington, D.C.
19 North American Regional Broadcast Agreement, 61 Stat. 1726, TIAS 1726, 6 Bevans 447. |
2% Agreement Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States concerning
Frequency Modulation Broadcasting in the 88 to 108 MHz Band (effective date August 9, 1973). TIAS
2697.
2! The border areas are those within 400 kilometers (250 miles) of Canada or 820 kilometers (199
miles) of Mexico. še
2 Since the frequency Channel 200 would use belongs properly to television rather than FM, any
such use of it would have to be on a secondary basis, a fact recognized in the standards we are
adopting.
69 F.C.C. 2d
258 Federal Communications Commission Reports
one to resolve in that we have only one channel to deal with and have
a simpler task in that we only have to find what is left over when
Channel 6 service areas are protected in full * The general Channel 6
issue is expected to be resolved in a subsequent Report and Order.
58. In the Notice, we also inquired about the use to which Channel
200 might be put in the event it were established. Should it be re-
served for use in such locations as would allow the employment of
powerful facilities? Should it be used on a lesser or even on a low
power basis? Should we specify the areas where it could be used so as
to insure that all or some of the area which would be served would
receive a first educational service?
54. The responses to the Notice were mostly along lines that could
be anticipated. Most of the TV stations which responded, as well as the
NAB, opposed the establishment of Channel 200 as posing an even
greater threat to reception of Channel 6 stations than that posed by
operations on existing noncommercial FM channels. Storer Broadeast-
ing argued that Channel 200 would cause additional interference to
Channel 6 color reception, in addition to the aural interference it says
its Channel 6 station presently suffers from educational FM operation.
The licensees of various other Channel 6 television stations also op-
posed the concept. In their view, use of Channel 200 would bring a
destructive impact to stations that already face serious problems from
stations operating on the educational channels, particularly the lower
ones which are closer to the Channel 6 frequency band. These stations
expressed serious misgivings in regard to the proposal and doubts
about our being able to protect them from any interference that might
otherwise be caused by Channel 200 operations. They were particular-
ly troubled by this proposal for additional operations since they did not
feel that their operations were now being accorded the full degree of
protection from interference by existing operations to which they were
entitled. The Channel 200 proposal was also opposed by those who
argued that it was not likely to be of much benefit in the places where
it was most needed, namely in metropolitan areas, since that is where
Channel 6 stations are found. Elsewhere, we are told, there is little
need for Channel 200. Finally, there were those who questioned our
being able to develop standards for Channel 200 that would provide
the necessary protection to Channel 6. Finally, some doubt was ex-
pressed over being able to tune FM receivers to the frequency 87.9
MHz.
55. Even those who supported the proposal recognized the need to
insure the absence of interference. However, they differed from the
opponents in that they believed that we could find ways in which to
protect Channel 6 reception. Although all understood the need to ex-
clude the border areas and areas around Channel 6 operations, not all
agreed on how to use the areas that are left. On the one side, there was
an argument in favor of reserving this channel for the use of powerful
stations that could provide service to wide areas. More parties, how-
ever, urged its use for low power operations, principally 10-watt Class
2 The closeness of the frequencies absolutely precludes any co-location or other location of the FM
inside the coverage area. g .
A'This issue will be discussed when we deal with the establishment of standards regarding the
potential educational FM stations have for causing interference to television Channel 6.
69 F.C.C. 2d
Noncommercial Educational FM B/C Stations 259
D stations. The latter method was seen as one way of accommodating
the Class D stations that might be displaced from their current fre-
quencies. One party referred to its study which showed that in many
markets it would be possible to accommodate one or more 10-watt
stations in the commercial part of the band and indicated that to some
cent Channel 200 could be used where commercial space could not be
‘ound.
56. We agree that there is at least some basis for doubts which have
been expressed about Channel 200. Thus, it is true that we eannot use
Channel 200 near the Mexican and Canadian borders. It is also true
thas is cannot be used anywhere in the vicinity of existing Channel 6
TV operations. Perhaps, too, some FM receivers cannot be tuned to
pick up Channel 200 signals. Still, we believe there is at least some
merit in establishing Channel 200. Even though there are large por-
tions of the country where the channel could not be used, there are
other areas remaining where it could be.” In our view, so long as
adequate protective measures are taken, there is nothing to be gained
by not using the spectrum space which is available. The demand is
there, and this frequency can help meet it.
57. Having decided to put the frequency to use, we need to deter-
mine how best to use it and still insure full protection to Channel 6. A
number of parties hoped that it would be used for the establishment of
new powerful stations that would be able to bring service to areas now
lacking it. For the most part, this is not possible, Even in the areas
where it might be used in this fashion, they are so removed from major
population centers that other (regular educational) frequencies them-
selves are likely to be available. Besides that, there would be severe
restrictions on establishing stations with even the modest facilities of
a Class A station (3 kW at 300 feet).
58. With all of this in mind, we are convinced that its best use is for
stations with modest, essentially Class D, facilities. ** Used in this fash-
ion, it can help provide a way to remove those Class D stations which
eannot move to a commercial channel and are blocking expansion of
existing educational stations or the establishment of new full-powered
ones. In view of our decision to move the 10-watt stations rather than
to simply terminate them, it would be useful indeed if there was an-
other place (besides the commercial band) where they could be shifted.
59. At this point, we are not in a position to assay the extent to
which Channel 200 will be needed to accommodate Class D stations
moved from their present frequencies. As a consequence, it is not
possible at this point to predict what space, if any, might remain for
the possible use of any new stations. Therefore, for the time being, we
will use Channel 200 exclusively in the manner described and will limit
stations to their present facilities, which will not be allowed to exceed
50 watts effective radiated power and an antenna height of 30 meters
(100 feet) unless those greater facilities, already in use, would cause no
interference.
60. For the purpose of insuring protection to Channel 6, it is neces-
sary to use the more informative figure of effective radiated power.
25 Figure One, attached to this document, depicts with cross-hatching the areas where Channel 200
could be used consistent with applicable restrictions. ast 2 :
% In fact, Figure One shows that there is a rather severe limit even on its use for Class D stations
or equivalent. It is based on use of 50 watts ERP and a height above average terrain of 100 feet.
69 F.C.C. 2d
260 Federal Communications Commission Reports
Transmitter power output which is limited to 10-watts is not a reliable
indicator of the effective radiated power, which varies from case to
ease. Likewise, we need to include consideration of the actual antenna
height above average terrain, not an assumed figure. ” The 50 watt/100
foot combination is designed to allow reasonable Class D facilities even
for those Class D stations that will need to reduce their facilities to
this level.
61. As to the standards themselves, we have chosen a conservative
approach. CPB suggests, and we agree, that the Channel 6 stations
should be protected not just to the 47 dBu (Grade B) contour but to the
40 dBu contour. This will protect the TV station throughout the area
where it is viewed, and do so in a fashion that recognizes its primary
status and the secondary status of the FM station. To protect this
contour, the FM signal would have to be reduced substantially below
this level. CPB urges that it be reduced by 15 dB, that is, the FM
signal at the TV 40 dBu contour would not be allowed to exceed 25
dBu. AMST, on the other hand, urges that it be reduced to 25 dB, so
that it would be the 15 dBu contour of the FM station which could not
overlap the TV’s 40 dBu contour.
62. We have chosen to follow the AMST proposal in this regard
because it is based on the level at which interference would begin to
result. The CPB median figure by definition means that in the worst
half of the cases, there would be interference. This is far too much to
countenance, especially bearing in mind the fact that except for this
special dispensation, this is not intended to be an FM frequency at all.
Thus, for Zone I a separation of 212 kilometers (132 miles), 123 kilome-
ters (77 miles) to the 40 dBu contour for the TV and 88 kilometers (55
miles) for the FM’s 15 dBu contour. For Zone II the figures are 241
kilometers (150 miles) separation based on a 40 dBu contour extending
153 kilometers (95 miles) and the FM contour 88 kilometers (55 miles).
On an attached map (Figure One) we have depicted the areas where it
would be possible to locate a station on Channel 200, taking into ac-
count treaty considerations and Channel 6 interference. In a few cases,
educational stations on Channels 201, 202 and 203 will also have an
impact.
63. For the reasons indicated, we are amending the Commission’s
Rules in the manner already described. We hope soon to follow with
other important steps which likewise will help foster the most effec-
tive use of these frequencies.
64. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That, effective October 13, 1978,
Part 73 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations IS AMENDED as
set forth in the attached Appendix. Authority for this action is found
in Sections 4(i), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,
WILLIAM J. TRICARICO, Secretary.
21 This will require affected Class D stations to compute the figure, something that many have not
yet had to do.
69 F.C.C. 2d
Noncommercial Educational FM BIC Stations 261
ET
NISEN A ENEES
E
2 a
S [raj
ci
HI
és
23
E
52
43
35
< aka
se
z i
69 F.C.C. 2d
262 Federal Communications Commission Reports
FORMAL AND INFORMAL COMMENTS
Docket No. 20735
Alaska Public Broadcasting Commission
American Conservative Union
Association of California Publie Radio Stations
Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.
Association of Publie Radio Stations
Atlantic Telecasting Corporation
Blue Mountain Community College
Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System; Connecticut Educational
Telecommunications Corporation
Central California Communications Corporation
Central California Educational Television
Cerritos Community College
Chronicle Broadeasting Co.
Consumer Electronics Group of the Electronic Industries Association
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Cosmos Broadcasting of Louisiana, Inc.
Doherty, David J., Consulting Engineer
Eastern Idaho Television Corporation; General Electric Broadcasting Company,
Inc.; Idaho Television Corporation; John H. Phipps Broadcasting Stations, Inc.;
Roy H. Parks Broadcasting of Virginia, Inc.
Eastern Mennonite College
Eastern Michigan University
Educational FM Associates
Elving, Bruce, Ph.D.
FM Atlas & Station Directory
Fullerton College
Intercollegiate Broadeasting System, Inc.
Jackson State University
Los Angeles Pierce College
Memphis State University
Milwaukee Publie Schools
Minnesota Public Radio, Inc.
Monte Rio Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Broadcasters
National Association of Educational Broadcasters
Nationwide Communications, Ine.
National Federation of Community Broadcasting
National Publie Radio
National Radio Broadcasters Association
Northwestern University
Pacific Union College Association for Educational Broadcasting
Parr, Lee S.
P.H. Lee Associates
Radio and Television Society of Ohio
Radio Station CAIN
Radio Talking Book
Saint Clair County Community College
Southern Berkshire Community Arts Council
Southwestern at Memphis
Steele, David J., Consulting Engineer
State of Idaho, State Board of Education
Storer Broadcasting Company
Sunrise Communications
Taft Broadcasting Company
University of Texas at Austin
Washington Ear Inc.
York County Blind Center
REPLIES
Alaska Publie Broadcasting Commission
American Broadeasting Companies, Inc.
Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.
Association of Publie Radio Stations
69 F.C.C. 2d
Noncommercial Educational FM B/C Stations 263
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Education
Consumer Electronics Group of the Electronics Industries Association
Corporation for Public Broadeasting
Cosmos Broadcasting of Louisiana, Inc.
Eastern Idaho Television Corporation; General Electric Broadcasting Company,
Ine.; Idaho Television Corporation; John H. Phipps Broadcasting Stations, Inc.;
Roy H. Parks Broadcasting of Virginia, Inc.
Eastern Michigan University
Gettysburg College
Granfalloon Denver Edueational Broadcasting, Incorporated
KTRU Radio
McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Company, Inc.
Minnesota Public Radio, Inc.
National Association of Broadcasters
National Public Radio
Nationwide Communications, Inc.
Pennsylvania Public Television Network Commission
Taft Broadcasting Company
FORMAL AND INFORMAL COMMENTS FILED BY STATION LICENSEES
Docket No. 20735
WAHS WJJW WVSS
WARG WJRH(FM) WWWA-FM
WAVM WLCA WXBA
WBFH-FM WLMH WYMS-FM
WBKT WMCX WZRD-FM
WCBN WMFO
WCMC WMXM
WCSD WNDN
WCSQ WNHU KALX
WCWT-FM WNTI KCDC
WDAY WORW-FM KDCV
WDSW WOVI-FM KLJC
WECW-FM WOPR KMCR-FM
WERG WOWT KRPR
WFIT WPHM KRVM-FM
WGAL WPSD-TV KSAK
WGBH WQOX-FM KSJC
WHBA WRRG-FM KSYM-FM
WHFC-FM WRUW-FM KTRU
WHPR-FM WSDP-FM KUCI
WHSR WSPD-FM KUCR
WIAN WSRN-FM KUFM
WIDR-FM WSWP-TV KUIB
WJAC WTSD KXLO
WIC WTUL-FM KUNI
WJCR-FM WUAG-FM KYDZ
WJHD-AM-FM WUMB-FM KZSU-FM
STATEMENTS MADE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE
OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING IN DOCKET NO. 20735
Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Ine.
Avery, Robert, Ph.D. University of Utab
Columbia Bible College
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Florida Central East Coast Educational Television
Intercollegiate Broadcasting System
lowa State University of Science and Technology
Jack Straw Memorial Foundation, Inc.
KALW-San Francisco Unified Schoo! District
KFCA
KMKY
KOAC Radio TV
KRVM
69 F.C.C. 2d
264
Federal Communications Commission Reports
KSLU-FM
KUOW
KUWR
KWSU
Martin, Howard S., Ph.D., California State University
Minnesota Educational Radio, Ine.
National Association of Educational Broadcasters
National Public Radio, Ine.
South Central Educational Broadeasting Council
WEBE-FM
WEMU-FM
WJSY
WKAR-AM-FM
WLUR-FM
WMEH-FM
WMOT
WMUB
WSUI
WVWC
APPENDIX
1. Section 73.207(a) is amended to read as follows:
$ 73.207 Minimum mileage separations between co-channel and adjacent-channel sta-
tions on commercial channels.
(a)
*
Petitions to amend the Table of Assignments (§ 73.202(b)) (other than those
expressly requesting amendment of this Section or § 73.205) will be dismissed and
no application for a new station, or change in the channel or location of an existing
station, other than a Class D (secondary) station, will be accepted for filing, unless
the proposed facilities will be located at least as far from the transmitter sites of
other co-channel and adjacent-channel stations (both existing and proposed) as the
distances in miles specified in this paragraph. Proposed stations of the respective
classes shown in the left-hand column of the following table shall be located no
less than the distance shown from co-channel stations and first adjacent-channel
stations (200 kHz removed) and second and third adjacent-channel stations (400
and 600 kHz removed) of the classes shown in the remaining columns of the table.
The distances shown between stations of different classes apply regardless of
which is the proposed station under consideration (e.g., distances shown from a
new Class A station to an existing Class C station are also the distances between
a new Class C and an existing Class A station). The distances between Class B
and Class C stations apply only across zone lines. The adjacent-channel spacings
listed also apply:
* * * * * *
2. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 73.209 are amended to read as follows:
§ 73.209 Protection from interference.
(a)
(b)
*
Permittees and licensees of FM broadcast stations are not protected from any
interference which may be caused by the grant of a new station, or of authority
to modify the facilities of an existing station, in accordance with the provisions of
this Subpart. However, they are protected from interference caused by Class D
(secondary) noncommercial educational FM stations. See Section 73.509.
Except as specified in Section 73.509, the nature and extent of the protection from
interference accorded to FM broadcast stations is limited solely to the protection
which results from the minimum assignment and station separation requirements
and the rules with respect to maximum powers and antenna heights set forth in
this Subpart.
* * * * * *
3. Seetion 73.501 is amended to read as follows:
$ 78.501 Channels available for assignment.
(a)
The following frequencies, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, are
available for noncommercial educational FM broadcasting:
69 F.C.C. 2d
Noncommercial Educational FM B/C Stations 265
Frequency (MHz): Channel No. Frequency (MHz): Channel No.
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
1 The frequency 87.9 MHz, Channel 200, is available only for use of existing Class D
stations required to change frequency. It is available only on a noninterference basis
with respect to TV Channel 6 stations and adjacent channel noncommercial educational
FM stations. It is not available at all within 402 kilometers (250 miles) of Canada and 320
kilometers (199 miles) of Mexico. The specific standards governing its use are contained
in Section 73.512.
2The frequency 89.1 MHz, Channel 206, in the New York City metropolitan area, is
reserved for the use of the United Nations with the equivalent of an antenna height of
500 feet above average terrain and effective radiated power of 20 kW and the Commis-
sion will make no assignments which would cause objectionable interference with such
use.
(b) In Alaska, the frequency band 87.9-100 MHz is allocated exclusively to Govern-
ment radio services and non-Government fixed service. The frequencies 87.9
MHz-91.9 MHz (Channels 200 through 220, exclusive) will not be assigned in
Alaska for use by noncommercial educational FM broadcast stations; however, the
frequencies 100.1-107.9 MHz (Channels 261 through 300, inclusive) are available
for such use under the allocation provisions in Subpart B, $8 73.201-73.213. Such
noncommercial educational assignments will be designated by an asterisk. Non-
commercial educational FM stations using Class A channels in Alaska are exempt
from the minimum effective radiated power requirements specified in § 73.211(a)
and from the “freeze” on the acceptance of applications proposing facilities of less
than 100 watts effective radiated power contained in Note 3 to Section 1.573.
(However, they are subject to certain other requirements applicable to stations
operating on commercial channels. See § 73.513.)
(e) There are specific noncommercial educational FM assignments (Channels
201-220) for various communities in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas.
These are set forth in § 73.504.
4. Paragraphs (b) and (e) of Section 73.504 are amended to read as follows:
§ 73.504 Noncommercial educational channel assignments under the United States-
Mexico FM Broadcast Agreement.
* * * * * * *
(b) Anyone applying for a noncommercial educational FM station in the border area
of Arizona, California, New Mexico, or Texas, must propose at least Class A
minimum facilities [see Section 73.211(a)] and apply for a channel set forth in the
table in paragraph (a) for use either at the listed community or an unlisted
community under the same conditions set forth in § 73.203(b) of this Chapter;
Provided, however, that existing Class D noncommercial educational stations may
apply to change frequency within the educational portion of the FM band in
accordance with the requirements set forth in § 73.512.
(e) The minimum mileage separations set forth in § 73.207 of this Chapter and the
Note thereto shall apply to: .
(1) A petition for rulemaking to amend the table set forth in paragraph (a) and;
(2) Except for Class D stations changing channel pursuant to § 73.512, to an
application for any class of noncommercial educational FM channel (new sta-
tion, or change in channel for transmitter site or increase in facilities of an
existing station) within the border area referred to in paragraph (a). Any
petition to amend which so conflicts will be dismissed. Any application which
does not so conform will not be accepted for filing. No authorization for a
69 F.C.C. 2d
266
*
Federal Communications Commission Reports
noncommercial educational station will be granted for a station in the United
States in the area adjacent to the border area which does not meet the mini-
mum mileage separations set forth in § 73.207 to any noncommercial educa-
tional allotment or authorization in the border area.
* * * * * *
5. Section 73.506 is amended to read as follows:
8 73.506 Classes of educational channels, and stations operating thereon.
(a)
(b)
Noncommercial educational stations operating on the channels specified in
§ 73.501 are divided into the following classes:
(D A Class D educational station is one operating with no more than 10 watts
transmitter power output.
(2) A Class D educational (secondary) station is one operating with no more than
10 watts transmitter power output in accordance with the terms of § 73.512 or
which has elected to follow these requirements before they become applicable
under the terms of § 73.512.
(8) Noncommercial educational stations with more than 10 watts transmitter
power output are classified as Class A, Class B, or Class C, depending on the
effective radiated power and antenna height above average terrain, and the
zone in which the station’s transmitter is located, on the same basis as pro-
vided in §§ 73.205, 73.206 and 73.211 for stations on the non-reserved FM
channels. Where a station is authorized with more than 3 kilowatts (4.8 dBk)
effective radiated power, or coverage greater than that obtained by the equiv-
alent of 3 kilowatts effective radiated power and 91.5 meter (300 foot) antenna
height above average terrain, it is classified as a Class B station if its trans-
mitter is located in Zone I or Zone I-A, and a Class C station if its transmitter
is located in Zone II. Class A stations may be assigned in all zones.
Class A, B and C noncommercial educational stations may be assigned to any of
the channels set forth in § 73.501. Existing Class D noncommercial educational
FM stations may continue to operate on their present channels and pending
applications for new Class D stations may be granted to permit operation on the
channel proposed, but in both instances such operations shall be subject to the
provisions of § 73.512.
6. Paragraph (a) of Section 73.507 is amended to read as follows:
§ 73.507 Minimum distance separations between co-channel and adjacent-channel sta-
tions.
(a)
*
Minimum distance separations. No application for a new station, or change in
channel or transmitter site or increase in facilities of an existing station, will be
granted unless the proposed facilities will be located so as to meet the adjacent
channel distance separations specified in § 73.207(a) for the class of station in-
volved with respect to assignment on Channels 221, 222 and 223 listed in § 73.201
(except where in the case of an existing station the proposed facilities fall within
the provisions of § 73.207(b) ), or where a Class D station is changing frequency
to comply with the requirements of § 73.512.
* * * * * *
7. Section 73.509 is amended to read as follows:
§ 73.509 Protection from interference.
(a)
(b)
(e)
(d)
No application for a facility on any channel specified in $ 73.501 of this Chapter
will be accepted if the requested facility either would cause objectionable inter-
ference within the 1 mV/m contour of any co-channel or adjacent-channel station
other than Class D (secondary) or, except in the case of Class D (secondary)
proposals, receive interference within the proposed 1 mV/m contour.
No application for use of any commercial FM channel by a Class D (secondary)
station will be accepted if the requested facility would cause objectionable inter-
ference within the 1 mV/m contour of any co-channel or adjacent-channel station.
No application for FM Channel 200 will be accepted if the requested facility
would cause interference within the 1 mV/m contour of any co-channel Class D
(secondary) station on Channel 200 or any adjacent-channel station on Channels
201, 202 and 203. The standards set forth in paragraph (a) 1-8 shall be used to
determine the existence of objectionable interference. j
The following standards shall be used to determine the existence of objectionable
interference: i
(1) The distance to the 1 mV/m contour shall be determined by the use of Figure
1 of § 73.333 (F(50,50) curve) of this Chapter (see § 73.313(¢)(1) ).
69 F.C.C. 2d
Noncommercial Educational FM BIC Stations 267
(2) The distance to the applicable interference contour shall be determined by the
use of Figure la of 843.333 (F(50,10) ehart) of this Chapter.
(8) Objectionable interference will be considered to exist if, on the basis of the
curves referred to in this subparagraph, the ratio of undesired to desired
signal exceeds: 1:10 for co-channel; 1:2 for first adjacent channel (200 kHz
removed); 10:1 for second adjacent channel (400 kHz removed); and 100:1 for
third adjacent channel (600 kHz removed).
(e) No application for FM Channel 200 will be accepted if the requested facility
would cause interference to Channel 6 operations, including TV translators on this
channel. Such objectionable interference will be considered to exist whenever the
15 dBu contour based on the F 50(10) eurves in Section 73.333 Figure 1a of the
proposal would overlap the 40 dBu contour based on the F 50(50) curves in
Section 73.699 Figure 9, of the television station.
8. Paragraph (a) of Section 73.511 is amended to read as follows:
§ 73.511 Power and antenna height requirements.
(a) Except as provided in Section 73.504(b), no provision as to a minimum facility for
an FM broadcast station shall apply to a noncommercial educational station oper-
ating on a channel specified in § 73.501{a); and no provision as to a maximum
facility shall apply to a noncommercial educational station in Channels 201 to 217,
inclusive. However, any application other than a Class D (secondary) station ap-
plication filed pursuant to Section 73.512, specifying a facility below the minimum
of 100 watts effective radiated power will not be accepted for filing (see Note 3
to § 1.573) and any application exceeding the maximum set forth in § 73.211 will
not be necessarily granted; see Notice of Inquiry in Docket No. 14185 as concerns
educational FM matters (5 F.C.C. 2d 587, 588, fn. 2 (1966); see also 18 F.C.C. 2d
751 (1968) and 17 F.C.C. 2d 496 (1969) and Docket 20735 (41 FR 16973).
* * * * * * *
9. New Section 73.512 is added to read as follows:
$ 78.512 Special procedures applicable to Class D noncommercial educational stations.
(a) All Class D stations seeking renewal of license for any term expiring June 1, 1980,
or thereafter shall comply with the requirements set forth below and shall simul-
taneously file an application on FCC Form 340, containing full information re-
garding such compliance with the provisions set forth below.
(1) To the extent possible, each applicant shall select a commercial FM channel on
which it proposes to operate in lieu of the station’s present channel. The
station may select any commercial channel provided no objectionable interfer-
ence, as set forth in Section 73.509(b), would be caused. The application should
include the same engineering information as is required to change the fre-
quency of an existing station and any other information necessary to establish
the fact that objectionable interference would not result. If no commercial
channel is available where the station could operate without causing such
interference, the application shall set forth the basis upon which this condu-
sion was reached. This procedure applies throughout the continental United
States except that stations in the areas within 402 kilometers (250 miles) of
Canada and 320 kilometers (199 miles) of Mexico do not have to comply with
this requirement pending completion of negotiations with these countries, in
which case such parties should follow the procedures in subparagraph (3)
below.
(2) If a commercial channel is unavailable, to the extent possible each applicant
should propose operation on Channel 200 (87.9 MHz) unless the station would
be within 402 kilometers (250 miles) of the Canadian border or 320 kilometers
(199 miles) of the Mexican border or would cause interference to an FM
station operating on Channels 201, 202 or 203 or to TV Channel 6, as provided
in Section 73.509.
(3) If a channel is not available under either (1) or (2) above, the renewal appli-
cant shall study all 20 noncommercial educational FM channels and shall pro-
pose operation on the channel which would cause the least preclusion to the
establishment of new stations or increases in power by existing stations. Full
information regarding the basis for the selection should be provided.
(b) At any time before the requirements of paragraph (a) become effective, any
existing Class D station may file a construction permit application on FCC Form
340 to change channel in the manner described above which shall be subject to the
same requirements. In either case, any license granted shali specify that the
station’s license is for a Class D (secondary) station.
69 F.C.C. 2d
268 Federal Communications Commission Reports
(e) Except in Alaska, no new Class D applications nor major change applications b
existing Class D stations are acceptable for filing except by existing Class $
stations seeking to change frequency. Upon the grant of such application, the
station shall become a Class D (secondary) station.
(d) Class D educational? (secondary) stations (see § 73.506(a)(2) ) will be permitted to
continue to operate only so long as no interference (as defined in § 73.509) is
caused to any FM or TV broadcast station. In the event that the Class D (second-
ary) station would cause interference to an FM (other than a Class D (second-
ary) ) or TV broadcast station after that Class D (secondary) station is authorized,
the Class D (secondary) station must cease operation when program tests for the
FM or TV broadcast station are authorized. The Class D (secondary) station may
apply for a construction permit (see § 1.533(a)(6) ) to change to another frequency
or antenna site where it would not cause interference (as defined in § 73.509). If
the Class D (secondary) station must cease operation before the construction
permit is granted, an application for temporary authorization (pursuant to § 1.542
and 47 U.S.C. § 309(f) ) to operate with the proposed facilities may be submitted;
where appropriate, such temporary authorization can be granted.
10. Section 73.513 is amended to read as follows:
§ 73.513 Noncommercial educational broadcast stations operating on unreserved chan-
nels.
Noncommercial educational FM stations, other than Class D (secondary) stations,
which operate on channels listed in § 73.202 rather than § 73.501(a) but which comply
with § 73.503 as to licensing requirements and the nature of the service rendered, shall
comply with the provisions of the following Sections of Subpart. B of this Part: §§ 73.201
through 73.213 (Classification of FM Broadeast Stations and Allocation of Frequencies);
§ 73.254 (Required Transmitter Performance); and such other sections of Subpart B of
this Part as are made specifically applicable by the provisions of this Subpart C. In all
other respects, such stations shall be governed by the provisions of this Subpart and not
Subpart B of this Part.
11. Section 73.561, including the title, is amended to read as follows:
§ 73.561 Operating schedule; time sharing.
(a) All noncommercial educational FM stations will be licensed for unlimited time
operation except those stations operating under a time sharing arrangement.
Beginning January 1, 1979, all noncommercial educational FM stations are re-
quired to operate at least 36 hours per week, consisting of at least 5 hours of
operation per day on at least 6 days of the week; however, stations licensed to
educational institutions are not required to observe the minimum operating re-
quirement during those days designated on the official school calendar as vacation
or recess periods.
(b) Effective January 1, 1980, all stations, including those meeting the requirements
of paragraph (a) above, but which do not operate 12 hours per day each day of the
year, will be required to share use of the frequency upon the grant of an appro-
priate application proposing such share time arrangement. Such applications shall
set forth the intent to share time and shall be filed in the same manner as are
applications for new stations. They may be filed at any time, but in cases where
the parties are unable to agree on time sharing, action on the application will be
taken only in connection with the renewal of application for the existing station.
In order to be considered for this purpose, such an application to share time must
be filed no later than the deadline for filing applications in conflict with the
renewal application of the existing licensee.
(1) The licensee and the prospective licensee(s) shall endeavor to reach an agree-
ment for a definite schedule of periods of time to be used by each. Such
agreement shall be in writing and shall set forth which licensee is to operate
on eack of the hours of the day throughout the year. Such agreement shall not.
include simultaneous operation of the stations. Each licensee shall file the
same in triplicate original with each application to the Commission for initial
construction permit or renewal of license. Such written agreements shall be-
come part of the terms of each station’s license.
NOTE: For allocations purposes, both (all) stations sharing time will be treated as
unlimited time stations.
(2) The Commission desires to facilitate the reaching of agreements on time sharing.
However, if the licensees of stations authorized to share time are unable to agree
on a division of time, the Commission shall be so notifted by statement to that
69 F.C.C. 2d
Noncommercial Educational FM B/C Stations 269
effect filed with the application proposing time sharing. Thereafter the Commis-
sion will designate the application for hearing on any qualification issues arising
regarding the renewal or new applicants. If no such issues pertain, the Commis-
sion will set the matter for expedited hearing limited solely to the issue of the
sharing of time. In the event the stations have been operating under a time
sharing agreement but cannot agree on its continuation, a hearing will be held,
and pending such hearing, the operating schedule previously adhered to shall
remain in full force and effect.
(€) A departure from the regular schedule set forth in a time-sharing agreement will
be permitted only in cases where an agreement to that effect is reduced to
writing, is signed by the licensees of the stations affected thereby and filed in
triplicate by each licensee with the Commission prior to the time of the proposed
change. If time is of the essence, the actual departure in operating schedule may
precede the actual filing of written agreement, provided appropriate notice is sent
to the Commission in Washington, D.C.
(d) In the event that causes beyond the control of a permittee or licensee make it
impossible to adhere to the operating schedule in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
Section or to continue operating, the station may limit or discontinue operation for
a period of not more than 30 days without further authority from the Commission,
Provided, That notification is sent to the Commission in Washington, D.C. no later
than the 10th day of limited or discontinued operation. During such period, the
permittee or licensee shall continue to adhere to the requirements of the station
license pertaining to the lighting of antenna structures. In the event normal
operation is restored prior to the expiration of the 30-day period, the permittee or
licensee will so notify the Commission in Washington, D.C. of this date. If the
causes beyond the control of the permittee or licensee make it impossible to
comply within the allowed period, informal written request shall be made to the
Commission in Washington, D.C. no later than the 30th day for such additional
time as may be deemed necessary.
12. Section 74.1203(a) is amended to read as follows:
$ 74.1203 Interference
(a) FM translators will be authorized and permitted to continue to operate only
where they cause no interference to the direct reception by the public of the off-
the-air signals of any authorized broadcast station including Class D (secondary)
noncommercial educational FM stations. FM translators shall not cause harmful
interference to the transmissions of any other authorized radio station nor shall
an FM translator cause interference to reception by a television broadcast trans-
lator station of its input signals. PM translator stations which may cause any such
interference will not be authorized.
* * * * * * *
| 69 F.C.C. 2d