698 FederaZ Oommunications Oommission Reports
FCC 67-767
Docket No. 14419
RM-26S
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON,D.C. 20554
In the Matter of }
AMEND."'E.NT OF'J;B:E RUT.ES WITH: RESPECT TO
HOl:;RS OF OPERATION OF STANDARD BROAD 
CAST S'TATIONS
REPORT AND ORDEH
(Adopted J tme ZS, 1967)
By THEC03~1\nS8ION:COU],HSSIONER CoxCO~Cu-nRTNGIN PART AND DIS 
SENTING IN PART AND ISSUING A STATEMENT; CoMMISSIONER JOHN 
SOK ABSENT.
1. Section 73.87 (formerly sec. 3.87) of the Commission's rules al 
lows certain classes of standard broadcast stations to commence opera 
tion with their authorized daytime faci.lities as early as 4 a.lll., local
standard time, subject to smnmary termination bv the Commission.
Historically, such terminations have grown out 6f valid nighttime
interference complaints by unlimited-time stations assigned to the
same channel. Although the privileges conferred by this section (since
1941) have been mainly confuled to class III daytime-only stations au 
thorized to ope,rate onthe 41 regional channels, a substantial number of
class II and class I-B stat.ions ope.rating on frequencies othe;r than
foreign I-A clear channels have also benefited irom its provisions, as
have many tmlimited-time class III stations licensed to use different
facilities day and night.
2. Because of the proliferation of standard broadcast stations (par 
ticularly daytime only) fo11owing 1Vorld War II. serious early morn 
ing interference conflicts had, by 1960, begun to develop on many re 
gional and class I-B channels, resulting in the issuauce of increasing
nUlllbers of termination notices by the Commission and chaJlenges
thereto by stations adversely affected.' The problem was further com 
pouncled by a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) in
WEEN, Ino. v. FCC, 290 F. (2d) 743 (1961), which, for the first time,
gave standing to unlilnited-tin1e licensees to prosecute pregrant obje,c-
1 Reese Broade-a-sting Corp., 20 R.R. lH,G (1960}. See also North, Shore Bro«doustimg Co.,
FCC 63-833 (1963) ; Centra'l illassachusetts Broadcustiltg Corp., 1 RR (2d) 518 (1963).
In tbese and other cases, interference complaints by fun-time stations were sustained
where it eould be established that the c<:lmplainant was <:lperating with itslicen~dnight 
time facilities during presunrise bours.: that the station complained against was u'sing its
daytime facilities during the same period; and that interference was indicated by calcula 
tions made in accordance with the C()1J].misgion's rules. In many instance5, the intetl'.:.ring
skywave contour was found to extend :more than 1,0(1) miles in all directions. thus guaran 
teeing fayorable n,ction on virtually all proPerly do'cnmented complaints. It wm be ap 
preciated that the resulting disruption of early m(nning services, Ilartkularly thos/C of
many years standing, raised publicis.~uesof significance, far transcending in importance
the narrow question of objectionable interference and its method of ca1culation.
-8 F.C.C. 2d
Preswn'Fise Operation by Standard Broadcast Stations 699
tians aga.jJlst daytin1e-only proposals involving possible future inter 
fering operations under section 73.87.
3. In response to the growing number of Boarly 1110rning interfer 
ence conflicts, which coincided with apetitioll for rulemaking, filed
June 16, 1961, by Storer Broadcasting Co., the Commission initiated
this proceechng by notice of proposed rulem>lking, rele>lsed December
8,1961 (FCC 61-1446). One objective W>lS the up.dating of the rules
by the inclusion of the entire body oT "presunrise" ca:::e law which
had developed up to that time. ':-'Ulother element of the proposal was,
hO\vever, to require all stations operating lUlder the permissive provi 
sions of section 73.87 to notify their presunrise operating hours to
the Commission, thereby assisting unlimited-time stations in policing
their ehaDnels by identifying possible sources of interferenee. This
proposal would also have estwblished a cutoff date beyond which
newly authorized class III stations would be precluded from en·
gaging in any presnnl'ise operation with their daytime facilities.
2
.ilforeover, it was proposed in the notice and a clarifying order, adopted
Jammry 25,1962 (FCC 62-98), to terminate all permissive presunrise
operation by dass II stations.
4. On Juiy 2, 1962, the House of Representatives aclopted H.R
4749 looking toward the use of daytime facilities from 6 a.m. through
l?cal~unsetand, in additi?n, providing for cert:ain preexisting opera 
hons In the 4 to 6 a.m. penocl, the extended hours to be made avaIlable
for stations in communities unserved by unlimited-time st'3:tions. This
bill was never enacted into law. However, during its pendency we
stated that we would restudy the entire subject of presunrise opera 
tion to see if so'me B'asing of existing restrictions could be provided.
3
5. In addressing ourselves to this restudy, we were again faced with
the nighttime propagation conditions under whichpre·sunrise trans 
n1issions take pl'a.ce., and the necessity for reconciling the objectives
of this proceeding wit.h other findings concerning the efficient night 
time utilization of standard broadcast channels. A review of our earlier
findings in this 'area ,vill illun1inate our present task.
6. The use of skywave measurements for evaluating individual
interference pnJblems was abandoned 13 years ago, and the statistical
approach, represented by the use of skywave prop>lgation curves
derived from extensive measure.ment data recorded over many years,
was held to be the only satisfactory method of calculating nighttime
interference (docket No, 10492; 10 RR 1562 (1954)). This approach
,Yas further refined in our decision in the daytime skywave proceeding
(docket No. 8333; 18 RE. 1845 (1959)), and calculations by the sta·
tistical method continued to be conclusive for determining the extent of
skywave service 'and interference thereto during nighttime hours.
8t01'er Broadcasting Oompamy, 1 FCC (2cl) 1594 (1965).
~Since Jan. 25, 1962 (FCC order 62-98), class II and clas,,; III new and major change
gwnts have been routinely conditioned against presunrise operation, with thei.r daytime
facilities pending outcome of rulemaking in this proceeding. Approximately 5000utstanding
authorizations are so conditioned.
~Excluding. of course, restrictions beyond the scope of this proceeding. These include
the present 250-w ceiling on class IV nighttime- power, as well as existing prohibitions
Ilgainst presunrise operationb~·class II daytime only stations assigned to frequencies on
which foreign countries have I-A clear channel treaty priorities.
8 F.e.G. 2d
700 Federal, 001nmu,nicoiions COJnmission RepoTts
7. This approach was dispositive of out 1959 decision in these 
called "6 a.m. to 6 p.m." proceeding (docket No. 12729; 18 R.R. 1689
(1959) ). After analyzing the comprehensive engineering data sub 
mitted in that proceeding, we concluded that if all daytime-only
standard broadcast. stations were tc? operate between 6a~m.and 6 p.m.
throughout the year "there would be substantial [ovemll] losses of
existing groundwave serviees, l1ew'white areas would be created in the
vic.inity of con1munities ':' * 'I' now served by unlinlited.-time stations
ont-he same frequencies, and [existing) skywave service would be lost."
1Veha.d reached 'the sanle result the previous year in the "5a.111. to "7
p.m." proceeding concerning extended hours of operation for daytime 
only stations.' It should be noted; however, that both proceedings and
decisions presupposed operation with full daytime power 'and on all
frequeIicies other than the six local ,channels, including channels 1'8 
served for dear channel operation, rather than the nlore 1in1ited pro 
posal now befora us.
~.In our recent' report and order adoptingn1.orc i'cstrictive, A]f
aSSIgnment standards (docket No. 15084; 2 R.R. (2d) 1658 (1964))
we ealled attention to the c.ontilluing erosioll ofexisting services by
t:he Cll1uulative effect of new assignments in rtn:a.1ready overcrowded
qalld,and~eonc1ude:d that, except for class IV proposalS, no applica 
tion be accepted fOl' new "ighttime facilities (including the addition
Of nighttime facilities to an existing daytime-{'mly station) unless it
cal" amougother things,!:>e shown that no interferellce to other sta 
tionswilLoccur and that:substa.ntial ."white area" coverage will be
ad1ieved;5:
go.,~4-gainstthisba-ckground, it,is clear tl1.at>any.xesolutiol1_of the
presunrise question.illlust, of; necessity, .rBst upon:a tealistic ,ba-lance
bet\veen .the'provision for needed early morning service,particularly
in gecigraphic,:ateas where it would otherwise be lacking, and· the
interference,which such se.rvice_ frequently eauses to fuU,-tin1'e.sta 
tionsassigned to the same frequel1ey.
10. Our further notice of proposed rulemakingin this.proceeding
(FOO62~1241,released Nov. 30, 1962), which foIIowedthe adoption
of H.ll. 4749 by several months (par. 4, supra), w6u1dhave resolved
this 'Conflict.in: the, following manner: Sign-on.tilnes for dass II day 
time-onlv stations.riot assigned to foreign I-A clear channels would
continue" to IJe .keyed to 10caIsunrise at the dominant station(s) if
located to the east Of the class II station; class III daytime-only Ii 
cBllsees in comu1.unities or urbanized areas 'without local unlimited 
tin1.e stations would, upon proper a]?plicatioll; be licensed to Sig11 on
at 6 a.m.' with a power of 500 w (nondirectional); other class III
daytime-only licensees would also be eligible to apply, but WCfl.lld face
Presunrise Operation by Sta:ndard Broadoast Stations 701
a rebuttable presumption that the desired presunrise service was llll 
warranted; class III presunrise proposals in conflict with the stand 
ards and priorities of the North Amerioan Regional Broadcasting
Agreement (NARK"..) or the United States/Mexican bilateral agree 
1118nt could be authorized only with the coneurrence of the foreign
governn1ent involved; and interfering signals would, for domestic
purposes, be c1etern1ined by reference to a set of diurnal curves so
constructed as to -permit evaluation of skywave signal intensity 'at
15-minute increments throughout the period of transition (from 2
hours before sunrise). The further notice would not have permitted
any presunrise use of daytime facilities by unlimited-time stations.
11. Appendix A hereto contains an aualysis of the comments filed
in the proceeding, chiefly those filed in response to the further notice,
which were the hulk of the material. vVenote in passing that the mani 
fest need for early 1110rning service in connection with weather emer 
gencies has already been ll1et, in part, hy our adoption of section 73.98
of the rules (docket No. 14703; 1 R.R. (2d) 1559 (1963)). In essence,
this rule perrnits daytinle-only stations to transmit (on a sustaining
basis) nighttinle traffic dealing with emergency weather conditions]
inducling the announcement of school closings 'and changes in school
bus schedules resultlllg therefrom. 'This authority is without regard
to interference caused to other stations, hut is lilnitecl to emergency
situations in which unlilnited-time service in the area is either unavail 
able or inadequate.
12. After issuanc-e of the further notice and evaluation of responsive
camnle-nts, it becan1e clear that even 1vith the power limitation pro 
posed therein, a substantial percentage (perhaps a lnajority) of all
potential dass III presunrise proposals would result in cochanne-l
nighttinle intel'fe-rence· (if judged by existing treaty stfmdards) to
unlimited-time foreign stations, and that this probleln woulcllargely
consist of United States-Canadian conflicts where station sites and
transmission paths lie in the northern latitudes most affected by sea 
sonal fluctuations in daylight hours. It followed, therefore, that any
l1leaningful relaxation in presunrise restrictions-a, policy desired
both by Congress and this agency-depended upon reaching agree 
ment with Canucla on 1110difications of existing nighttulle protection
st.a.ndards. Accordingly, infor111a1 discussions were held with repTe 
sentatives or the Canadian Departlne.nt or Transport and Board of
Broadca.st Governors to explore the possibility of a bilateral a.gree 
ment on this subject pursuant to section A, subse.ction6, of annex 2
ofNARBA.
lB. On the hasis of these discussions, tentative agreement was
reached in the form of a nleu1.orandmn ,of understanding, signed in
Ottawa on October 28, 1965.
7
The agreement was formalized, ,vith
.. In the course of these cUscussions, Canadian offiCials expressed an interest in obtaining 
pl"csunrise,operating authority for two daytime-only stations:, CJSP, Leamington, Ontario
(710 l;:cjs), andCHI~(formerly CHFI), Toronto, Ontario (1'940 kc/s): It w.as determined
that CJ'SF COUld, within the framework of the agreement, begm operatlon WIth a power of
500 w at local ,sunrise, New York -City (the location of cochannel claS's I-B station WOR).
HoweYer, in the case of CHIN, any presunrise operation would involve- some degree of
interference to cochannel class I-B station KXmL, Waterloo, Iowa. Because of the impor 
tance of the CHIN proposal to the successful outcome of the negotiations, the licensee-of
KXEL was approached to obtain its consent to the interfering operation, CHIN to sign on
at 6 a.m. 'l'oronto time with a power of 500 w into its authorized directional antenna sys"
8 F.e.C. 2d
702 Fede1°al 007n'lnUnloations OOJJun-ission Repm>ts
certain revisions,~YaneXcl~aI1geof notes on J lli1e 12, 1967. Thehealt
of the~greementlsthe- recIprocal use of alle~wfamily of curves for
detennllullg acceptahle UnIted States":"Canadla.ll tpansborcler radia 
tion (fig. 12), with provision for downwaTCl power adjustments where
11.ecessary to reduce radiation to specified Jilnits. As a result, opera, 
tlOll by class II and class 11'1 stations during the transitional hours
behveen6 a.lll; and local sunrise will generally he possible, except
that: Class II operations "vill continue to be keyed to sunrise tinles
ret clress I-B slretian locations to the east (assuming full O.5-mv/m
50-percent skywave protection to all I-B "ssigmnents to the west)
and class II daytill'le-only operations on, foreign I-A clear channels
wilt continue to be prohibited during the above transitional hours.
Provision will be madefOl~mutual United St"tes-Can"di"n notifica 
tion of "II presunrise proposals. The protedion requirements of the
NARBA and the Uniteel States/Mexican bilatBra! agreement will be
otherwise obse.rved.
14. The adVfrlltages accruing to U.S. dass III licensees f1'0111 this
agreenlcnt (without regard to clO'mestic,~lexica.n,or Cuban inter 
ference problems) are illustr"ted by the foIlowing study of four
regional channels:
610 kels.-There are 22 stations assigned to this channel in the United
States; Of these, all bnt t\VQ 'c-an qualify f01' 5DO-w presullrise operation,
in conjunction \yUh theIr authOrized daJ'i:ime ante-nna s.ystems.
s
These
t.wo can be authorized all the same basis but \vUh poyver reduced to levels
between 180 and 320 ,Yo
920kC/8.-~~hereare 45 stations assigned to this 'Channel in the United
States, 42 of \vhicb can qualify" f'or'500-w pre-sunrise O'peratioll in conjunc 
tion with their daytime antenna system.s. '1'l1e remaining three can be an 
thorizedou the same basis but \ltith pOlve1' reduced to- levels between
280 and 300 w.
1250 kc/s.----'There are 56statiol1s assigned to thi,s channel in the United
States, 54 of which can qualify for 500-w presunrise operation in conjunc 
tion with their daytime anteuna systems. The remaining two can be an 
thorized on the same -basis but ,-vith power reduced to level-s, betlveen 300
and 400 w.
1600kC/8.~Thereare 73 stations assigned to this channel in the United
States, 68 of which can qualify for 500-w presunrise operation in conjunc 
tion \vith their daytime antenna systems, The remaining five can be au 
thorized on the same basis but with power reduced to levels beboveen 150
and SOO w_
Parallel advantages will accrue to classIIstations ill the United States
vis-a-vis Ul1lill1ited-time dass IIassignmel1ts in Canada, in that peT 
Inissible radiation n'lay be determined under the new, lU01'B liberal
eurves. Additionally, interference to Canadian I-B clear channel sta 
tions (although conventionally determined) may be eliminateel by
reductions in power to noninterfering levels, thereby providing a modi 
cum of service in situations heretofore beyond reach.
tem and to continue with that mode until local sundse. KXEL acceded to this.proposal on
condition that no other exception to the presunrise solution contained in thIS document
will be authoril;ed ora~Teedto by the Co=ission. We feel this condition to be reasonable,
and in signifying ourc~ncurrencewe express, our appreciation for the role plared by KXEL
in the successful outcome of these negotiations. 'l'he agreement doesno~,otcours~,con 
template negotiation of indiyidual exceptions to its terms. Therefore, statiOn CHIN IS pro 
vided for as a "s'pecial case" within the framework of tIle agreement.
S Use of· the antenna system already authorized, whether directional or nondirectionp.I,
will obviate the necessity for our specifying a different antenna~ystemfor the preSUllTI?€
mode, t.hereby eliminating the need for costly and time-consuillmg measurement data, III
connectIon with such proposals.
8 F.C.C. 2d
S F.C.C. 2d
Pres",nrise Operation by Standard B'toadcast Stations 703
15. The principles agreed to with Canada (pars. 13 and 14, supra)
are reflectedm the rules adopted her-ein except that, for domestic pur 
poses, cochannel interference among lJ.S. class II and class III sta 
tions will not 'be ta.ken into account. Class II stations 'will continne to
take advantage (after 6 a.m.) of the tin1.e differentials bet,Ycen local
sunrise and sunrise at the c10111inant st.ation (s) to the east-subject to
providing conventional nighttime protection to all westerly cochannel
class I assignnlcnts.
16. 'With the exception of class II stations assigned to u.8. class I-A
clear channels, an across-the-board power ceiling of 500 w (into the
daytime antenna system) has been imposed. 'While this limitation is
not a specific requirement of the agreement with Canada, it is dictated
by the overall inteTference considerations discussed elsewhere in this
docunlent.-'.~lthoughsonle existing earlY-luoTning interference prob 
18111S 'will be moderated as a reSli1t of the power ceiling, we recognize
that new zones of interference ""lill also be. cteated, even with the 500-w
limitation. Our st.udy of the matter suggests,however, tha,t those areas
of the country in ,vhieh the greatest destruction of existing services
will occur are, in general, reached by alternate services, including the
signals of clear ehannel stat.ions and, to a lesser degree, by FJj:[ broad 
cast services.
17. Our decision not to apply, for the tim.ebeing, the 500-w power
ceiling to class II stations operating on U.S.I-j,~clear channels stems
from considerations set forth in appendix A, chiefly the fact that the
record in this proceeding is inconclusive as to the need for this power
ceiling. In thiseonneetion, thesituatiol1 on these channels is different
from that another frequeneies, in that there are fewer stations to
cause interference, ·fe,ver possibilities of adcHtional. assignments, 'Rncl
fewer foreign protection prohlmns.
9
By contrast, because of the geo 
graphic distribution of class I-B cleaT channel stations throughout the
North American region and other considerations discussed elsewhere
in this document, the 500-w 'power ceiling is clearly indicated with
respect to class II stations assIgned to class 1-B clear channels. There 
fore, the further rulemaking being initiated in conjunction with our
{inal decision in this proceeding deals only with the limited question
of power levels for class II stations operating under pre-sunrise serv 
ice authorizations on L.S. classI--'.~clear channels.
18. The rules adopted herein make no provision for operation by the
34 U.S. class I-B clear channel stations during presunrise hours with
their authorized daytime facilities. Such operation is proscribed by
the agreenlent with Canada.1Ve do not know precisely how 'many
class I-B stations now operate in this fashion, -but the number is be 
lieveclto be substantial. In addition to achieving better close-in cover 
age in specific cases, this practice has to some exte,nt been undertaken
in "self-defense." against interfering class II signals, as well as to
avoid the otherwise required maintenance of a more complicated di 
rectional antenna patternduting~the early morning hours. In any
eVEmt, the described operations a.re peru1issive and l11ay be ternlinated
9.D~rkpath'pro'tection problems rule.out any consideration being given to the possibility
of ,presunrise operation by class IIdaytiIil.e,:only stations located east of the dominant D.'S.
I-A cocllUnnel assignment. ' ,
704 j-?ederal C01nm/unications COll11nission Reports
\vithout right to hearing. Music Broadcasting Oompany v. POO, 217 F.
2el 339 (1954). In our view, the requirement that class I-B stations
operate \vith their licensed patterns during aU nighttime (including'
presunrise) hours, on the 'basis of unquaJified protection to theG'
G.5-mv/m. 50-percent Sk'jl\VaVe contours, will assure the integrity of
the \vide-uTea :nightti111e coverage whichthe~,eelear channel statiollS
are intended to provide. StoTer BToadcastin,g (}01npany, supTa.
10
:1;[01'8 
over, any residual sky\yft've interfere,nce (unrecognizeclul1c1er our teeh 
nical sta,ndarcls) resulting from the practice at ll1any class II statim:!.s
of signing on at sunrise at the d01ninant station to the east\vilJ~as a
practicnl matter, be largely eliminated by our decision to apply [111
across-the.-bonrd 500-,v povi-er limit to [1,11 class II presunrise openltions
(other than those assigned to U.S. I-A clear channels, as noted in
par. 17
j
EOu_pl'a).
19. As pl'e:yjously mentioned, the further notice in this proceeding
proposed to limit dass III eligibility to daytime-only stations, giving
preferential consideration to such stations in markets \vithout local
unlimited-t.ime standard broa,ckast service. Our revie'\v of this matter
in lig'ht of the written COll1ments lends to the conclusion that these
lim_iiing aspe'cts of -the proposal are 11eitIler administratively ,sound nor
in the public interest. They involve too manyanOInalies to 1)8 accept 
able a.s a ba,sis for general presunrise allocation policy. For exan1ple,
many communities hD..V8 two -daytirne-only outlets but no ulllimited 
tinle station, raising the qnestion OT whether both should be -pennittec1
to operate presunrise and, if not, "\vhich one should be,. Also, ;,vhere an
unlimited-time. station does exist (notably cIa,58 IV service with severe 
ly restricted nighttime covorage), it cnn frequently be demonstrated
that substantial areas and populations have C0111e to rely on the pre 
sunrise progran1ing' of class III daytime-only stations a,ssigned to the
same comlllunity. N\0'11ttimc Eerviee from nearby c0l11111.unities, some 
times from within the sa111S 111etrorolitfil1 [lrea, is another varin.,ble
which could not properJy be~-v::'sessecloutside the hearing process. For
the reasons rnore fully developed in paragraph 30 of Rppenclix A, the
hnrde!1 of resolving" these \TflTi8"bles on fl., case-by-case basiS]8 one which
should not be jll1posecl on this ageneyor on the indnstry. In addition,
decisions arrived at 011 the basis of "situations in being" would be un 
settled bv the addition or deletion ,of nnlinlitecl-timc stations. or by
8.;rbitntr}~ehanges in their 'opeTating schedules. 1\{.oreover, to dl2pri"\;e
lUllim_lted-time stations of the preslUlTise operating bellefits enjoyed by
daytime-only stations, as contenplatecl by the further notice, would
tellcl to pellr..liz0 those licensees who, in good faith
l
have expended
considerable snrns of money to clirectionalize for nig>httime opeTa-tion
and \'I"ho. as unJirnited-trnlc licensees, [l,l'G compel1ed by our rules
to render'service through 10 p:ln. even in 111arkets where mnch of the.
nighttinle, audience ha.s switched to' television. ,",Ve have, thereforcj
abandoned these aspects of 'the further notice and are ll1akin,g eqnalpro 
vision for all class III and many class II stations to lUG the'ir cbytinle
'l' In this admittedlv extrpme case, tlle Commission found that two coehannel I-B clear
channel stations (WTOP, Washington, D.C., and K:STP, 'St. Paul, Minn.), operating pre 
Wllrise with their davtiroe facilities. totally destroyed each other's skywave sen.-ice as well
ns 90 percent of their respective primary (groundwave) services during the early morning 
hours.
S F.C.C. 2d
PreS'Vl'/fise Opcmtion by Standard Bmadcast Stations 705
racilities within the limits or the 500-w/6 a.m. operating rormula,
thereby giving full-tinle stations an optional 111.ode 01 presunrise
operation.
20. 'Ve wish to call attention to certain other administrative and
legal problems which must be dealt with in putting the new rules
into effect. As outlined in the appendices, the new scheme or presunrise
regulation calls for the sub';lission of informal (letter) applic;ctions,
thus ehmlnatlng the permISSIve aspect of the pre.sent rule. V\Te e,stinlute
that luore than 2,000 class II and class III licensees and permittees,
both daytime only and unlimited time (including the 500 stations with
outstanding conditions against presunrise operation), will be eligible
and will apply for Presunrise Service Authority (PSA). In order
to aJlo1,V sufficient lee\vay for the handling of these requests in time to
be of benefit during the cOIning fall and winter seasons, it is imperative
that the new rules be made effective at the earliest possible moment. On
the other hand, we are reluctant to disturb existIng operations until
they can be reestablished on the new footing. Accordingly, notwith 
standing the effective date specified below, it is our intention to
maintain the status quO' with respect to existing permissive operations
through October 28, 196'7, by which date all timely filed requests will
hopefully have been disposed of. Prospective applieants are, however,
cautioned that we can offer no 'assurance tha.t PSA requests sublnittcd
after A_ugust 31, 1967, will be reached and considered on their ll1erits
prior to :the October 28 deadline on existing operat-ions.
n
21. In addition, nUTllerous presunrise interference disputes are cur 
rently pending and unresolved, including 30 complaints filed under
the existing rule (sec. 73.87) and 25 petitions to deny filed against
pending renewal applicr'ttions. under the TVEEN' doctrine, supra. "Ve
contemplate that most if not all of these can eventually be dismissed
as moot,12 together with applications on file (but unaccepted) by radio
stations \VLAIV, 'VIPS, and 'VEAVV for specified hours of operation,
8ubulitted in response to our Th-Iarch 5, 1964, interilll public notiee,
entitled "Adjustment of Presunrise Operating Disputes" (FCC 64 
2,01), and 12 infornlal requests fOT deletion of outstanding conditions
ap'a,inst presunriseoperation.
<::>22. As the record in this proceeding abundantly delHonstrates,
neither this nor any 'other resolution of the presunrise problenl can
hope ,to satisfy the essentially irreconcila:ble objectives or the many
respondents both within 'and outside the brmtdcast industry..J:~smore
fully developed in appendix A, 'an ar,g;ument may be made that section
816 of the C0111ffiunications Act confers hearing rights on unlin1itec1 
time J.icensees adversely affected by the issuance of PSA's growing out
of this proceeding:. 'Ve do not so construe the statute and, therefore, are
not postponing the effectiveness of the new presunrise arrangeulents.
The~500-w power ceiling will n1ilitwt,e against significant increases
U Inasmuch as separate ruleIDrrking is being initiated with respect to the need for a
500-w power ceiling for class II operations on U.S. 1-.8. cluwnels, class II stations in this
crtte~'orvshould not request prcsunrise service authorizations at this time, and may con 
tinuo existing modes of operation nntil further notice. In line with the new Canadian
ngl'eement, however, such stations may not, after Oct. 28, 1967, sign on earlier than 6 a.m.
or f11mrise at the dominant station. v:hiehever is later.
l~The new 500-w power limit alone will moot out the technical considerations on which
mtwy of these complaints and petitions are- based.
8 F.e.C. 2d
706' <Federal:' Co mmu,11irjeit'tOriB ,001n17~if5sio1~Itepcytis
iil'existing.~l~te'rferenc,e.'Iii situa:tions' where'this does llot'prove to· be
the'case, we urge licensees: to:refrain:frOl11'Iitigation"which, would only
further~~lpecl~our effsrtstQ realize afi~lalsolutionandwhich,jn any
event,,callyi~ld:no-a.dv'anrtag:~bey?n~thetcrlllS or.Iicenses-llow in fOTce.
JTina..llY,weelnpl1asize:our c,onvicJ',ion thatthe:ad:hocappro:achtopre~
S~UlriS~iegulation, .vvith. itscoullitle~'an'oma:1ies a:rising :'f1'0111 00111 
ll1issi_oll,~Ction,orfa~U:re,toact on,sT>Bcific~cbnlplaints01 ;interference,
mUSItbeab~ndOliedm favor of amore-orderly system of regulation
based on. defhlitive ruleswhich can be applied 'without regard to the
hearulgpro-qe:ss.. ,,·, '. .' " ' , : ;,.1""" '
~3,A uthorityfor the adoption of this report and order is contained
insections4o{i), 303{c),303(e), 303{r),and 307(b) oHhe COITnDunic
cations Act of 19340, as ailleJided. . . ,i
24:' ltisordered/I'hat, fo'rthe teasql1s'stat,edh~rcin,and:inappchdix
A hereto, 'theConin\issiOlt~stlll~s',Are'ainonded,effe-ctive':L:-\.ugust:,.15,
1967. " ' ,;
,25. It is" further ordered,' That, for' the reasons set forth inpRra,"
graphs 20 and 21 of appendix Aheretb, the petition forfnrther rule
c
making, filed April 19, 1967, by the National Association of FM Broad"
cRsters, Is denied.,"",'
26. It is fU!l'thel' O1'deTed, That class II stations assigned to U.S.·I-A
cle,ar c,hann'elS..111ay 'continueexistiligmod~s'Ofoperation~without
regard to the'application procedures ,set forth in the rules, as herein
amendeel, untilfurtherliotic~from the CommissiOli: ,Prol'oided, That
s1Ich stations'lna.ynot~after,October 28, 1967, sign' on .ea-rlier than
6a.Jn~,local standard time,ol~sunrise at the clOlllinant station, which-
e'''/er is]ateI'. "
27. It is fU!i'tlw?' o1'dered, That proceedings in docket No. 14419 Ai'e
hmoeby terminated. .
FEDERAL COM¥U:tHOATICl-NS"CilltIThUSSION,
BEN ,F. WAPLE, SelYretaTy.
APPENDIX A
ANALYSIS OFCO~LMEKTSIN THE PROCEEDING
1. The further, Iiotic'e produ-ced ::tvast volume of material,the oi'iginalof the
docket in the pro,cee-ding (which contains informally submitted. material as \-vell
liJS' formal filings) Donsisting,'of 60 Yolumes.
1
J'd'ueh of th-e: information material
consisted of letters fromlis~enel's,schoolofficials, local governmental and civic
leaders, alid others, usually supporting the continued presunrise ope11atibn of a
particular station (8,800 letters were filed on be-hali of one station alone).- The
greatmajOl'ity of these expressions appear 'to have been solidted by the stationS
they support; and for the most. part it appears.that the writers were not com 
plete,ly informed as to the nature of the problem (for example, the fact that the
service they favor causes interference to other stations) and in sOr'ne cases we,re
actually misinfmmed as to the effect of the Commission's proposal on the par 
ticular station; Th-erefore, despite i,ts obvious sincerity, much of this material is
of relatively little V1alue. However, some ·0;£ it-particularly letters from school
offidals concerning need for:school-clo'sing and 's'ChooHms information-is 'Of
substance; as discussed below.
i Relativelvfew COmD.1Cnts were filed in response to the 1961 notice, since the clate for
comments was postponed indefinitely' before it arrived: The majority were ,by class II and
class III daytimers, opposing the .proposal as tending to restrict or eliminate their. pre 
sunrise privileges. A. few dass In 'stations supported the proposal, one going further and
urging that all permissive presllnrise operation, by any class of station, should be abolighed.
8 F.e.e. 2d
Pl'es,;"rise Operation by Sta;ndard Bmadcc1st Stations
707
2. Formal comments were filed Oll behalf· of close to 300 stations, the great
majority oftheni daytime--on!y Or full-time class IIIstatlous Oll the regional
channels. Two radio networks-American Broadcasting Co., Inc. (ABC), and
Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.(OBS)~alsofiled, on behalf of their owned
AM statiOllS. Others filing 10rmal 'Comments .vere Association Oll· Bl"oadcal'Oting
Stundards, Inc. CABS, a group of fli.ll-time stations, mostly class III) ; Daytime
Broad~astersAssociation (DBA, an association of class II and class III daytime 
only stations) ; Katioual :Assodation of FM Broadcasters (NAFMB); As,socia 
ti~Jllof Maximum. Seorvice Telecasters, .Inc. (.Th1ST/ filing only legal comments on
the question of the appHcability oLsec. 316) ; theAFCCE; A. Earl Cullum, Jr., &
Associates; and Congressman Thom1as L. Ashley' ()f Ohio, urging that full-time
stations be protected against undue interference (with particular reference to
station "WSPD, Toledo). Reply comments were filed by AI!S, DBA, Cullum, a
number of stations (some of which had -filed initial comments), and Clear
Channel Broadcasting SerVice (GCBS, a group of clu's'S' I-A statiolls). Inaddi~
Han to Congressman Ashley's formal comments, a nnrobe-ro! Senators and
Congressmen file-dle-tters with respect to particular stations or more general
situations,:usually supporting -the cause of presunri-se 'O'Pe-ration bydaytime-only
stations. There \vere ;also informal expressions of,views to the sallle effect by
State legislative bodJes and leading State .agricnltural officials. While a number
of the commenting partiesl supported our proposal,tl:legreat majority opposed it,
far various reasons, as indicated below.
3. Inyle"v of the length of the record,. it is impo'ssible to set forth all{l'f the
yariOllS argunlents, counterproposals, and f1act1lll.l showmgs suhlllitted. All of the
material filed has, however, been cn;refully considered, whether specifically
referred to or not.
C01>:C\iEKTSCONCERJ.\fING THE REGIONAL CILANNELS
4:' The great bulli: (If comments filedcbnc'erned dass III st'utions ,assigned to
the 41 regional~hannels.Thesame .general c;Qnsiderations apply to the class II
stations (other than th,ose oIl: foreign I-A channel'S, ,which are beyond the \Scope
of this proceeding), but the,se ar:emuch lessnUllle-rous and s;peci'al considerations
eoncerning" the different types at situations involved must be taken into, aC0o'unt,
'I'heclassU 'situations are dealt with later herein.!!
5..B'esides"the AESand DBA filings, f.O'rrnal or informal'corom,enbs were filed
on behalf' 0'£ ,some 260 class III stations,.143daytime~onlystations (daytimers)
and 122 unlimited-tiJ;l1e stations (fnlltiroers). Q'f,the daytimers, 79 would be
eligible for presunri'se operation :under the further :ilOtic-8, with 50o--w power
and from 6 a:m. oll,"because there 1s D9 fUlltimer in their community orurban~
ized area.
3
The remaining 64 would not be eligible, in the absence of ,exceptional
circumstances, because there is afulltimer.,in their. oommunity'or urb-anized
area. SDme uaytimers (usuany, those which would ,be eligible and ,operate day 
time,vitti 50,l)w so they;would riot £ace a cutback in power) favored our propDsal
as the most .ftppropri'i:!-te TIleaus Diresolving the pre-sunrise problem. A few others
would favor it if it were' modified to acc(}lill11)Odatetheir.particular situations, such
as. operation. with greater' power 01' from .4 ',a.m.itlstead',(l-f6~.m.,.01' making
stations eligible even though there is ,a full-time stfrtion tn the'same urbanized
area burt not in Ute same cOmrounity,:or Whei',e the,tull-time .'staJionin town is a
class IV with a highly limited ,presunrise se-rvice are-a. But a sUbS'talltilli 'llluj,ority
of th'e .<?Oll1.menting daytimersan~DBA oppo.sed it, because it would terminate
~Of~Dpro:>:imatel~T4,257 authorize'a A,l\1 'station.s (licensees and permittees) as of Mal 24,
1967, there were 2,182 daytimcrs, or more thap..50.perc~nt.Of tp.ese, 1,214 are on reglOnal
clmnr.els anc1926 are class II daytime-only 0-1' InllIted-tJ.me stanons on class'Iclca1· cban 
nels.' Of tbe latter, 509 are on Canadian, Mexicap, ·01' Bahamian I-Ac~a.nnels,a;nd; as s:,ch
are beyond tbe, scope of tbi-s proceecling, leavmg. 417,. class II daytime' or ·}jUlIted-time
stations subject to ·consideration berein... . .. .
3 According to' ABS, as of early 19&3, '722 out o.f~,180'regl.onal daytlmers. would be
eligible, or 6.1 Pfrc''int.Ou~study inqicates that thIS 1Sapr.:ro-Xlmat~lyeorre~t,.and that
about tbesame ratIO has obtained WIth respect to' g"l.'ants. SlUCe..Th~sanaly'sls, howeyer,
ane! the figures in the text do not take foreign-interfel>flllce. cons.ideraU?llS into accou.nt.
Stations included here as daytimers aretbo-se so operahng at the b:!?e tbey filed (JliIay
and .Tune '1963). A few already had authorizations for full-time operahon, and at 'presept
about eight of the commenVng. stations then operating. B;-sda~tl.m.e:seither operD;te nn_
limited time or ha'Ve authonzatlOns to do- so. In deternnll1llg ehgJ.bIhty uo(ler tne further
notice proposal, the presence or absence of full-time facilities intbecomu:uDit~T:orurban 
izel1 urea 'was determined as of mid-April 1967. Ithas not changed substantIally Slllce..
8 F.C.C. 2d
708 Federal 0011vmunications Oommi3Sion Reports
roany presunrise operatil)1l's a-nd reduce a great majority of the ,rest either in
time or power (the great majority of olass III d'aytimers ,are authDrizedday~
time power of l)];01'e than 500 w).
6. In ,suppo'rt -of day,timer·,p-r€sun'l'ise ,operation- generally-and in -particular
in oppos,ition to our proposwl insofara<s it would terminate some such operations
and restrict many other;s -in time _and power.......-the 'Oommenting daytim'ers_,made
three main line-sof argument:
(a) Theiinportan,ce of their presunrise servke,1J.qth "local" sern'ce (sucl}
as news of school closings land school-bus schedules) 'and "unique" s.ervice
where the station~sin a :city with fuUtimers.
(b) The economic impDrtance to the station of :pr'esnnrise hours, and
thes~riou\Seeonomlcimpactof cn'rtaHment ,of such operwtion.
(0) The a-bsenee of any real ,interferenceimp.aotfrom such operation
(in spite of what 'anI' technical standards might indicate) on the service of
fulltimers.
Numerous daytimers made factual 'sh'Owings in 'Support of the value of the
pree;,unrise service, often inc}ud:ing letters.from Hsteners, school, -civic and agri 
cultural,officials, and advertisers. In,some cases, such as letters from school
officials concerning the value ,of early morning ;school-dosing and school-bus can 
cellation auu'OUllcemeruts ,during wintertime bad weather, these came from a
cons'idemole distance (see, fm' example, 00mmeuts· filed (In ,behalf of stati{)n
KXXX, Golby, Kans.). This would appear to iIidicate that 'tbistype o-f service
i'8 rendered, at leasrt in some cases, out <to {l.di.gtallce greater than simple cal 
culationof the daytimer's nighttime ,preS'wwise interference limit would i11 
dkate. Some factual data was advanced in /Support of theeconomi,c point men 
tioned; in reply comments some daytimers pointed out that, although numerous
fuUtimers complained of the 'effects of interference from preosunrise -operations,
rione really complained ,of economic impact therefr,om. As to the third point,
the argument was mostlyasserti-oIi only.
7. Ofth~full-time cla,s8 III stations commenting, a few did not 'Oppose the
further notice, at least if some modifieatioThS 'are made (such as ,limiting day 
time:rs· to 250 W, like class IV -stations, .inste.ad '0'£ 5,0(1), and full "316- hearing
rights" are given affected fulltimers. The great majorilty, more than 100, opposed
th'e:pro:po~al,as did ABS. In general, there were two main opposing Hues of
argument. (sometimes combined) : (1) the harmful effect of interference from
daytimer 'Pl"esunrise operation on fulNimer service, with area and population
losses to full-time stations in most cases (including badly needed rural co,verage)
significa:ntly p·eater tl;lan the gains to the, duytimers and their area's; mId (2)
the undesiraNe effects of pro,hibiting fulltim81' nseof daytime facilities (usually
grl?;Hter than. nighttime) befbl'e loeal sun·ris.e.
4
Some -o·f those making the first
line of argumenturg~dthat-with the; high limits they, generally have during
t~es~hours-daytime-rs are limited in.oov<:rage to their comrnunitiesand imme 
diately ,surra.ullding areas, ,so that they cannot effectively meet th'e needs for their
seTvice which are',claim€d,lsuch .as :S:cl;LOQl announcements. ,It wasal':~;Qurged that
these needs are mthermi~imalanyhow-news isnews even if presented af.ter sun 
rise rather than before, and bad weather 'school announcement,s can be taken
care of by lihemUzing the emergency operation rules (they have !Since been
libe"raHzed to cover SUtch situations, thougl:!- not where :full-time emergency serv 
ice.is avaHable ,to the area,~nvolved.and 'only on a noncommer.cial basis; see
s'ec. 73.98 of the rules). ConverselY,several fulltimers '(WREC, l\fernphis, for
example) stressed the value of their own wide coverage, ,including rural :3.'reas:
5
~Of the 858 fl111timers on regional channels, only 90 operate with the ,same facilities day
and night. DBA and some dayfimcll3 suppOl-ted the cause of fulltimcl' presunrise use of day 
time facilities, apparently. en the theory that t\J.eprecll1sio~of such use is the. main gr0'!1nd
for full-time opposition to the general licensmg of daytImers for presuI!rlse- operatlOu.
However, RS indicated herein, this is not the only basis of fulltimer opposition to daytimer
presunrise operation generally, or to' the further notiCe.
s,WREC's showing (base-d onOTIt rules and the propoRed diurnal curves) was that at
6 a,m. in December (e.s.t.). four eligible daytimers operating would limit it to its 4,31 
mv1m contour instead of its 2.0-mv1m normal nighttime contour, representing a loss of
(J. 310 square miles and 259'.574 persons; of these, 5.460 squat·e miles and 188,881 persons
receive no othcr primary service at that time. This was the only showing' giving specific
details as to "white area" losses. Pre-sunrise operation by certain eligible- daytimers would
serve-some-of the- "white area," but only after 6- a.m., c.s.t.
8 F.G.G. 2d
Preswnrise Operation by Standard B"oadcast Stations 709
8. As to the second line of a'rgument, several fulltimers urged that they are
better off coverage-wise using daytime facilities presunrise even with a consider 
ably higherinter~erencelimit resulting from cochannel presunrise operation
(particularly faT nondirectional coverage of therir partie-ulaJ:" communities);
some asserted that they Deed these greater facilitieS' for wid€"-area presunrise
coverage. It was urged by -several that presunrise interference is probably not
as serious •a problem as engineering standards\vould indicate, for one reason
because (jjt is,asserted) listeners w:i.ll ,tOlerate ,a higher interference level \\'here
lie,Vs and informational material is concerned than for, s!ay, symphonic music.
Itwas also urged that it isunJair to accommodate daytimerpresunrise operation
atthe expense of fulltimers in this way.
9. A number of fuHtimers favored retention of the trad,itional se-ctian 73.87
status quO' (at least p€ncling a complete and thorough study of propagation
conditions). It was urged that this has- worked well and gives fulltimers a
desirab'le and practical option-of using their greater daytime facilities presun 
rise or, if interference conditions on their channels: become really serious, revert 
ing to nighttime facilities andJiling 73.87 complaints tOI "clean up" their channels.
10. Counterp1'oposuls und,AUe-rn.utives.-:-Bome of the oppo'sing parties pre 
sented no,alternative.or counterpropo-sals. Numerous stations, both daytime and
full time, supported the 73.87'.stfttus quo, the daytimers apparently relying'
either on the absence of complaint against their operations up to no,,,, 01' on
legal theorie-sas to their rights in.theAaee of complqi:q;,t"andthe fulltimers urg 
ing the mel'it of the option mentioned above. A ,vide, range of other counter 
proposals was advanced. Some fuUtimers urged that 73.87 be abolished and all
pre-sunrise o-peration( by daytimers -or fulltirners with day facilities) be pro 
hibited except in strict accordance with engineering standards. At the other ex 
treme, some daytimers advocated a blanket "6 to 6" rule (daytimers operating
,vith full day facilities) or immedi::,tte licensing of all daytimer presunrise
operations. Other counterproposals included: Maintaining permissivcoperation
under 73.87 (for both dayl.imers and fulltimers with dayfacilities
l
) until
cODlplaint, and then givi.ng the station complained against a hearing, continUing
the service in the meantime; continuing such permissh'e operation and using· our
proposal as a sort of "backstop"·· for daytimers -in fl;heevent of complaint ;
using the proposal as a minimum and giving case-bY-case consideration to
further p-re-sUlllise operation by daytimers and fulltimern; pe-rmitting da,:V 
thnersnot normally eligible under the pi'op-osal to continue-ope-ration until
complaint, and then to file applications for presunrise authority, with' the
affected 'station to show \-vhy the application should not be granteel (it was
urged that thus.only :teally S'erions interference will be complainedo-f) ; "grand 
fathering" all daytimer presunrise operations, even in the face of complaint,
if they have existed withoutcomplaint fora period ·such as 3- to 5 years; permit
no daytimer.presull'I'Lse:operation ,which causeS' interference uulessit is shown
that. the" interference-involved -could· not be removed bydirectionalizing the
operation; Hmitsuch operation to 250 wunless 500 w is shown to cause no inter 
ference:; permit fulltime-r, use of d'ay facilitiesatleast·'U:iltil complaint, Or in
"white areas" or on a ,shOWing that it is waTranted; permit fulltimers to operate
wJth 500 ,v nolidire-ctionally; and inipose any cutback in daytimer power' on a
proportionulbas-is (i.e:, whyshould,a'l-kw [tnda5~kwstation both be cutback
to:5GO, w?). ABS and ot'her fuUtimers urged the necessity of a case-by-case
approach ,rather than a general 'rdle,: -taking into' account •possible daytime-r' di 
reetionalizution or lesser po,wer, service from nearby 'stations where there is
no ftlll-timestation oln thc-'comm\lnity itself, and other circumstances of each
case. A number of patties urgedeontinllance of,73.87 but more flexible application
aiit, ·to permit cOI)jtiuuance of the pres:unri,se operatio:p. after complaint with
lesser power (orless time) than that previously used. This procedure we have
since adopted for resolving presunrise'colltroversdes,. and it has. been successful
in a number of casesl·; but many pendling C'omplaint situations do not appear to
lend themselves to resolntion on tills basis alone.
11. Some fulltimers-thongh fL smaller llLiril'ber than daytimers-made factual
showings asto~hevalue of their presunrise service. The relativc1y few letters
submitted usually, though not always, related to continued use ofdaJrtime facili-
8 F.e.C. 2d
106-501--67----2
710
Federal C01mn1J.mications 0017wnission Reports
ties for \vide-area pre-sunrise coverage, rather than interference problems. I\Iany
parties made engineering showings concerning interference.
6
12. The grcat majority of commenting daytimers appear to be presently operat 
ing presnnrise (luring part of the year, and many fuHtimers use daytime facilities
during these hours. A staff stndy of three region-al channels in mid-l'8B2 revealed
that vi.l'tnally all daytimers operate presunrise during Val't of the year, and many.
likely a majority, of fulltimers make such use of their daytime facilities. In spite
of the sharply increased number of complaints in recent ;years, there probably
still is some preSulll'ise operation (in both senses) on every regional channel, and
no complaints bave been filed \vith respect to 16 of t!le channels. Thus, while much
of the fulltimer argument regarding interference is put in terms of what would
occur, in fact, much of this interference already exists. Ho\Y8Ver. as mentioned,
the llull1'11er of complaints filed has sharply increased in recent years, now reach 
ing 'stations OIl 25 channels. as compared to only 15 'channels as recently as 3
years ago.
7
13. Comments relating to the regional channels ,vere filed by other parties,
usually not directly affected. For ex·ample. N A:F'ldB urged the importance of
ellcouraging Fiif development, and requested that a daytimer not be eligible for
presunrise operation if there is an FM channel in its community (or 011e is avail 
uble there under the "25-mile rule"), and thus full-time aural service is a vaUable.
,Ve also note a late filing by the Committee for Equal Facilities. a group of
daytime stations authorized after January 1962 and thus su,bject to the overall
condition against presunrise operation. urging the importance of presunrise
operation to them and their areas, asserting that they should be treated the
same as stations authorized earlier, and asking that the Commission either ex 
pedite resolution of this proceeding or lift the overall condition as to the new
stations. Some parities advanced competitive considerations. For example, two
c1aytimers on foreign I-A cllannels-not nmy or proposed to be allowed presunrise
operation-opposed regularizing presunrlse operation by daytime regional stations
in their commnnities. \"'.lith \yhich they compete. and it was also urged-by day 
timers in communities or urbanized areas having a full-time station-that it is
exactly \-vhere the daytimer faces sncbcompetition that it needs the economic
benefit of extra hours.
CLASS II STATIONS
14. In the original notice herein (and clarifying order issued Jan. 29, 1962),
"\"re propo.'3Ed to eliminate entirely presunrise ,operation by class II stations. In
the 1962 further notice, \ve proposed to permit it only for daytime-only or limited 
time stations located west of aU cochannelclass I stations, and only on channels
not having foreign class I assignments. As 'at present, as so limited it would be tied
to sunrise time at the location of the dOminant cochannel station. As compared
to the present rule, the proposal would eliminate ,presunrise use of daytime facil 
ties by: (1) Full-time class II stations,; (2) stations located east of class I
stations but far enough away and having low enough po\ver so that their sky 
\nwe signal does not cause interference under the rules to the class I station's
skywave service; (3) class II stations on I-B channels having foreign I-B sta 
tions; and (4) operation by agreement with the dominant station. Authorized
daytime facil1ties could be nsed. and no other limit on time "vas specified.
15, Abont 25 comme-nts were filed by class II stations. generally opposing the
proposal and stressing the importance of their presnnrise operation and service,
G In terms of population lost, the largest numerical showing was that of WKY, Oltlahoma
Citro claiming that, at 6 fl..m. in December, it would lose 401,O'2;&populatiou as a result of
eligible daytimers operating, ant of 1,087,937 within the 1.94-myjm contour it \vould have
from nighttime facilities (the daytimers would limit it to 4.75 mvjm). WKY ancl other
stations explored the possibility of daytimer directional operation to protect them. \Vbile
no population figlues 'were given in its showing, the loss would probably be greater in the
case of Vn.rCA. New York City, since the loss area lies in the pO'Pulous New York-northern
Xew ,Tersey region. ..
7 These complaints have, by and large, been prosecuted by plOneer class III fnlltimers
enjoying low nighttime RSIS limits. These stations are not evenly distributed among the 41
reg'ional channels. which has accounted for a clisproportionate concentration of complaintS
on- certain channel", no,tably: 600. 930, 9'50, 12'50, IB30, 1360, 1R7,O, and 15DO kc/s.
Because 01' the preyalence of presunrise operation, often of many years' standing, one of
t"lle most frequent a;::Jd vigo:'ous arguments against our proposal, both by da,ytimers and h;V
fnlltimel's see!dng to continue use of day facilities. was that the proposal would result in
great disru'ptioll of existing service on wllich listeners have come to reI;)'.
8 F.C.C. 2d
Ptesunl'ise OpeTatiun by Btandard ET'oadcast StcttlOTlJ3
711
8 F.C.C. 2d
,::,_irnilul' to the argnments mentioned above in connection 'with regional stations.
Seyeral of these comments were the same as those submitted by regional statiollS,
tile patties not directing themselves to the particular facts of their class II
sittlation. Othets opposed the vroposal because it \vonld eliminate presunrise
operation in their particular -ca'.se; e.g., stations -on channels having foreign
clear-channel assignments and nsing day facilities at sunrise at the f.oreign
-statioll (sneh as KF;RE, Fresno, Calif., 940 kc/s), full-time "Class Irs (e.g.,
KLOK, San Jose, Calif., 1170 l{c/s), and stations l'oeated east -o-f one co-channel
~las!')I-B station and west of another, suffidellltly far fro-rn the laHer that
their 250-\v daytime operation does not canse it interference, and \vishing to
continue to .'3ign on at snnrise at the eastern class I location (e.g., "VTPR, Paris,
Tenn., 710 kc/s; I-B stations at Ne"v Yorl;;: City and Seattle). Storer Broadcast 
ing CO.'s filing related mostly to the regional channels, but it notec1 that a large
number of class II stations on L.S. I-A channels- 'benefit from presunrise hours
(although \ve had in the no'tice indicated that the matter was minimal) and
pointedont that severnl, including its own KGBS, Los Allgeles (limited time), are
more than 2,000 miles from the I-A station and nnder early AM ass'ignment rules
,yould have been permitted to operate full time simnlt::meously \vith it. DBA's
comments nrged that presunl'ise 1)rivilegesShOl~ldbe given to dass II stations
on the same widespread basis as class III stations, urging that the House of
Representatives so indicated by not making any distinction in enacting B.R.
47,1,9, and that there is no logical reason fOT any different treatment. CCES,
(JflpO-sing' DBA in reply comments, urged that the Commission not authorize
any across-the-hoard presnnrise operation by class II stations, because of los,ses
to the service of class I sratlons.8 The onty comments filed b.-va class I liC0usee
1y11ic:h dealt ,vith this subject specifically ,vere those of Metramedia, Inc., filing
011 behalf of itB class I-B station, 'V::'{E,\V, New York City (1130 kc/s), as well
s;,: itsI"e~ionalstations, and urging the general abolition of 'presunrise operation
by any class of station.
9
DEc:ISIO::"J" IN THE PROCEEIHKG
16. As aire-any indicated, the resolution of this proceeding necessarily repre 
sents a balan;::e bet\veen considerations and objectives which are to some degree
in conflict-the provision for needed presullrise service On the one hand, particU 
larly in situations where it has been in existence before and has come -to be
l'elied Upon by listeners, and on the other band, protection of the existing service
of nnlimited-time stations against an inordinate amount -oflo~through inter 
ference, and thus inefficient use of the channels involved. It is also apparent, as it
'CCBS' comments do not mention the fact that presunrise operation now takes place on
many of the U.S. I-A channels, \'o'here the daytime class II stations are located west of tbe
dominant stations. Its specific eXftDlple of service losse,;; is 640 kc/s, where there is no pre 
sunrise operation under7B.87 because the dominant station iB at Los Angeles.
~\VNE\V showed the effect on service OD 1130 kc/s if it and the other I-B station on the
channel (InV'KH, Shreveport) and three pertinent class II stations (at Detro-it, Milwaukee,
and Minneapolis) used daytime facilities before sunrise New York. With the five stations'
Dresent operation with nighttime facilities, the two I-B stations arc protected to their
O.5-mv/m groundwa.Ye contours and beyond, and the three class II stations nave limits of
2.3, 3.4, and 4.2 mv/m. If all five used daytime facilities instead, the class I-B stations
wonld be limited to 12 and 30 mv/m, respectively, and tIle class II stations wonld be
limite([ to 44, 50, and 6,7 mv/rn. 'Lhis showing was made on tIle basis of the conventional
nighttime p-ropagation curves in tho l'ulos. Thii'l sitl1ation does not in frwt exi,st, since the
closs II stations covered are all locatede~wtof the I-B station at Shrevepol't and there"
fore pl.·esent 7:';.87 9rlvileges do not extend to- them, and even if it did exist it would not
be entirely typical becaUSe of the large daytime facilities these class II stations h!lve (GO
kw, oirectionalhf'd), but it does illustrate the interference which unrestricted use of
nighttime facili.ties by class II stations creates or would create if peunitted.
The- effect of full-slCale pre-sunrise operation by class II stations, even a.fter sunrise at the
claSS I station, is illustrated by the situation ofcla~sI-A station WCBS, New York City
(S80 kc/s), which in1~}65filed a complaint against presunrise o-peution by cochannel c1ay 
timers at Clinton, N.C. (.1 kw), and Columbus-Worthington, Ohio (5 kw). The comphLillt
cl"imecl that immediately after sunrise at New York City in January (7 :15 a.m., e.s.t.) and
before their O\Vn local sunrise, the Clinton statio-ll limits WeBS to its 5.12-mv/m contoul"
on the basis of conventional nighttime calCUlations, or ahout 1 llivjm if the diunwl fe.ctoJ.·
is nsec1, and the Ohio station imposes limits of more than 12 mv/m or about 2 mv/m,
using the smne bases of computation. The groun(1wave service of a class I-A station is pro 
tected n.g-aim:t co channel interference to its O.l-mv/m c[mtour. As to interferel1ce to full·
time class II stations, a fe,\,~uchstations commented on this. vVe note that of eight dny·
time·only class II stations on I-B channels filing herein, all are the only stations in their
commnnities~l_ndonl;y one is in an llt'banized area.
712
Federal 001nm'unications Oom-1nis8'ion Reports
has been for some time, thatpresunrise use of daytime facilities by U.S. sta-tions
must be brought into line with this country's obligations, under pertinent inter 
national agreements,_ to protect,the stations of other nations in the J\Tortll
American" region from objectionable interference. 'Vith respect to the regional
channels; we are persnaded, after careful consideration of the record herein
and the above considerations, that the most appropriate balance can 'be achieved
by permitting virtually all ,class III sfations (daytime and full time) to operate
presunrise, from 6 a.ill., standard time, on, with500-w power, using their
daytime modes of ope-ration (directional or noudj.recticmal), except where lesser
pOwer is -required to meet- international obligations as mentioned aboYe,
17. In reaching this conclusion, we. have, taken into· account the. many. con 
siderations .\vb-ich have been so vigorously urged by thOse· taking the various
opposing positions, and the numerous 'Countervroposals, urged upon us. 'Ve
re-cognize that, as many full-time stations urge, permitting pre-snnTise- operation
by daytime-ra (and by fUlltime-rs) may cause substantial interference to the
licensed se-rviceoffull~timestations;. it may well be true, as Storer and ,others
urge, that the. losses will often, perhaps usually, exceed the gains if strict
engineering standards are applied. But in our judgment the record herein esta,b 
Ushe-s that the pre-sunrise service rendered by -daytime-only stations is, by. and
large, a valuable one, and one which should be-permitted. In our view, as a general
proposition, the gains outweight-he losses, when all factors, sucha's the location
of the areas of service-and interfere-nee with re:spect to the stations gaining
and losing, and the extent of other service, are taken into account. "Ve note
the contention of Storer and others that rural areas will lose the badly needed
service, of wide-coveragefull~timeregional stations. But.we also note that, with
few exceptions, the .fulltimers did not establish the extent to which listeners
in such areas (usually at some distance from the station) actually rely on and
need tbeir service. Their showing in this respect fell short of daytimets' showings.
18. Moreover, we take intoaccouut the ,other service whichTemaius available
to such loss areas from the same or nearby places, oHen. induding wide-area
coverage by I-A and I-B clear channel stations and wide-coverage FM se1'vice.
10
The daytimers assert that the fulltimers are located in large cities, with apleth~
ora of locally originated services, 'and, while this is by no meails always true, there
appears, both from the record herein and our'experience generally, to be a
tendency in this direction. FOr example, as far a's AM service is- concerned, out
of some 107 communities having full-time' cla,';lS III stations who filed formal
or informal 'comments berein,· 65 have other dass II -or 'class III full-time .A.1\i
service from 'stations in the same community (28 of these cities have wide-cover 
age I-A or I-B clear cbaunel stations). Fourteen others> have full-time service
from a local class IV station "and 25 have no other local full-time AM 'senice
(including nine in urbanized areas and close to large cities with multiple services).
19. Of the 107 communitiesrrie:Qtioned,·all 'but 10 >have Wide-coverage dass B or
class C FM:.chanuels' available (e-ither assigned to the city Dr available under the
"25-mile rule".) ·on \Vhi-chwid-e-areacoverag-emay ibe rendered from the city. Of
thel~;t1ireehave· 'class A channel's (tvVQ others are in urbanized areas and close
to large-cities with multiple AM and,FM services). Taking into account both
other full-time AM s:ervice (besides class IV) and wide-cover-age FM s,er,vice,
only nine of these- commtmitie-s' do nothave'sllchservice available..More than
half of the full-time e!alss IIIstations----:68 out of 122-hav-eassociated FM sta 
tions in the-same community (or, in twoeases,~nearby'laTgeI" city) ;'65 of these
are wid€-coverage class B or class C a-ssignments. Another 1'7· could take ad 
vantag-e oLunoccupied channels; either assigned to the-city or available under
the"25~rriilerule" (all but two dass B Or class C ).11
20. In remarking on the fact that FM may thus.pe a means of overcoming
the lossesfun~timestaLi,ons might 'incur through interference, we have notover~
looked the fact-which NAF:1'IB and others urged-that it may also be of value
to daytimers in overcoming theiT presunrise difficulties, as well as providing eve 
ntng serVice. Out of some 135 clasS' III daytimers listed in appendix C (excluding
10 On several occasions in recentyear~forexample, in do-cket No. 15084 (the overall
AM allocation proceeding)-----:-weexpre~sedthe view that .AM and Fl\! should be viewed as
complementary parts of a total aural 'Service.
11 The figures for the number of communities fl.nd licensees include CBS' class III station
at Boston, and ABC's class III stations at Detroit, Los Angeles, and Pittsburgh.
8 F.G.C. 2d
Pre811mris6 Operation by Standard BroadclJ)Jt Stations
713
the eight Which have now become full-time operations), 'Some 53 are FM licensees
or perroittees, 19 of them class A and the rest class B or class 0 (including two
\\'here the FlVI 'station is in a neal'1by city). There are unoccupied channe18 
usually class A assignments-which some of the others could use. Ho\vever, of
the 135 comnnmities involved, there are some 22 situations in which no assign 
ment ils provided in the FM table for the community; it is not in an urbanized
area; and it has no local full-time AM service. There are other situations where
no assignment is provided in the table and the c-ommunity has no full-time local
AM service, but it is part of an urbanized area. In SOllie of these cases, channels
might be available under the "25-mile rule," or poissibly additional assignments
might be made through rule-making; out a substantial number o,f these situations
are in areas '\-vhere channels are scarce and the making of additional assignments
is not ahvays possible, ho,vever desirable it might be. ":rhus, it appeure that with
respect to the C'ommullities represented in filings herein,the extent of 'FM 'Se'rvice
andpotential~])'articularlyfor Vi>ide-area coverage------is greater for full-time
stations and their communities than it is for daytime-rs. ,Ve note- also 'that many
stations who particularly urged the value of wide coverage, both day.timers and
fuUtimers, a'l'e wide-coverage FM licensees or could become so (e.g., \VMTM,
KXXX, 'VSAD).
21. Thus, "Vievi-'ing the picture of aural service as a whole, we are convinced
that permitting presunrise operation by daytimers to 'the extent provided herein
,vill result in the prnvision of service where there is more need for it than there
is for whatever service may be lost in the. areas where such losses occur. Bearing
in mind that FM is not always ,available to daytimers even though it often liS,
and the present fairly modest development of that service, perhaps particularly
in more remote areas, we do llotbelieve that itaff'0l'ds the answer to the preSUll 
rise problem as claimed by KAFMB. "re do not conceive FM, at the present time,
to afford the answer to ,supplying a needed presunrise service which day 
timers ili outlying areas- appear to render and which, \ve believe, can be accom 
modated to the limited extent decided on herein without undue interference
losses to licensed full-time service. However, it can afford a valuable supplement
to service during thelSe hours in two respects: Giving daytimers, and fulltimers
using daytime facilities, coverage comparable to that \vhich they now have on
AM nsilig thefr full daytime facilities presnni'lse (and which they might not
'have limited to 500 w), and giving coverage where A·M servi'ce is lost through
interference; 12
22. In 'sum, then; in onr view we are making provision for service where it
is'most ileede:d, in ,fulfillment of the mandates of sections 303·(g)8".nd 307(b) of
tll8 Communications Act. In e,aluating the arguments :concerning interference,
t\Yoother factoi'S should bebol'ue in mi_ud. First,-for the most part, thepresnnl'ise
service under consideration here-'----:'bothby daytimers and llllltjmers-is an exist 
ing service, and interference therefrom, while it has increased someyvhat in re 
cent veatsas more stations have been authorized, is not a phenomenon ariSing
now fo,r -the first trm'e. As mentioned .above, on some regional frequencies there
still 'has been no complaint against stations'presum:ise operation, and tbis \vas
true of a majority of these frequencie:s as recently as 3 years ago. In other\vorks,
these conditions, however had they lllfly appear from a strict technical stand 
point; are fOr the most part circumstances which the full-time stations have been
able to live with. The second point is that-by the500~wpower ceiling· now p.1'0 
vided~\yeare taking action which may weil improve p.resent interference condi 
tions Oil these channels: for example,by sharply decreasing the interferenee
from numerous 5-kw daytime operations, but both daytimers and fulltimers.
1" ,Yo are not adopting the -appl'oacll urgerl in NAFTh'ffi's petitionfol'furthN rulelllaking.
filed herein on Apr. 19 1967, ''therein we are urged to reappraise the need for "substanclard.
interference-producing AMpresunrise operation" in light of our 1964 Report and Order in
docket No. 16084 (2 R.R. 2d 1£509), the J'fAC ra.cUo spectrnm utilization report released the
same veal', ·and the substantial recent increase- in the number of F)-lsets. As noted in foot 
note 13 of the docket No. 150-84 Report and Order, the nighttime allocation principles
there considered were concerned with "service through the evening and not *.* oj< serv1ce
during the hours immediately before sunrise [which is] the 'Subject of a separate rule- 
making- in docket No. _14419. '" '" *" We will co,ntinue to give careful consideration to the
development of FLH and its proper role in the overall aural service picture. and it may be
that in the fairly near future it will be appropriate to propose some- action along the line
mooed. But we do not believe it appropriate to postpone re-solutio-n of· this longstanding
ancl wide-ra,ng:!ng AM proceeding. aucl the many uncertainties existing as lang as it is
unresolyed, while such an eYaluation of the role of F::'If is conducted.
8 F.e.e. 2d
714
FederalOom1nt~nication8OO'ln1nis/jion Reports
23. IVe also note the contention of the fulltilllel'S that the interference loss is
beiug incurred for· very little reaSOD, because the daytimexs' service area's are
so severely limited during these hours. IVe do not believe that-bearing in mind
that these are transitional hours-the service range- is as limited U'S present
technical standards might indicate. There lllay be merit in the argument-ad 
vanced by several daytimers and by fuHtimer:;; in support of using full daytime
facilities-that lhstene-r tolerance of interference in listening to news, weather,
etc., is fairly high, higher than our traditional signal ratios contemplate. In any
event, the service appears to be one-locally oriented-valuable enough to- "yar 
rant provision for its rendition,
24, The further notice would have limited daytimer presunrise operation to
stations ."here there is no fulltimer in the community, Upon further considera 
tion, we believe this restriction is unwarranted, ,even though permitting Borne
additional operation may increase interference beyond what it would 'be othel' 
wise!~Other daytimers may render valuable service, as indicated above, and,
perhaps more important, just as much as ""ith the "eligibles," it is often service
upon ""hicl1listeners have come to rely, often for a period of several years, so that
termination would be disruptive, 'Ve are not persuaded that its termination is
warranted, ::\101'eove1', as various parties pointed out, the fulltime1'S in town may
not have tlle same 'servicearea as the daytimer-perhaps a substantially smaller
one-and the proposal in this respect presented certain anomalies which might
make it difficult to administer, such as cases where there are two da:rtimers
in a community with no funtimer, and cases where a fulltimer later goes into
operation,
25, Although avoiding disruption of existing pre-sunrise service is auimpor~
taut factor in our decision, ,,;ve do Dot believe it should be the only one, Other
stations, for example those granted since early 1962 and conditioned against pre 
sunrise operations, are likewise capable of rendering a valuable service dnring
these hours, perhaps especially (thongh llotnecessarily entirely) wl).€ll they
are in places without full-time outlets. '1'he same applies to future authorizations.
Therefore, we are not limiting pre-sunrise- ope.ration to those stations whicll have
engaged in it before or to presently authorized stations, In our judgment, with
interfel'ence conditions improved on the yarious channels by reduction of pre 
sunrise operation to 500 w, the number of stations thus added \yill not materially
\vorsen existing intexference conditions,
26, If a great many stations are to be permitted presunrise operation, as we
have concluded they should be, some restriction on such operation must be im 
posed if an inordinate degree of interference is to be avoided. It is for this reason
that we have'decided to limit presunrise operation, by daytimers or by fulltimers
,,,,!th daytime facilities, to no more than 500-w power (as mentioned above, the
authorized mode of ope'ration, nondirectional or directional, will be used, although
fulltjmers may, of course, use the-ir nighttime facillties if they prefer). This
limitation will improve interference conditions in many eases, and 500-w power
appears sufficient to provide a generally adequate service to the communities
involved. To- a degree, of course, this reduction may mean loss of existing service
which has come to be relied upon. But if it is hue that "distant" stations are not
of significance to -listeners at a particular pIRce if they are fulltimers (which the
daytirners urge with respect to interference), it is likely equally true th-at listener
interest in daytimers gene-rally decreases with dista4ce, so that a 5-kw operation
may nO'!: be rendering a really significant pre-sunrise service- out to the-hounds
of its normal daytime service area. Moreoyer, while power greater than 500 w
is not precluded as such by the understanding with Canada, it appears highly
unlikely that many operations with power much more thau that could comply
with the arrangement with Canada and applicable treaties with other countries.
In connection with this limitation, -as 'well as .vith the limitatton to 6 a.m.
mentioned below, we also note the significance of the FM service, mentioned
l3 The interference from the adclitional daytimers would not necessarily be great. One
engineering firm made showings as to presunrise interference on behalf of nine full-time
regional stations (on eight channels), under various conditions, including (1) "eli,l;ible"
daytimers opera:ting as proposed in the further notice (500 w from G a.m.) and (2) all
daytimers operating on that basis (fulltimers using night facilities in both cases). In five
of the nine cases the limit to the fulltimer would be the Sflme under both conditions at all
times; in the other.four, the difference would usually be Jess than 2 mv1m, and only part
of the time,
S F.C.C, 2d
PTesunrise Operatio-n by Standard BToadcast Statio'l1s
715
ahoye. If stations seek greater coverage presunrise than 500 w would ve'mit, they
must rely on the companion am'a} seryice.
27. Likewise, we are cOl1yinced that presunrise operation lllust be confined to
G a.m. (local standard time) and after. \Ve reach this conclusion on the basis
of the record herein, ..,vhich, despite the assertions and showings of some stations
to the contrary, does not persuade us that earlier operation has enough public
interest to warrant the extensive interference entailed during earlier hours
\yhen skywave propagation and interference conditions more closely approach,
or equal, full nighttime conditions. In any event, earlier operation is preCluded
by our understanding with Oanada.
28. In reaching these conclusions as to limitations, we hav8 reje;:;tecl the con 
tentions of some parties that the limits should be mOre restrictive, such as
250 \V and 7 a.m. The fact that 2GO w is the pre-sunrise power of cla.':ls IV f;tations
does not mean that it should be for regional stations, which are designed to
serve wider areas; 500 \v appears to be both necessary to provide adequate pre 
sunrise service, and sufficiently low to avoid excessive interference. 'Ye do not
believe that a 7 a.m. sign-on is sufficiently early to meet the 'need for local infor 
mutional service which has been demollstrated l1erein.
29. 'Ve have, likeWise, concluded that fnll-time stations should be allmved to
use daytime facilities' before ,sunrise to the same extent. 'Ve are impressed by the
arguments made (e.g., that of vVLOS) that such facilities, even if 'O!Jf'Tated with
only 500 w, may ..,vell provide better service to the city and its environs during 
these important hOurs. In addition, snch operation will afford ful1tilllel'S some
additional protection against interference from daytimer presunrise operation.
'T'lle limitation to 500 'v and 6- a.m. is necessary for the same reasons mentionec1
aboye for daytimers ; again, we call ,attention to the availability of FM for wider
coyerage. Many fulltimerscommenting on this point (e.g., 'YSAU) "u(' Or can
becomeF~11icensees,often on ,vide-coverage channels, aud thus render \,-We-area
seryice.
30. 'Ve must reject the arguments and counterprOI)Osals of AB8 and other
parties that a case-by-case approach must be used in this mrrttel'. Sucll an
approach~takinginto account that there are some 1.200 daytimers and 8GS ful1 
time class, III stations-is simply out of the (lue-stion from un administt'utiye
standpoint. The number of potential hearings involved staggl2rs the imagi.natioll,
and they would in all probability become exceedingly comple-x, since (with
sky\vave interference involved) mo,re than one daytime:\: usuallyaffect.~ng~vell
fulltimer and, conversely, a given clnytimer may affect more tban Olle fulltilHPr.
A given hearing situation might well end up inyolYing a considerable number of
the stations on a channel, including a compara'tive inquiry into which prE'Sl1llrise
operation should be permitted and ..,vhich predueled. Not only would this entail
an inconceivable burden, both on the Oommission and on standard broadcast
stations and their 'adVisers, it would 'take a great amonnt of time, a C'ollsideJ:ation
inconsistent "with our yie\v that the pnblic interest clearly requires a n'[\Eonably
ptompt resolution of the presunrise situation and the widespread uncertainties
cnrrently involved in it. 'Ve do not conceive that a more, particularized approach,
either by hearing or otherwise, would thro\v significantly mOl·e light on -the
appropriate conrse of action in a given situation, anything like enough to 'YfLrl'ftut
the burden inv'olved.
31, Like\vise, we must reject the arguments of those who favor the traditional
73.87 status quo, with its -c'omplaint and ensuing terminaUon procedm·E'. While
it might have been a true statement 5 years ago that the rule has worke-d ';re-fLson 
ably well," it is hardly so today, \vith the large llUlUbel' of complaints whichhan~
been filed in recent years. ,Ve believe that the unCl'rtainties inyolyed in pre:::;llnrise
operation, as they have developed recently, mu.st be resolved. so that aU Dartie;:;
}-;:no'v where they stand. Moreover, such an approach is inconsistent 'Yith this
country's internationl obligations to prevent objectionable interference to duly
notified foreign stations.
32. Legal JI,Iatte'rS,-lt was contended that 73.87 is a part of a 'station's !icemOP,
so that ..,ve oannot order termination Dr reduction in a presunrisf' operation
without complaint. This is without merit. The rule speaks of .termination upon
notice from the Commission that "umlue interference" is ,cause-d, and in.!If-1r.~ic
Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 217 F. (2d) 339 (1954), this \vas held to mean objec 
tionable interference as determined under the usual nigllttime interference rules.
,Yhile we have in the past ordered termination or reduction only aftercomplablt,
8 F.e.C. 2d
716
Federal 001n?nunications Oomrr/"ission Rep01'ts
the rule does not require this, and certainly this agency has the power to take
steps to alleviate interference conditions on a channel on its a,vn motion, even
in the a,bse-uce of complaint. To hold otherwise would be to negate our po\yer to
aot in the DubHe interest to further the more effective H'se ,o-f radio. There are
Yirtually no presunrise operations with full daytime facilities ,yhich aTC' free
from objectionable interference effects on licensed full-time 'stations, using our
regular nighttime interference rules. Therefore, we have the power to tel'minate
or cnt back such operations-which Rre :permissiye, no'! liceused-'Yithout h-earing
or other proceedings.
33. In the further notice we posed the question 'Of \vhether section 316 of the
Communications Aet-precluding modifioatiol1 of a license without a hearing 
applies to the present situation where, after a general rulemakingPl'oceedi~lg,
certain IJresunrise operation may be permitted on an authorized basis, resulting'
in interference to some full-time stations. M,any parties urged that it does, and
that they will insist 011 their 316 hearing rights in connection vyithsnch opera 
tioll.:L~'Ve conclude that it does not. Of course, this Oommission cannot finally
determine the statutory legal Tigrutsof liceuS'ees as against its l'eg1Jlatory
authority; this is for the courts. But it is our duty to construe tbe act to the best
of our ability, in light of pertinent court decisions.:E~orpresent rmrposes, we view
the recent deeision in Anl-cri-cw,h Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 359]~.(2d) 624 (C.A.D.C.
1966), as authority for the proposition that we can ';modify" existing licenses
with respect to interferencerec~ivedby stations-if "modify" is the appropriate
term-through a general rulemaking proceeding, and that section 316 does not
apply. It must be borne in mind that this a rulemaking proceeding of general
applicability, affecting many stations on many channels, exactly the type of
proceeding the court considered in that case. In this respect it is clearly distin 
guishable from FCC v. Nat·ional Broadcasting COJJ)/f)(fny (EOA), 319 "L.S. 239
(1943), from which the concept 'Of "modification through interference" stems.
That \vas a particular proceeding involving the assignment of one station
C\VHDH, Boston) to KOA's frequency at night for the first time, resulting in
substantial interference to what had been until then a class I--A station. There 
fore, we do not view EOA as a l'eason fO'1' postponing the effectiveness of the llew
rules, and are making them effective as quickly as possible.
3-:1:. Clews I-B and Class II Statio'ns.-A,s mellrtioned in the report and ordee
(par. 18), awl for the reasons stated therein, the rules adopted do not provide for
presunl'ise use of daytime facilities by class I-B ,stations. See Storer B1'oadcasting
Company, 1 F.C.C. 2d 1954 (1965).
35. \,\7"ith respect to presunrise operation by claS's II s'tatiolls. 'Us mentioned
a,bovc the original notice herein would have preclUded it completely; the further
notice would have precluded it except for daytime-only and limited-time stations
on U.S'. I-A challilels (find I-B channels having no foreign I-B stations), located
\vest of all ,of thedomi:nantcochanm~lstations. Upon further consideration and
revie"lV of -the comments filed, "lve are of the vie,v that these proposals would be
undUly restrictive and prevent the rencUtion of significant service. It is, of
course, of great importance to protect the skywave and ,'{We-area groumhvRve
i3el'vice of class I stations, but in our judgment this can be achieved, if presunrise
is limited in extent as discussed below, without preclnding some other categories
of stations from l}resnnrise operation: Therefore, the rules arkl1ted her0in will
permit prcsunrise operation by: (1) Class II stations (da.,ytirne, limited time,
and full time) located west of all co,channel dominant stations, starting' at
sunrise at the location of the westel'llmost foreign or domestic dominant st,atioll
::J, It '\'.':19 al'O'ued that Transcont'inent TeleFisi,on CorporaUon v. POC, 30B F. (2d) 339
(1962)-which affirmed our authority to cbange a station's channel at the end of its license
period without an ev"idemiary hearing----Js not authority for the type of action contem 
plated here, even at the e:KpiraU<?no~an outsta;nding license, \01' one Feasop because that
case involved a detailed explorntlon In rulema]nng of one partIcular SItuatIOn. 'Ve do not
",gree 'with these argument.?, partic,ulurly in light of the~ubsequentdecision in The 9?o(!will
Stati011s, Inc. v. FCC, 32,0 I<'. (2(1), ,637 (1963), affirmIng our dear channel deCISIOn. As
indicated above the presunrise rlllema.king is a proceeding of g-eneral applicability. As such,
we hold its imu1lct on individual applicants. permittees, and licensees confers no adjudica 
tory hearing rights under sec. 316 oft~e.Coffip;-nmication:s .'1-ct. United-Sta1;~sv. Sto'rer
RroarlCIJ.sUng 00. ,351 V.'S. 192 (19513) ;A~rh116P1~OtS-LlssoCi,ahon Y. Q1H3sad,a, 2,/6 F. 2d 8!J2
(1960) ; Fed.eral' Powe1' Com-mission \'. Texaco, 377 LJ.;::i. 331 (1963) : Oalifornia Citiz6ilS
Ba.ndA_SBoC'~a,t-ionv. USA a,nrl roo, Ninth Circuit, case No. 20030 (19'67).
8 F.G.G. 2d
Presunrise Operation by Standa1yl Broadcast Sta.tions
717
(or 6 a.m., local standard time, whichever is later) ; '-" and (2) openi.tion from
G a.m., local time, by daytime and full-time stations on class I-B channels 1'8 
garcUess of location, if they protect the O.5-mv1m 50-peTcent skywave contours
of domestic and foreign cochannel class I stations located to the- \ye,;;t. Reduced
power may be used if neCeESal'y to afford 'Such protection. Certain requests
by dass II stations in other situations must be rejected as inC01l3istt;llt \yUh
oyerall allocatiolls efficiency and the public intel'est.
16
36. 'Vith respect to the limitation to 6 a.ill. and after, this, of course, is, re 
quired by the terms of the understanding with Canada mentioned in the report
and order. lYe believe it is also appropriate from a domestic standpoint, just as
\vith the regional channels, since operation at an earlier hour, \yhen pl'opagation
conditions mOre nearly approa,ch full nighttime conditions, is the source of
more substantial interference (see pars. 14 and 15 and footnote 9 above). There 
fore, presunrise operation by class II stations \yill be limited to 6 a.ln., local
standard time, and after, just as that by class III stations.
37. ·With respect to the I-B channels, it is also appropriate to impose the
saIDe 500-w restriction adopted for the regional channels. '1'1118 is necessary to
prevent excessive interference from higher-po,wer operations, and afford an ade 
quate degree of protection to .class I-B and unlimited-time class II stations.
This is particularly true since class I-B stations will not be permitted presunrise
use of daytime facilities (see report and order, par. 18).
38. Tentatively, \ye v.re of the salle view· that tIle same 500-w restriction
sh01,ld apply to presunrise operation by class II stations on the U.S. I-A cl1.an 
rIels (see, for example, the situation described in footnote 9, above). Ho,;vever,
since this particular subject has not been explored, and since to some extellt
different ,conditions obtain on these frequencies (fev\'er class· II sta.tions, lllucll
smaller foreign protection requirements, and the fact that under presentassign~
ment rules there can be no morc daytime stations), we are not adopting it at this
time. Such a restriction on class II stations on these channels is proposed in a
notice of proposed rulemaking adopted tOday.
39. The question of interference to U.S. class I-B stations located west of the
class II station. to all full-time cochannel stations in Korth American countries
other than Camtda, and to Canadian I-B stations will continue to be determined
by conventional nighttime propagation standards. As to permissible radiation
to\vard cochannel Canadian full-time class II stations, the curves contained in
llew figure 12 of 73.190 will apply. If necessary to meet any of these requirements,
stations may .operate with power less than 500 'IV and make presWlrise request8
On the basis of such lower power.
40. Other Matters:Diun~alCtlTVcs.-The further notice herein prDposed a
family of diurnal curves, taking into a,ccouut the fact that the appropriate 1'e 
Clueing factor applicable to conventional nighttime interference calculations for
any particular point in time during the 2 hours before sunrise. Use of these
euryes would sho\v less interference than conventional nighttime computations.
However, their validity ,vas atta,cked, chiefly on the gTol..1lld that (based on data
concerning postsunset conditions) they do not accurately represent presunrIse
conditions. A substantial question appears to exist as to their accuracy. ::\lme 
over, their use is quite complex, and they haye no international standing. In
our view, an appropriate resolution 'of this proceeding is possible without them
anel, therefore, they are not adopted herein.
11
10 This of course does not illclude daytime-only clails II stations on foreign I-A channE'ls.
which al:e notno~:permitted to operate presunrise and nre not within the scope of this
proceeding.
'" Thus, if dass I-A stations'sk~y....vaveserVicE: is to be protected, as we believe it Inllst be.
we cannot permit presunrise operation by a class II station to the east of a cochanllel
class I-A station, and, since we haye provided tIlat class I-B statiC!ns must use nighttime
facilities until local sunrise, we reject req:uests from class II statlOns based on the fact
that the I-B station to the west of them was in fact using its daytime facilities. As far fl."
interference to full-time class II stations is concern,;d, we are of the view that in tl.lis
respect the same considerations apply as on the regIonal channels, and thar preS1.lnnse
operation serves a valuable purpose and should be permitted to the extent provided herein.
17 On July 15 19'66 ABS filed further comments containing m6<<tsurement data intPIl(lf'U
to show that thediu~nalattenuation factors for sunrise and sunset transitional periods
are not symmetrical, and, SPecifically, that morning propagation conditions (referred to
sunrise at the path midpoint) are more favorable to undesired 10 percent sicywave inter 
fering signals than are evening prop,agation conditions (referred to sunset at the path mi!'l 
point)._~sstated in the text, we recogni:;-;e on the basis of the earlier material filed that this
8 F.G.C. 2c1
718
Federal 001T1/m1t-nications Oom·1ni8sion Reports
41.DrTectionn~01' Nonrli'r'ectional Prcsunrise Operation.-'l'he further notice
proposed operation by "eligible" class III daytimers with 500 VI." nondirectionally,
even though their 'authorized facilities might be directional. Some parties at 
tacked this, for one reason because it wonld produce an artificial service area
fol' a short time during only part -of the year, which the dire,ctional station
would not have at otller times, leading to confusion. For this reason, and also
because of the added burden involved in specifying an additional mode of op 
eration, we agree with the objecting parties and are providing herein for use
of the authorized daytime mode of operation, directional or nondirectional.
factor raises a question as to the proposed curves' validity, and this is one reason for not
ndopting them as a presunrise tool. We have also pointed out that individual Sk,nvRVe
measurements, or series of measurements, are not appropriate as a basis for detennining
sk.nvave service ancI interference (Amendment oj the f,'tanrla,'ds of Goor1 Enginc(31"ing Pntc,
tiee Concerni-ng Sta·nau,-d Bronrlcast Stations (Skywa1;f3 MeaslweJneJ1·fs) , 10 R.R. 1562
(1954). Therefore, this extremely late-filed matter, and DBA's motion to strike it, need
not be considered. We are of the vie,,, that the approaches adopted herein-sign-on time
and power limitations, together With the conventional nighttime skywave standards on tbe
clear channels 'where Skyvmve sen"jce is to be protected-are the most appropl'iate and
perhaps the only workable concepts of presunrise regulation. ABS' suggestion that the
proce-eding be further dela.yed while morc measurements are taken and analyzed must
be rejected, if this longstanding anel important proceeding is to be terminated in a renon 
able time. The same applies to snpplemental comments filed by ABS on Feb. 23, 19tH,
containing aelditional engineering material.
S F.C.C. 2d