FCC 93-198 Federal Communications Commission Record
8 FCC Red No. 10
In the Matter of
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MM Docket No. 87-267
2. The Report and Order was the culmination of an
omnibus rule making begun in 1987 to review all AM
technical and legal standards, rules and policies with the
intent of making needed revisions and devising new ap 
proaches that would help achieve a significantly improved
AM service.
2
To help reach this goal, we relied on three
essential and mutually supportive elements designed to as 
sist in reducing congestion and interference in the AM
band. The first element, Technical Standards, implemented
new and revised AM technical standards that should reduce
the interference with which AM broadcasters must contend
in their primary service areas. The second element, Migra 
tion, opened ten new frequencies in the expanded band
(1605-1705 kHz) to those existing stations that most signifi 
cantly contribute to congestion and interference in the
existing band. The third element, Consolidation, provided
broadcasters greater incentive and flexibility to reduce in 
terference through non-technical means. The Report and
Order also addressed the issue of AM stereo as a means of
making the AM service more competitive and relaxed the
rules pertaining to Travelers [nformation Stations to allow
for the authorization (on a secondary basis) of such stations
on any assignable frequency in the AM band. Also, the
Repan and Order dealt with several other miscellaneous
and administrative matters necessary to the implementation
of the various initiatives adopted.
Released: April 29, 1993
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
By the Commission: Commissioner Barrett concurring
and issuing a statement.
Review of the Technical
Assignment Criteria for the
AM Broadcast Service
Adopted: April 13, 1993;
Paragraph
L Introduction 1
II. Summary 3
III. Technical Standards 4
IV. Migration 33
V. AM Receiver Standards 50
VI. Travelers Information Stations 54
VII. Other Matters 59
VIII. Administrative Matters 70
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act 75
X. Ordering Clauses 76
Appendix A-~Petitions For Reconsideration
Appendix B -- Comments In Response to Petitions
For Reconsideration
Appendix C •. Rules
11. SUMMARY
3. Twenty-two petitions for reconsideration of the ReporJ...
and Order have been filed.
3
Generally, the parties filing in
this reconsideration proceeding supported the actions taken
in the Report and Order. Those filing petitions for reconsi 
deration, comments and reply comments mainly seek clari 
fication or revision of specific rules or policy decisions
relating to the new technical standards, the migration of
existing licensees to the expanded band, the matter of AM
receiver standards, Travelers Information Stations, and oth 
er miscellaneous matters. This Memorandum Opinion and
Order addresses the issues raised in the petitions. Except
for minor modifications to our technical standards and a
reordering of the priorities governing migration to the
expanded band, this Order affirms the decisions reached in
the Report and Order.
Ill. TECHNICAL STANDARDS
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses issues
raised in petitions for reconsideration of the Report and
Order in this proceeding concerning the AM broadcast
service.
l
That Report and Order took major steps toim~
prove technical standards, to reduce the level o.fint~r~er­
ence in the existing AM band, to encourage certam eXIstmg
licensees to move into the expanded portion of the AM
band and to consolidate existing broadcasting facilities in
orde; to further reduce congestion and interference in the
existing band.
A. Nighttime Interference Calculations.
4. Background. In the NPRM, we proposed an RSS 0%
exclusion and a 1 mV/m limit threshold as the basis for a
stricter nighttime calculation methodology. Additionally,
the NPRM proposed to require existing stations that al 
ready exceeded this threshold to reduce their signal by 10%
when proposing to modify their facilities. Most commen 
ters opposed this proposal because it substantially reduced
licensees' ability to modify and improve their stations. In
response to their concerns, a modified approach was adopt 
ed in the Report & Order. The modified approach places
1 Report and Order in MM Docket No. 87-267, 6 FCC Rcd 6273
11991). .
~Notice of Inquiry, 2 FCC Rcd 5014 (1987); Notlce of Proposed
Rule Making (NPRM). 5 FCC Red 4381 (1990).
3 Appendix A lists the parties filing in the reconsideration
proceeding. While the petitions for reconsideration submitted. by
John R. Furr and the lllinois Department of Transportatlo
n
were filed late, they will be treated as informal commentss~nce
we fllld that no party to this proceeding, will be prejudIced
thereby.
3250
8 FCC Red No, 10 Federal Communications Commission Record
FCC 93-198
nighttime interference contributors into one of three cate 
gories: (a) high-level interferers, those which contribute to
a station's 50% RSS; (b) mid-level interferers, those contri 
buting to a 25% but not a 50% RSS; and (c) low-level
interferers. those that do not enter the 25% RSS. Stations
falling into the high interferer category must reduce radi 
ation by 10% toward each affected station if a modification
is proposed. Stations in the mid-level category arc allowed
to maintain current levels of radiation and stations falling
in the low interferer category can increase radiation up to
the 25% exclusion. New stations would have to comply
with the low level, category (c), requirements. Both co- and
adjacent channel contributions are considered in these cal 
culations.
5. Comments. Several petitioners (CDE, dLR, Burrow)
expressed concern that the impact of the adopted nighttime
interference reduction method would fall most heavily on
the older Class A and B stations. It is precisely these
stations, dLR maintains, that generally will be most in need
of modifications because of their older and oftentimes dete 
riorating antenna systems. LSC expressed concern that ser 
vice losses resulting from the application of the adopted
provisions might, in actuality, outweigh service gains aris 
ing from any reduction in interference.
6. Petitioners suggested a variety of alternatives as possi·
ble remedies to the perceived unfairness of our adopted
nighttime interference reduction provisions. LSC and AF 
CCE suggested that the 10% reduction be applied only
when the application proposes to increase power by 3 dB
(double) or more. LSC also suggested that the 10% reduc·
tion requirement should be waived where it is demon 
strated that applying the requirements would cause a net
reduction in service. As an alternative, dLR suggests that
stations proposing changes that are contributing to the 50%
RSS of other stations should be allowed to maintain radi 
ation rights to these other stations. CDE also presented
several alternatives. CDE explains that for some stations
proposing changes, a 10% reduction would drop the sta 
tion from the 50% exclusion category to the 25% exclusion
category. In these situations, CDE recommends that the
rule be changed to require either 10% reduction or a
reduction sufficient to remove the station from the 50%
exclusion calculation, whichever is less. CDE also recom 
mends that, in order to encourage the use of stereo in the
AM band, the FCC eliminate the 10% reduction require 
ment for stations that choose to broadcast in AM stereo.
For "all talk" stations, where stereo would be of little or no
benefit, CDE suggests that installation of an appropriate
audio filter could be substituted for the 10% reduction.
7. NAB maintains that the Commission should establish
a clear waiver policy for the 10% interference reduction
rule to cover stations that are forced to make involuntary
changes. NAB agrees with some of the petitioners that
eXisting stations should be allowed some latitude to make
certain voluntary improvements to their facilities without
being penalized by the full 10% interference reduction
criteria. NAB supports CDE's proposal to require either a
10% reduction or a reduction sufficient to remove it from
the 50% exclusion calculation, whichever is less. NAB also
supports AFCCE's proposal that stations adversely affected
by environmental changes should be able to augment their
directional pattern without being subject to the 10% reduc 
tion criteria.
8. Petitioners raise other matters relating directly or in 
directly to thc adopted nighttime calculation methodology.
Burrow, who opposes our 3 tier approach, is also opposed
3251
to the inclusion of adjacent channel contributions to the
RSS since it will result in a reduction in predicted cov 
erage and will thus have an adverse economic impact on
AM stations. AFCCE and Burrow both express concerns
related to the consequences of applying domestic interfer 
ence, standards that are more strict than those contained in
international agreements. They fear that stations in other
countries could increase radiation toward this country, thus
negating the practical effect of the interference decreases
mandated by the new domestic rules. AFCCE questions
whether the 10% reduction was intended to apply to pat 
tern augmentations and suggests some minor clarifications
and revisions to the rules. dLR questions the applicability
of the 10% reduction to stations already at minimum
radiation because ofthe minimum Q-factor permitted.
9. Discussion. We have carefully considered whether to
further relax the modified nighttime interference standards
as suggested by several petitioners. We conclude, however,
that with one exception, the Rules and procedures adopted
in the Reporr and Order strike an appropriate balance
between the need to improve those situations where signifi 
cant interference impairs a station's signal quality, and the
need for flexibility in our treatment of applications for
modification of station facilities where the interference in·
volved is less significant.
10. A fundamental focus of the entire AM proceeding
has been to ameliorate the interference present in the AM
Band. The requirement for a 10% signal reduction under
certain circumstances is a key element of our plan to
accomplish this goal. In fact, it is the only provision adopt 
ed in the Report and Order that will directly reduce inter 
ference in the AM band. The s[andards and procedures
adopted in the Report and Order were themselves a care·
fully crafted relaxation of the proposals set forth in the
NPRM made in response to commenters concerns. We
believe that any further major compromises in our ap 
proach would significantly diminish the possibility of
meaningful nighttime interference reduction in the AM
band.
11. We note that virtually all of the suggestions presented
by the petitioners involve exceptions to the 10% reduction
provision for certain special case situations. Some suggest
that the 10% reduction not apply in the special case where
power is increased by less than 3 dB, or where the result 
ing net area served is decreased. Yet all of these proposals
would, if put into effect, significantly lessen the benefit of
the 10% reduction provision. A principle objective of the
rule making, however, is to restore the technical quality of
AM service rather than to benefit a few narrow segments of
that industry. Thus, we decline to make any substantial
changes to the interference criteria adopted in the Report
and Order.
12. Petitioners have persuaded us, however, to make one
minor adjustment to our approach to nighttime interfer 
ence calculations. In situations where a station proposing a
change in facilities presently is included within the 50%
RSS of another station, but with a reduction of less than
10% would drop into the mid-level 25% category, we agree
with the petitioners who argue that it would be inequitable
to require the station to meet the futI 10% reduction
criteria. In fact, in certain situations, such a 10% reduction
could result in a station's interference contribution falling
below that of other stations already in the 25% category.
Accordingly, we are revising our rules governing these
situations to require either an interference reduction of
FCC 93-198
Federal Communications Commission Record
8 FCC Red No. 10
10% or a lesser amount that would be sufficient to remove
the station's interference contribution from the 50% exclu 
sion calculation, whichever is the smaller change.
13. With regard to the suggestion that we establish a
clear waiver policy for stations that must make involuntary
changes, we believe that adoption of such a policy would
likely limit our future flexibility to determine when waiv 
ers are warranted. We continue to believe that the case 
by-case waiver policy articulated in paragraph 71 of the
Report and Order is a morc effective tool for determining
whether applying the 10% reduction rule in a given situ 
ation will serve the public interest.
14. V.lith respect to Burrow's opposition to the 3 tier
approach and inclusion of adjacent channel signals, we
note that he offered no information or argument not pre 
viously considered. Therefore, we deny his requested
changes.
15. AFCCE and Burrow expressed concerns about the
potential consequences ofapplyi~gdomestic interference
standards that are more strict than those contained in
international agreements. However, we believe it extremely
unlikely that these changes to our domestic rules would
permit foreign stations to increase radiation toward the
United States. Nor do we believe that any significant radi 
ation rights of U.S. stations would be lost internationally as
a result of our changes. Nonetheless, we will carefully
monitor any international activity that could possibly result
in loss of domestic radiation rights. If indeed it appears that
C.S. stations could actually suffer any significant loss of
radiation rights internationally, we will take whatever steps
are necessary to preserve U.S. interests.
16. Regarding AFCCE's concern about applicability of
the 10% reduction provisions to augmentations needed to
comply with the terms of a construction permit, we did not
intend to make the 10% reduction applicable in routine
augmentation cases necessitated by an out-of-tolerance
proof-of-performance filed with a license application to
cover an outstanding construction permit. On the other
hand, we are convinced that augmentations necessitated by
antenna readjustments caused by environmental changes or
other circumstances beyond the licensee's control should
be considered for waiver of the 10% reduction require 
ment, if otherwise applicable, on a case-by-case basis. Like 
wise, waivers related to reductions beyond the minimum
pattern Q will also be handled on a case-by-case basis in
accordance with Footnote 39 of the Report and Order.
B. Normally Protected Contour.
17. Background. A station's normally protected contour
defines the area within which it is desirable to promote
quality service and minimize interference, insofar as possi 
ble. During the comment phase of this proceeding, some
parties proposed to change the Class B daytime protected
contour to the 2 mV/m contour, from the 0.5 mV/m
contour currently specified in the Commission's Rules.
Such a change would, generally. permit many stations to
increase their daytime power, and, therefore, provide a
stronger signal in areas where it was alleged that the natu 
ral and man-made noise level precluded reception of 0.5
m Vim signals. The Report and Order retained the 0.5
mY/m protected contour for Class B stations operating
during daytime.
18. Comm.ents. CDE and dLR proposed to make the 1
mV/m contour the Class B protected contour, which would
allow many stations to increase power. They argue that
3252
increases inman~madenoise and the new preference for
stereo operation in the expanded band indicate that such a
change is needed.
19. Discussion. Paragraph 56 of the Report and Order
noted that 2 mVim signals were needed for satisfactory
wide-band reception, which would provide for the best
reception of stereo signals. Indeed, this fact was crucial to
our decision regarding the adjacent channel protectionta~
tio, where we decided to apply a 6 dB protection ratio at
,the 0.5 mV/m contour that would only protect Darrow
band signals from adjacent channel interference, with wide 
band reception protected at the 2 illVim contour. Since
CDE and dLR provided no new information in this matter
in their petitions, no change in our decision is warranted.
C. "Simple" Directional Antennas in the Expanded Band.
20. Background. The Commission generally requires that
a full Proof-of-Performance be submitted at the licensing
stage for a directional AM station in order to demonstrate
that the antenna system is operating within the authorized
construction permit limits. Sections 73.151 and 73.186 set
forth the specific requirements for the field strengthmea~
surement data necessary. These sections include details
such as the number of measured radials necessary, their
locations relative to pattern lobes and nulls, number and
location of data points on each radial as well as other
information essential to ensure that the actual antenna
system is operating within specified tolerances. Often, full
Proofs-of-Performance are extremely complex and time
consuming, frequently necessitating the services of consult 
ing engineers specializing in this area. At times, these
proofs can also be prohibitively expensive. With these fac 
tors in mind, the Commission found it desirable to explore
possible alternatives to fullProofs~of-Performancefor direc 
tional AM stations in the expanded band. The Report and
Order defined a simple directional antenna as one which
uses two towers. Since interference prevention in the ex 
panded band will be primarily accomplished by means of
inter-station spacings, we decided that extensive proof-of 
performance requirements would not be necessary for such
simple directional antennas. Instead, for simple directional
antennas in the expanded band, a measured radial would
be required only in the directions for which the facility is
short-spaced to other co-channel or adjacent channel sta 
tions.
21. Comments. AFCCE contends that the definition of
simple directional antenna is vague and does not take into
account the radiating characteristics of the pattern or the
nature of the radiating elements themselves. AFCCE sug 
gests that a simple directional antenna should be defined as
one using series-fed radiators without top-loading or sec 
tionalization. Further, AFCCE requests that a maximum 
to-minimum radiation limit of 15 dB or less be established.
22. Discussion. The reason for exemption from the
normal proof-of-performance requirements for simple di 
rectional antennas in the expanded band is that spacings
between stations will make patterns with deep nulls unnec 
essary for protection purposes. Our experience over the
years with AM directional arrays leads us to conclude that
the definition of a "simple" directional antenna as one
with two towers is sufficient for the limited purpose of
distinguishing those antennas for which fullProof~of-Per­
formance can be waived without being unnecessarily com 
plex_ No evidence has been presented to convince us that a
8 FCC Red No. 10
Federal Communications Commission Record
FCC 93-198
more detailed definition is necessary under the circum 
stances, and thus we will not alter the conclusions of the
Report and Order.
D. 80% Coverage Criteria.
23. Background. The Commission has had a policy that
80% coverage of the principle community is sufficient for
AM nighttime coverage requirements. The Report and Or 
der codified this policy into the R.ules in Section 73.24(i).
24. Comments. AFCCE states that the Commission has
applied the 80% coverage criterion to the fulltime service
of FM stations in recent years. AFCCE requests clarifica 
tion as to whether the Commission intends to extend this
80% coverage criterion to the daytime operations of AM
stations as well.
25. Discussion. The Commission did not intend to extend
the existing "substantial compliance" policy for nighttime
coverage to the daytime operation of AM stations. Rather,
our intent was to codify the existing pOlicy. Coverage of
AM stations often varies widely from day to night. In fact,
many AM stations operate with different power and an 
tenna patterns day and night. For these reasons, we do not
believe it is unreasonable to draw a distinction between
coverage standards for day and night service. Further, the
focus of this proceeding is the improvement of the AM
service as a whole. Relaxation of coverage requirements is
not generally consistent with that objective. Finally, AF 
CCE has shown no compelling need for a relaxation of
AM daytime coverage requirements. Accordingly, we will
make no changes in this rule.
E. Section 73.37(b).
26. Background. The Report and Order deleted Section
73.37(b) of the Commission's Rules. Consequently, the
Commission no longer will permit a first local AM service
to receive added interference within its 0.5 mV/m contour
and up to its 1 mY/m contour.
27. Comments. Larry S. Tschirhart and dLR ask the
Commission to reconsider its decision to delete section
73.37(b). Petitioners claim that if a station's nighttime op 
eration can accept interference and still provide an inter 
ference-free signal over much of the city, it is only fair that
daytime facilities receive the same treatment. Furthermore,
they argue, retention of the provisions of section 73.37(b)
would not have a deleterious effect on the availability of
wideband radios since this rule applies to co-channel re 
ceived interference only. Petitioner Jeffrey N. Eustis re 
quests the Commission to consider the effect of the rule's
deletion on those existing stations authorized as first service
under Section 73.37(b) who wish to change their commu 
nity of license. Such changes, from one first service com 
munity to presumably a larger first service community,
may occur due to loss of a transmitter site, or the desire to
serve a larger, rapidly growing neighboring area. Such
moves will be impossible if a station cannot receive inter 
ference up to its new 1.0 mV/m at the new community.
Therefore, Eustis reasons, Section 73.37(b) is a pro-service
rule that has served the industry well in the past and can
continue to do so.
28. On the other hand, the National Association of
Broadcasters applauds the Commission decision to delete
Section 73.37(b) of the Commission's Rules. NAB also
proposes the deletion of Section 73.37(c) and (d). Section
73.37(c) allows Class C stations to receive overlap to their
0.5 mV/m contour under the assumption that both the
3253
p~oposedoperation and all existing Class C stations operate
wlth 250watt~and use non-directional antennas for pro 
posa.Is requestmg 1 kw. The same rationale applies for
SectIOn 73.37(d) where 100 watt Class C stations may pro 
pose to increase their power to 500 watts.
29. Discussion. While we understand the petitioners' ar 
guments, we continue to believe that ,Section 73.37(b)
encourages substandard operations and permits increased
AMcongesti~na~ddistorted service areas. Nighttime inter 
ference receIved IS a. function of stations already operating
ont~ech~nneland IS beyond the control of the applicant.
Daytime mterference received, however is a function of
~ot.h.~xisting~tatio.nscausinginterferenc~and the proposed
,?cIhties mod.'ficatlOns. We note that our rules permit sta 
tIOns that already receive interference to their 1 mV/m
contour to change sites or communities of license as long
as there would be no net increase in the area within their
0.5 mV/m contour. Finally, regarding NAB's suggestion
that we delete sections 73.37(c) and (d), we conclude that
these sections should be maintained to accommodate modi 
fications for the existing Class C stations. The probability of
a new Class C station in the existing band is not great since
these frequencies are already virtually saturated.
F. Applications for New Daytime-Only Stations in the
Existing Band.
30. Background. The Commission discontinued the au 
thorization of new daytime·only stations in 1987. In the
Report and Order the Commission decided not to authorize
new daytime-only stations in the expanded band.
.31. C0';lments. Jeffrey Eustis supports acceptance of cer 
tam daytIme-only applications in the existing band under
limited circumstances. NAB supports the freeze on new
AM daytime·only stations as well as its logical extension to
the expanded band. NAB cites the likely diminution of at
least some daytime coverage and probable future urging by
daytime~onlystations for extended hours.
32. Discussion. Petitioner presents no new information or
a~g,!~entsto persuade us that a continuation of the pro 
hIbIt.lOn. on .the authorization of new daytime-only AM
applIcatIOns IS not in the public interest. Each additional
daytime-only station has a substantial preclusive effect on
the potential assignment of unlimited-time stations on sev 
en channels:. the channel occupied by the daytime station,
and three adjacentcha~nelshigher and lower in frequency.
Mo:eover, the preclUSIve effect of additional daytime-only
statlons would not be confined to blocking possibilities for
new unlimited·time stations. Such stations could also fore 
close opportunities for existing stations to improve their
nighttime services to the public because some stations may
need to change their daytime facilities in order to upgrade
their nighttime service. For these reasons we decline to
encourage the filing of applications for more AM daytime 
only stations.
IV. MIGRATION
33. Background. The Commission decided, as had been
proposed in the NPRM, to limit initial eligibility to occupy
the expanded band to existing stations. It declined to re 
serve channels in the expanded band for minorities or
non-commercial operations, concluding that to do so
would be inconsistent with the public interest objectives of
reducing interference and congestion and improving tech 
nical quality in the existing AM band. It also concluded
that little, if any, overall improvement in AM reception in
FCC 93·198 Federal Communications Commission Record
8 FCC Red No. 10
the existing band would be gained by allowing Class C
(formerly Class IV) stations to migrate to the expanded
band. The Commission further found that there is nothing
in the record to show that the migration of Class C stations
would significantly reduce overall interference in the exist 
ing band.
34. The Repofl and Order also established an order of
priority for migration by existing licensees to the expanded
band. Fulltime licensees who would most reduce interfer 
ence and congestion by moving to the expanded band
would be given top priority for slots in that band. If rio
fulltime station asked for a particular channel in an area,
the next priority would go to daytime stations located
within the 0.5 mV/m-50% skywave contours of Class A
stations and which are licensed to serve communities of
100,000 or more that currently lack a local fulltime aural
service. The next priority would go to other daytime-only
stations that under current rules cannot operate at night.
Finally, for ranking applicants within the respective ful1 
time and daytime categories, improvement factors were
defined as the ratio of nighttime and daytime interference
caused to the amount of nighttime and daytime service that
the station provides.
35. Petitioners request that we reconsider: (a) our de 
cision to restrict eligibility to migrate initially to existing
licensees excluding Class C stations; (b) the order of migra 
tion priority among the eligible classes of existing licensees;
and (c) the improvement factor we would use to rank
applicants within each of these categories.
A. Migration Eligibility
36. Reserved Channels for lvlinorilies. In a joint petition,
the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People, the League of United Latin American Citizens and
the National Black Media Coalition assert that awarding
100% of the expanded band to incumbent broadcasters
"will have little or no impact on AM band interference,"
whereas awarding some of the expanded band to minorities
would substantially alleviate the "gross underrepresenta 
tion" of minorities in the ownership of broadcast stations:!
Petitioners also, for the first time, propose a scheme where 
by incumbent broadcasters migrating to the expanded band
would be issued tax certificates for selling their existing
band stations to minorities. The seller would retain its
Iicense for a station in the expanded band. As part of this
proposal, the minority buyers would then be aJIowed to
operate these existing band stations together with new ex 
panded band stations to be awarded them for a five year
transitional period. Petitioners argue that this approach
would give a cash infusion (along with a tax certificate) to
any incumbent migrating to the expanded band and ensure
the more rapid occupation of the band with incumbents
plus minorities. Finally, petitioners point to a study by the
NTIA released after adoption of the Report & Order that
shows a decrease in the percentage and number of minor·
4 Petitioners have submitted no evidence in support of their
claim that awarding all of the expanded band to incumbents
will have little or no impact on interference.
5 In paragraph 109 of the Report and Order, we noted that
Multilingual Communications Association and Global Broad 
casting System, Inc. had suggested that channels in theex~
panded band be set aside for minorities and women. Both
3254
ity owned stations between 1990-91. They contend that
such a decrease compels the Commission to reconsider its
decision.
s
37. Discussion. We decided in the Report and Order to
restrict initial eligibility for expanded band allotments to
existing licensees to maximize interference and congestion
reduction in the existing band. We concluded that initially
allowing new applicants in the expanded band would not
further that primary goal of interference and congestion
reduction. For the same reason we declined to reserve
exclusive use of channels for minority, female or educa 
tional entities. Reserving even one channel of the ten
available for a particular group's exclusive use would re 
duce by 10% the expanded band capacity available for
achieving interference and congestion reduction. The peti 
tioners have offered no persuasive reason for altering the
Report and Order with respect to the issue of reserved
channels in the expanded band. The Commission iscon~
cerned about the NTIA study cited by the petitioners shoW 
ing a decrease in the percentage and number of minority
owned stations between 1990-91. As noted earlier, we rec 
ognize that increasing the levels of minority ownership
promotes diversity and therefore advances the public inter 
est. Indeed, the Commission has taken action through fur 
ther revisions to the radio ownership rules to address the
need to increase opportunities for minority ownership. See
ReVision of Radio Rules and Policies, 7 FCC Red 6387
(199'2) (reinstating and expap.ding minority ownership in 
centives). Moreover, minority applicants will have the op 
portunity to apply for channels remaining after the initial
migration, using available comparative preferences. Peti·
tioners' new proposal regarding the use of tax certificates is
not a viable option in light of our decision to limit initial
migration to the expanded band to existing licensees, and
to require the eventual deletion of one existing band sta 
tion for every expanded band station authorized. Moreover,
this proposal would undermine the basic rationale of our
decision, i.e., the overall reduction of interference and
congestion in the existing band. Also, the proposal is un 
timely since it is an entirely new proposal that should have
been submitted earlier as a comment in response to the
NPRM.
38. Class C Licensees. In its petition for reconsideration
the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) requests
that the Commission consider giving Class C (formerly
Class IV) licensees a chance to migrate to the expanded
band during the "second round" of licensing. While it
concedes that the migration of Class C stations to the
expanded band may not result in the degree of interference
reduction that might be achieved by the migration of other,
hig~er-poweredstations, NAB asserts that equity dictates
giving these licensees a chance to migrate after the initial
round of licensing. Petitioner notes that fifty-four Class C
licensees had submitted letters of intent to migrate.
39. Discussion. The NAB has failed to refute our conclu 
sion that little, if any, overall improvement in reception in
the existing AM band would be gained by allowing Class C
panies have advised the Commission that this statement mis 
characterizes their respective positions. In fact, in its comments,
Multilingual only asked that the expanded band be made avail 
able to all currently eligible parties while Global specifically
asks that one channel be set aside for applicants who propose to
provide multi-ethnic, multilingual broadcast service on a non 
profit basis.
8 FCC Rcd No. 10 Federal Communications Commission Record
FCC 93·198
stations to migrate, and we decline to grant its request. As
explained in the Report and Order, Class C stations provide
local service to small communities without regard to either
service or interference beyond their immediate service
areas. Most Class C stations operate at a power of 1 kW,
day and night, without consideration of interference to
other Class C stations. Even if it were possible to accom 
modate a relatively large number of Class C stations in the
expanded band, which is not- feasible, no evidence has been
presented anywhere in this proceeding to persuade us that
any significant improvement in AM reception on Class C
channels would result. For these reasons, we continue to
fmd Class C stations ineligible for migration to the AM
expanded band.
B. Existing Stations Causing Interference and Preferred
Migrators.
40. Background. After the close of the comment period
in this proceeding, Congress amended Section 331 of the
Communications Act to add Section 331(b). Section 331(b)
requires that, if technically feasible, the Commission must
find a means to enable current daytime-only stations lo 
cated in communities of more than 100,000 and within a
Class I station primary service area to provide service to
those communities 24 hours a day, if these licensees notify
the Commission that they seek to provide fulltime service.
6
41. Comments. In its petition for reconsideration, Radio
Elizabeth, Inc., licensee of daytime-only AM station
WJDM, Elizabeth, New Jersey, notifies the Commission
that it seeks to provide full-time service to Elizabeth, New
Jersey which has a population of more than 100,000 and is
located within the primary service area of a Class I (now
Class A) station. It contends that revising Section 73.30 of
the Rules on reconsideration to give an overriding pref 
erence for migration to the expanded band to this special
class of daytime-only AM stations is the obvious means of
complying with the goals of Section 331(b) of the Act.
Petitioner submits that the scope of the notice given in the
NPRM envisioned establishing a set of priorities for migra 
tion and that the revision of these priorities on reconsider- .
ation is proper and does not require a further rule making.
Petitioner states that apparently no more than four or five
AM daytime-only stations across the country would fall in
this special category.
42. Discussion. The NPRM in this proceeding gave notice
of our intention to establish a set of priorities for the
migration of existing AM licensees to the expanded band.
While the Report and Order placed stations such as WJDM,
in Elizabeth, New Jersey in the number 2 priority category,
we now revise our criteria. This revision enables us to
comply with the subject amendment to the Communica 
tions Act, which reflects a congressional determination that
6 Section 331(b} of the Communications Act of 1934, as amend 
ed, reads as follows:
(b) AM RADIO STATIONS -- It shall be the policy of
the Commission, in any case in which the licensee of an
existing AM daytime-only station located in a community
with a population of more than 100,000 persons that lacks
a local full· time aural station licensed to that community
and that is located within aCla~sI station primary ser 
vice area notifies the Commission that such licensee seeks
to provide full-time service. to ensure that such a licensee
is able to place a principal community contour signal
3255
enabling stations like WJDM to offer fulltime local service
would be a significant benefit to the pUblic interest. Fur 
thermore, we find that, in view of the few stations in 
volved, this reordering of the priorities does not impede
our main policy objective of interference and congestion
reduction in the existing AM band. Accordingly, Section
73.30 of the Commission's Rules will be amended to pro 
vide that stations defined in Section 331(b) of the Commu 
nications Act be given the first priority for migration to the
expanded band. See Policy Statement In the Matter of
Amendment of Section 331 of the Communications Act of
1934, 7 FCC Rcd 4905 (1992).
C. Improvement Factors
43. Comments. AFCCE and LSC assert that the ratio used
to rank licensees seeking to migrate to the expanded band
does not take service gains and losses directly into accounr?
and therefore does not satisfy Section 307(b} consider 
ations. AFCCE suggests that the ratio be calculated based
upon the net change in total service area rather than the
ratio of interference caused to service provided. Specifi 
cally, AFCCE requests that the ratio be redefined "by using
the sum of the migrating station's and other stations' ser 
vice differences as the numerator and the migrator's exist 
ing service as the denominator." In essence, this proposal
adds an additional factor for the net change in service area
for the migrating station in the numerator. LSC concurs
with AFCCE on this matter.
44. Schober maintains that if a former Class II-S and
III-S (now Class D) station enters the 25% exclusion RSS
of some stations. it should be given nighttime improvement
factor credit in priority ranking for the expanded band.
CDE also supports adopting additional provisions to en 
hance the opportunities for Class D stations to migrate to
the expanded band.
45. Schober also suggests that "immediate" migrators,
those willing to relinquish their existing band licenses im 
mediately as opposed to within 5 years, should be given
some priority enhancement because they will improve the
interference situation immediately as opposed to 5 years
from now. Finally, Schober believes that existing stations
on 1590 and 1600 should be given a special preference
because they preclude operations on 1610 and 1620 in the
expanded band_
46. Polnet maintains that our prioritization scheme is
contradictory. It notes that on the one hand we claim that
reduction of daytime interference is important enough to
warrant considering a fulltime station's daytime interfer 
ence in calculating its ranking within the fulltime station
category, yet we continue to maintain an entirely separate
category for daytime stations in the ranking. Polnet argues
that a daytimer, who by migrating could eliminate massive
over its entire community of license 24 hours a day, if
technically feasible. The Commission shall report to the
appropriate Committees of Congress within 30 days after
the date of enactment of this Act on how it intends to
meet this policy goal.
7 The ratio of daytime and nighttime interference a station
causes to the amount of daytime and nighttime service that the
station provides will be used to determine its improvement
factor.
FCC 93-198 Federal Communications Commission Record 8 FCC Red No. 10
daytime interference, would be beaten by an unlimited
time facility with only minimal interference improvement.
Polnet believes that there should be no arbitrary distinction
for ranking purposes between unlimited time and daytime
only stations.
47. Discussion. We have carefully reviewed the factors
chosen in the Report & Order to define the ratio that will
rank applicants within each preference category_ We re 
main convinced that this carefully crafted formula will
permit an equitable selection of migrators to the expanded
band and improve service quality in the existing band.
48_ The concept of considering net gain or loss in service
area would be worthwhile if our objective was to improve
the circumstances of those licensees seeking to migrate to a
new channel. However, our goal in selecting potential mi 
grators has been to favor those who, by changing fre 
quency, would offer the greatest benefit to those iicensees
who remain behind in the existing band (535 - 1605 kHz).
AFCCE's suggested revision to the adopted improvement
factor would disproportionately favor those prospective mi 
grating AM stations who, while not significantly reducing
interference to the existing band, would gain large amounts
of service area by trading, for example, a relatively low
power existing band operation for a higher power ex 
panded band operation. This is inconsistent with our over 
all interference reduction theme since it does not
necessarily effectuate a migration of those stations which
cause the most interference and congestion. Further, we
believe that AFCCE's proposal, to include the difference
between a migrating station's existing and expanded bands'
service areas in the numerator and then subsequentlydi~
viding by the migrating station's existing service area, effec 
tively double-counts the significance of the existing service
area factor and thereby tends to diminish the importance
of the interference reduction factor. We do not believe
such a double-count is appropriate. Additionally, we note
that accurate computation of expanded band service areas
presents serious practical problems. It is impossible to pre 
cisely compute expanded band service areas until the entire
planning process has been finalized sinCe: this computation
requires knowledge of all the operational details of the
expanded band stations, including site locations, and some
of these parameters will not be available untilth~planning
and application processes have been completed.
49. We also do not believe that it is appropriate to revise
the improvement factor calculations to consider the night 
time improvement that would result from the migration of
former Class II-S and III-S facilities that enter the 25%
exclusion RSS. Nighttime operations by former Class II-S
andIII~Sfacilities are secondary; their permitted power
levels were calculated on a non-interfering basis in accor 
dance with the rules in effect at the time they were
originally authorized. These power levels were assigned
without consideration of coverage or service or whether
these operations would experience interference from subse 
quently auth'orized facilities. Additionally, these operations
are not obligated to comply with the rules governing mini 
mum operating schedules and therefore provision of such
service is completely at the licensee's discretion. For these
reasons, such services do not warrant inclusion in the
improvement factor calcUlations. We also decline to revise
8 Subsequent to release of the Report and Order in this pro 
ceeding, the Telecommunications Authorization Act of 1992 was
enacted. Section 214 of the Authorization Act requires the
3256
the ranking factor calculation to remove the distinction
between unlimited time and daytime only categories be 
cause we believe that, wherever possible, a licensee's mi 
grating to the expanded band should produce a net
reduction in interference experienced during nighttime
hours. We take that position because nighttime is thepe~
riod subject to the most pervasive reception of undesired
signals affecting operation in the AM Band. This is due to
the enhanced propagation of skywave signalS. Nor do we
find compelling reason to favor applications of "imme 
diate" migrators. In effect, such a move would tend to
forego greater long term benefits for lesser short term
gains. Finally, while operations on 1590 and 1600 kHz do
impose some constraints on the use of the expanded band,
all assignments, in both the existing and expanded bands,
impose constraints upon future assignment flexibility to
some degree. Such an imposition of constraints is not, in
and of itself, sufficient justification, in our view, to warrant
a favored status among applicants for the expanded band
channels.
V. AM RECEIVER STANDARDS
50. Background. In the Report and Order, theCommis~
sion declined to set mandatory standards for either AM
stereo capability or technical quality of AM receivers.
8
The
Commission noted that receiver design involves many
tradcoffs among performance, features and cost. Achieving
the proper balance among these competing factors is best
left to receiver manufacturers and, ultimately, the market 
place. Additionally, the imposition of compulsory standards
would likely raise the cost of receivers and eliminate
models with which some buyers are presently satisfied. The
Commission encouraged receiver manufacturers to market
receivers with AM stereo capability as well as NRSC-3
characteristics, on a voluntary basis.
51. Comments. Burrow argues that the Commission
should direct receiver manufacturers to incorporate ex 
panded band and variable bandwidth I.F. and audio stages
in new units. Burrow also maintains that the Commission
should require stereo reception capability for automotive
and high-end receivers.
52. The EIA opposes Burrow's suggestions stating that
Burrow "does not explain the bases for these proposals, nor
does he acknowledge, much less attempt to refute, the
Commission's stated reasons for relying on marketplace
factors to address these matters." EIA goes on to cite
interindustry coordination efforts such as the NRSC and
joint NAB-EIA AMax certification program as examples of
successful voluntary efforts regarding the technical aspects
of AM receivers.
53. Discussion. We will continue to rely on marketplace
factors to determine the characteristics appropriate for AM
receivers. Industry is in a much better position than gov 
ernment to ascertain and respond to the consumer demand
regarding price, quality and features desirable in an AM
receiver. In this regard, we note the progress made toward
this end with industry groups such as the NRSC and joint
NAB-EIA AMax certification program. No new informa-
Commission to adopt a single AM broadcasting stereo transmis 
sion standard. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in ET Docket
No. 92-298, adopted December 10. 1992,8 FCC Red 688 (1992).
8 FCC Rcd No. 10 Federal Communications Commission Record
FCC 93-198
tion has been submitted that persuades us that our initial
decision to Jet the marketplace set AM receiver standards
was incorrect.
9
VI. TRAVELERS INFORMATION STATIONS
Travelers Information Service Operating Frequency and
Technical Standards.
54. Background. In the Report and Order, the Commis 
sion decided to permit Travelers Information Stations (TIS)
tu operate on any channel in the AM band, on a secondary
basis, and adopted co-channel separation criteria in Part 90
of the Rules.
55. Comments. NAB opposes TIS operations throughout
the AM band, even on a secondary basis, and proposes
instead that 530 and 1710 kHz be used. NTlA, having
proposed a primary and exclusive allocation to TIS at 1700
kHz during the proceeding, requests that we repeal the
newly adopted rules affecting TIS operations and instead
use the usual interagency coordination process in order to
obtain a mutually acceptable resolution to the issue.
NTlA's position on 1700 kHz was supported by petitions
from four other TIS interests: AASHTO and the Maryland,
Oklahoma and Illinois Departments of Transportation.
AASHTO and the Illinois DOT went further and also
support the alternative of staying on 1610 kHz, at least for
a period of time. NTIA, in its petition, also referred to a
new law, "The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficien 
cy Act of i 991" (Pub. L. No. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914
(i991,) which refers to the "Inteliigent Vehicle Highway
System, iViiS." NTIA states that the Federal Highway Ad 
ministration planned to use 1700 kHz to transmit IVHS
messages. CDE proposes that initial assignment of TIS sta 
tions be made to specific frequencies such as 530, 1690 and
1700 kHz, with other channels employed only after the
first ones are saturated, amounting to a TIS set-aside. Radio
Station WBZK-AM suggests that a singie frequency be used
for TIS operation, although no specific frequency was cited.
56. CDE and dLR also propose that the frequency toler 
ance for TIS comply with that specified for the AM band
(20 Hz compared to current 100 Hz for TIS) in order to
minimize interference and that TIS be made generally sub 
ject to the same technical standards as AM stations. CDE
lays out a comprehensive procedure for accomplishing that
end in seven detailed recommendations based upon a
worst-case application of the technical standards now pro 
posed for TIS in Part 90. A prominent feature of CDE's
proposal is the requirement that the Commission's AM
Branch review every TIS application.
57. Discussion. Petitioners renew arguments concerning
TIS stations that the Report and Order already considered
and rejected. The Report and Order addressed NTIA's ar 
gument concerning the dedication of 1700 kHz to TIS,
9 At a minimum, AM stereo receivers would be manufactured
to conform with the stereo transmission standard adopted in ET
Docket 92-298.
10 We are sensitive to concerns that public reliance on TIS
requires that such service not. be subject to undue disruption.
Therefore, in a future proceedlllg, we will reexamine the status
of travelers' information stations and explore the feasibility of a
primary allocation for TIS at 1710 kHz. Federal government TIS
3257
~~plainingthat .such ana~tionwould .not achieve the prin 
CIpal goal of thIS proceedmg, a reductIOn of interference in
the~xistingAM ban? Moreover, our decision to provide
multIple channel aSSIgnment flexibility for TIS offers new
prospects for the growth of the TIS service, as well as
imposingmi~imalimpact on existing use of 1610 kHz by
the TIS ,ervlce. Appendix D of the Report and Order
showed that only four broadcast stations could migrate- to
1610 kHz in the Sample AHolment Plan. "The Intermodal
Surface Transportati?nEfficien~yAct of 1991" cited by
NTIA was not preVIOusly conSIdered in this proceeding.
Since this law (adopted December 18, 1991) does not ad 
dress TIS operations as part of the IVHS, its relevance to
this proceeding is unclear. Regarding NAB's suggestion to
:xse 530 kHz a?d 1710 kHz for TIS, we note that 530 kHz
1S already available for use and that since 1710 kHz is
outside of the broadcast band under consideration in this
proceeding, it is too late to consider making it available for
TIS in this proceeding.
lO
58. CDE's approach to the administration of the TIS
would place a substantial paper work burden on theau~
plicants, who currently certify compliance with Part 90,
and do not submit detailed engineering exhibits, since TIS
licenses are often valid over large areas. We find it unnec 
essary to impose such a burden on the TIS, since the
stations will operate on a secondary basis. Another new
iss.ue. raised by petitioners is whether we should change the
eXIstmg 100 Hz frequency tolerance for TIS stations. We
acknowledge that unless TIS stations operate with the same
frequency tolerance as broadcast stations, there would be a
greater potential for interference than assumed by the new
co-channel separation requirements. Once again, however.
we note that TIS stations will be operating on asecondar~
basis tobro~dcasting.Ad~itional1y,we understand that typt 
cal TIS eqUIpment now ill use meets a much higher stan 
dard (around 20 Hz). For these reasons, we find that
changing the existing frequency tolerance is not necessary.
VII. OTHER MATTERS
59. Cuban Interference Relief STA's. Comments were filed
~yCox Enterprises, Inc. (Cox), parent company of the
licensees of two stations that face similar, though somewhat
exceptional, difficulties, WIOD, Miami, Florida and
WSUN, St. Petersburg, Florida. Both stations currently op 
erate under separate Special Temporary Authorizations
(STA's) to permit increased power levels to compensate for
interference received from Cuban stations that were not
coordinated under the terms of relevant international no 
tification agreements. Cox cites the persistent nature of the
Cuban interference and the substantial expense involved in
upgrading each of the affected facilities, and therefore re 
quests that WIOD and WSUN be permanently licensed to
operate with those increased facilitiesY
operations will continue on 1610 kHz on aco~primarybasis
until they can be reaccommodated in an orderly fashion on an
alternative frequency.
11 The WIOD and WSUN authorizations, as well as 14 other
such STA's, were conditioned on there being no interference to
any other valid station assignments. Because of the more re 
strictive allocation requirements adopted in the Report and
Order, subsequent renewals of these authorities would likely
require the reduction of existing STA power levels to maintain
their non-interfering status.
FCC 93-198 Federal Communications Commission Record
8 FCC Red No. 10
60. We believe that the public interest requires some
accommodation to the group of stations which find them 
selves caught in this situation. Upon demonstration that
Cuban interference is still occurring to at least the same
degree as it had been when the STA was last renewed, and
barring complaints from any of the newly affected stations,
we will not require stations operating under the authority
of the existing Cuban STA's to modify their present oper 
ations to comply with the new technical criteria each time
the STA is renewed. Any new requests or modifications of
exis[ing STA's will, however, be required to show compli 
ance with the new, morc restrictive allocations standards.
At such time as the U.S. and Cuba reach agreementregard~
ing their AM broadcast services, these STA's will be can 
cclled.
61. Classification of sub-50 kilowatt Class 1 stations. The
AFCCE and Buckley Broadcasting Corporation of Califor 
nia, Inc. (Buckley) sought reconsideration on a change
made in the ReP0rl and Order to Section 73.182(a)(1)(ii) of
our rules. Previously, the rules had permitted Class I-B
stations operating within the coterminous 48 states to use
power levels as low as 10 kilowatts. Section 73.182(a)(1)(i)
as modified in the Report and Order now requires all
mainland Class A stations to operate with 50 kW, a provi 
sion which would ostensibly downgrade those former Class
1-8 stations operating with less than 50 kW to Class B
status, thereby depriving those operations of the consider 
ably enhanced protection to which former Class 1 and
present Class A stations are beneficiary.
62. The vast majority of mainland Class A stations are
licensed to operate with 50 kW, a power level best suited
for stations intended to provide wide-area service in the
most efficient manner. It was not the Commission's intent
to diminish protection to any category of AM station; quite
the contrary, the goal was to improve protection wherever
possible. We now clarify the status of these stations under
our revised rules.
63. Those stations listed as Class I-A and l-B prior to the
Repon and Order will be classified as Class A stations
regardless of their presently licensed power levels. We will
update the records for these facilities in the FCC files and
data bases to reflect this change. This "grandfathering"
treatment shall also apply to any Class A station that in the
future decreases its power below the 50 kW level to achieve
interference reduction or to obtain authorization to modify
its facilities. All shall continue to be classified as Class A
unless a power level is used which is below that required
to generate a secondary service contour, i.e., a skywave
signal of at least 0.5 mV/m for 50% of the time that
extends beyond the groundwave service contour.
64. Directional Antenna Augmentallon Requesls. LSC and
the AFCCE question changes made in the Repon and
Order to procedures for the filing of directional antenna
pattern augmentation requests. Specifically, thesecommen~
ters ask whether additional tolerance should be permitted
at non-monitored azimuths after the analysis of measure 
ment data indicates a radiated field in excess of the permit 
ted value. At those azimuths the Report and Order specifies
that the allowable augmentation value shall be themea~
sl,ued value in that direction with no additional tolerance.
Commenters point to procedures established in Docket No.
12 B4 FCC Red 796 (1981).
3258
21473
12
and observe that the tlno-tolerance" approach is
inconsistent with the methods used in that docket. They
suggest that a 5% tolerance be added in those directions.
65. The Standard Pattern Conversion made in Docket
No. 21473 presented general guidelines to be used for the
conversion of many hundreds of theoretical patterns into
standard and modified standard antenna .patterns. Most of
these individual conversions required unique administra 
tive manipulation because they defied the application of a
simple computerized methodology for processing of these
theoretical patterns. Pattern maximum expected operating
values (MEOV's), point MEOV's, previously accepted mea 
sured patterns that had radiated fields in excess of the
theoretical limits, RMS deficiencies, and numerous other
anomalous developments created the need for general
guidelines and a procedure incorporating a liberal toler 
ance to treat the largest variety of these situations in the
most uniform manner.
66. The focus of our efforts now is concentrated on the
concept of AM improvement and reducing the potential
for interference within the band rather than accommodat 
ing a large number of difficult-to-adjust antenna systems.
Thus, there is little justification for applying procedures
that were never intended for use beyond the initial pattern
conversion project and will not achieve an improved AM
service. Augmentation is not a process that was conceived
to permit unjustified pattern relaxation routinely. It is to
be a last resort after all other design and adjustment tech 
niques have failed, serving in effect as a pattern "blow-out
patch", which should be used only in rare cases where
there is an unforeseen standard pattern shortcoming.
Therefore, we deny petitioners' request; the text of Section
73.152 will remain as stated in the Report and Order.
67. Class B Power Restrictions Imposed by NARBA. LSC
and dLR raise concerns about limitations placed on Class B
(formerly Class III) stations wishing to increase power
above 5 kW but restricted by North American Regional
Broadcasting Agreement (N/\RBA) requirements pertain 
ing to this country, the Bahamas Islands and the Domini 
can Republic. These limitations prohibit power levels
beyond 5 kW on the former Class III frequencies. Petition 
ers argue that Class B stations that may otherwise qualify
for power increases will be precluded from increasing pow 
er by Section 73.1650, which requires consideration of all
binding international agreements, including NARBA. They
urge the Commission to consider these situations on a case
by case basis.
68. The Commission has been working with the Domini 
can Republic and the Bahamas for a substantial time in an
effort to replace the NARBA requirements. Further discus 
sions are to be held in the months ahead. Until an agree 
ment can be reached terminating the NARBA, we will use
the Note to Section 73.21(b) as a guideline. If a situation
warrants. we will consider grant of an application which
falls in this category, on a case by case basis. subject to
appropriate conditions, in accordance with the provisions
of Section 73.23(b).
69. Night Power for Class 0 Stations. In response to the
AFCCE petition, we clarify that the calculation of permis 
sible night power for Class D stations specified in section
8 FCC Rcd No. 10 Federal Communications Commission Record
FCC 93·198
73.99(1)(7) will employ a 25% exclusion, since such sta 
tions can be classified as "low" interferers. The rule will be
corrected to read as follows:
"(7) For protection purposes, the nighttime 25% RSS
limit will be used in the determination of maximum
permissible poweL"
VIIl. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
70. Processing Procedures. The Report and Order stated
that, upon lifting of the freeze on AM applications, new
applications must comply with the new technical standards.
Applications currently on file that have been "cut-off
l1
were not required to amend. All others were given sixty
days from the effective date of the Report and Order to file
amendments to satisfy the requirements of the revised
rules.
71. In a petition for reconsideration, Romar Commu 
nications, Inc. notes that it filed an application for a new
AM station in Lansing, N.Y. before the AM freeze went
into effect. That application was returned as defective and
Romar subsequently (after the freeze took effect) refiled an
amended application and a request for acceptance n.unc pro
tunc. The latter was opposed and remains pending. The
application has not, therefore, been "cut off." Romar ar 
gues that, because it would not be able to amend its refiled
application in a satisfactory manner, it would be inequi 
table to apply the new rules to that application, which was
originally filed to meet old technical standards. Petitioner
asks that the Report and Order be revised so that the new
technical standards will not apply to applications with a
status similar to its Lansing application.
72. We deny Romar's request. We continue to believe
that the necessity for definitive processing line procedures
requires that the new technical rules be applied in the
manner specified in the Report and Order.
73. For the sake of clarification, we repeat here the
corrections and clarifications that were made to the Repon
and Order released on October 25, 1991 prior to its gub 
lication in the Federal Register on December 12, 1991. 3
In the note which follows Section 73.25 (b) the value of
1.. microVim was erroneously specified, it has been cor 
rected to read 5 microV/m.
To footnote 1 which follows the Table at the end of Section
73.182 (q), the following sentence was added to clarify what
had been an ambiguous meaning of the applicability of the
footnote:
"This note does not apply to Class C stations; or to
the protection of Class A stations which are normally
protected on a single signal non-RSS basis."
The value used in Section 73.185 (d) for the upper bracket
angle was corrected to read It 16.6 degrees" and not"16.3
degrees" as had been stated in the Report.
The instructions preceding the revisions made to Section
71.190 were corrected to indicate that new Figures 7 and 8
were being included.
13 56 FR 239.
3259
To clarify the use of the pertinent formula 73.190 (b) Note
(3) was corrected to read:
In equation (7), k = -1 for west to east paths
(i.e., br > bt), othenvise k = 1.
Section 90.242 (a) was corrected to reflect the determina 
tions made in the Report to read:
The frequencies 530 through 1700 kHz in 10kHz
increments may be assigned to the Local Government
Radio Service for the operation of Travelers Informa 
tion Stations subject to the following conditions and
limitations.
The Report and Order was corrected in Paragraph 216 to
show that the lifting of the freeze on AM applications- will
pertain to not only major change applications but to all
types of modification applications; accordingly, the word
"major" was stricken from the text of the second sentence
of Paragraph 216.
74. The only other changes made to the version of the
Report that appeared in the Federal Register involved the
Ordering Clauses (Par. Nos. 220. 221 and 222 of the Re 
port). These corrections were effected to indicate that, in
addition to Part 73, 47 CFR Part 2 and Part 90 had been
amended; and also to indicate the effective dates of the
amended rules, application forms, and the removal of the
application filing freeze.
IX. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT
75. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980.
the Commission included a final analysis in the Report and
Order detailing (i) the need for and purpose of the rules,
(ii) the summary of issues raised by public comment in
response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, Com 
mission assessment, and changes made as a result, and (iii)
significant alternatives considered and rejected. The peti 
tions for reconsideration have triggered no substantive
changes to the earlier decision and consequently to that
final analysis.
X. ORDERtNG CLAUSES
76. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petitions for
reconsideration filed in this proceeding ARE GRANTED
to the extent indicated herein and are otherwise DENIED.
77, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to au 
thority contained in Sections 4 (i). 301. 303(b), (f), (g), (i).
and (i), 307(d), 308(a). 310. 312, 313.314 and 331(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.c. Sec 
tions 4(i) 301, 303(b). (f), (g). (i). and (i), 307(d), 308(a).
310.312,313,314 and 331(b). Part 73 of the Commission's
rules and regulations, 47 CFR Part 73, IS AMENDED as
set forth in the attached Appendix B. The rules will go into
effect 30 days after publication of this Afemorandum Opin 
ion and Order in the Federal Register.
78. For further information, contact Larry Olson, (202)
254-3394, Policy and Rules Division, :Mass Media Bureau.
FCC 93-198 Federal Communications Commission Record
8 FCC Red No. 10
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Donna R. Searcy
Secretary
APPENDIX A
A~lPETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
I) COHEN, DIPPELL AND EVERIST, P.c. (CDE)
2) R. MORGAN BURROW, JR.
3) JEFFREY N. EUSTIS
4) DENNIS JACKSON (RADIO STATION WREF)
5) THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANS 
PORTATION
6) RADIO ELIZABETH, INC. (RADIO STATION
WJDM, ELIZABETH, NJ)
7) POLNET BROADCASTING COMPANY, LTD.
(RADIO STATION WKTA, EVANSTON IL)
8) ROMAR COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
9) THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE AD 
VANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP)
10) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST 
ERS (NAB)
11) ASSOCIATION OF FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTING ENGINEERS
(AFCCE)
12) THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AND lNFORMATION ADMINISTRATION (NTlA)
13) BURKHARDT MONITORING SERVICE
14) LAHM. SUFFA & CAVELL,INC. (LSC)
15) BUCKLEY BROADCASTING CORPORATION
OF CALIFORNIA, INC. (BUCKLEY)
16) LARRY S. TSCHIRHART
17) DUTREIL, LUNDIN & RACKLEY, INC. (dLR)
18) THE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANS 
PORTATION (MDOT)
19) THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE
HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFHCALS
(AASHTO)
20) EDWARD SCHOBER, P.E.
21) JOHN R. FURR late filed
22) ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA 
TION late filed
APPENDIX B
COMMI£NTS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE PETITIONS
FOR RECONSIDERATION
1) DUTREIL. LUNDIN AND RACKLEY, INC
(dLR)
3260
2) ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
(EIA)
3) NATIONAL ASSOC. OF BROADCASTERS
(NAB)
4) RADIO AIDS. INC
5) LOUIS A. WILLIAMS, JR.
6) GEORGE BRADSHAW, SCAN COMMUNICA 
TIONS
7) HEIMERL & ASSOCIATES
8) COX ENTERPRISES, INC
9) NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION (NTIA)
10) RADIO TEN CORPORATION, RADIO STA 
TION WCMX
11) COMMERCIAL RADIO MONITORING COM 
PANY (CRMC)
12) JEFFREY N. EUSTIS
13) DELTA ELECTRONICS, INC.
14) RADIO STATION WBZK-AM late filed
15) DAVID W. SCHMIDT late filed
CONCURRING STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER ANDREW C. BARRETT
RE: Review of Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM
Broadcast
At the time of our Report and Order in this proceeding,
I concurred in this item because of its failure to adequately
address my concerns regarding the impact on small radio
station businesses, including those who are minority own 
ed.
1
I felt the decision was inequitable then with respect to
these entities. I continue to believe that is the case in this
subsequent order. It IS not surprising to me that the Com 
mission finds equitable reasons, as a matter of law or
policy, to modify our prior Order and allow certain en 
tities priority status in the expanded band where: 1. AM
daytime-only stations in communities of morc than 100,000
and within a Class I station primary service area seek to
provide full-time, 24-hour service
2
; and 2. Travelers In 
formation Stations seek too~erateon a primary status
within the AM expaaded band. The Order finds that such
actions are likely to have a deminimis impact on our goal
of reducing interference. It also acknowledges that other
public interest concerns can be considered beyond interfer 
ence reduction with respect to expanded band allotments.
Thus, I am surprised that this Order selectively carves out
these concerns while rejecting others with similar merit.
OUf decision to deny opportunities for Class C licensees to
migrate to the expanded band is inequitable. Our decision
to reject some type of priority allocation for all AM day 
time only stations and minority-owned AM stations
4
in a
portion of the expanded band also continues to be inequi 
table. I believe that arguments on reconsideration justify
granting these various entities equal priority in the real 
location of at least a portion of the AM expanded band. To
selectively support public interest concerns for certain en 
tities in the expanded band. yet reject small business and
8 FCC Red No. 10 Federal Communications Commission Record
FCC 93-198
minority ownership concerns despite statistical evidence
that supports more equitable treatment, is an arbitrary
exercise in regulatory linedrawing. Thus, I concur.
FOOTNOTES
I See, Concurring Statement of Commissioner Andrew C. Bar-
rett, Report and Order, Sept. 26, 1991.
2 See Order at 12.
3 See Order at 16.
4 An NTIA study during the past year shows that minority
ownership statistics in broadcasting continue to be abysmal. Our
efforts to address minority ownership issues in the context of the
revised radio rules also have not yielded significant improvements
in minority ownership. If anything. small broadcasters, including
most minorities, appear to be struggling to compete with the
consolidation among larger group owners. Thus, in the context of
trends over the last decade, minority ownership in broadcasting is
continuing to decline, not improve.
3261
Concurring Statement of
Conmdssioner Andrew C. Barrett
RE: Review of Teclmical Assignment Criteria for the 11M Broadcast
Service
At the time of our Report and Order in this proceeding, I
concurred in this item because of its failure to adequately
address my concerns regarding the impact on small radio station
businesses, including those who are minority owned.
1
I felt the
decision was inequitable then with respect to these entities. I
continue to believe that is the case in this subsequent order.
It is not surprising to me that the Commission finds equitable
reasons, as a matter of law or policy, to modify our prior Order
and allow certain entities priority status in the expanded band
where: 1. AM daytime-only stations in communities of more than
100,000 and within a Class I station primary service area seek to
provide full-time, 24-hour service
2
; and 2. Travelers Information
Stations seek to operate on a primary status within the AM
expanded band
3
. The Order finds that such actions are likely to
have a deminimis impact on our goal of reducing interference. It
also acknowledges that other pUblic interest concerns can be
considered beyond interference reduction with respect to expanded
band allotments. Thus, I am surprised that this Order
selectively carves out these concerns while rejecting others with
similar merit. Our decision to deny opportunities for Class C
licensees to migrate to the expanded band is inequitable. Our
decision to reject some type of priority allocation for all AM
daytime only stations and minority-owned AM stations
4
in a
portion of the expanded band also continues to be inequitable. I
believe that arguments on reconsideration justify granting these
various entities equal priority in the reallocation of at least a
portion of the AM expanded band. To selectively support public
interest concerns for certain entities in the expanded band, yet
1 See, Concurring Statement of Commissioner Andrew C.
Barrett, Report and Order, Sept. 26, 1991.
2 See Order at 12.
3 See order at 16.
4 An NTIA study during the past year shows that minority
ownership statistics in broadcasting continue to be abysmal. Our
efforts to address minority ownership issues in the context of
the revised radio rules also have not yielded significant
improvements in minority ownership. If anything, small
broadcasters, including most minorities, appear to be struggling
to compete with the consolidation among larger group owners.
Thus. in the context of trends over the last decade, minority
ownership in broadcasting is continuing to decline, not improve.
3262
reject small business and minority ownership concerns despite
statistical evidence that supports more equitable treatment, is
an arbitrary exercise in regulatory linedrawing. Thus, I concur.
3263