In re Application of NORRISTOWN BROADCASTING CO., INC. (WNAR), NORRISTOWN, PA. Has:
1110 kc, 500 w, Day, Class II Requests: 1110 kc, 5 kw, 1 kw in Critical Hours, DA-2, Day, Class II For Construction Permit
Docket No. 14952 File No. BP-12902
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
6 F.C.C.2d 718 (1967); 9 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 331
RELEASE-NUMBER: FCC 67-186
February 8, 1967 Adopted
BY THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER JOHNSON CONCURRING AND ISSUING A STATEMENT.
[*718] 1. The Commission has before it for consideration the above-captioned application requesting an increase in daytime power from 500 w to 5 kw for station WNAR, Norristown, Pa.
2. Norristown is situated in Montgomery County approximately 15 miles from the center of Philadelphia, Pa. Norristown has a 1960 population of 38,925 and Philadelphia has a population of 2,002,512 according to the same census. The applicant's data indicates that WNAR presently places a 5-mv/m signal over a part of Philadelphia. The proposed operation would expand this 5-mv/m coverage to include all of Philadelphia as well as some increase in the immediate suburbs and rural areas of Philadelphia, thus raising a presumption that the applicant is realistically proposing to serve the city rather than Norristown. n1
n1 Policy Statement on Section 307(b) Considerations for Standard Broadcast Facilities Involving Suburban Communities, adopted Dec. 22, 1965, 2 FCC 2d 190, 6 R.R. 2d 1901.
3. In amendments filed June 3 and June 20, 1966, the applicant submitted data and arguments in an attempt to rebut the aforesaid presumption. However, after examination of this material, the Commission finds that the applicant has failed to rebut the presumption and that an evidentiary hearing must be held to explore the matter further.
4. Except as indicated by the specified issues below, the applicant is qualified; however, in view of the foregoing, the Commission is unable to find that a grant of the application would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity, and is of the opinion that it must be designated for hearing on the issues set forth below.
Accordingly, It is ordered, That, pursuant to section 309(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, that the application Is [*719] designated for hearing, at a time and place to be specified in a subsequent order, upon the following issues:
1. To determine the areas and populations which would receive service from the proposed operation of the applicant and availability of other primary service to such areas and populations.
2. To determine whether the proposal of Norristown Broadcasting Co., Inc., will realistically provide a local transmission facility for its specified station location or for another larger community, in the light of all the relevant evidence, including, but not necessarily limited to, the showing with respect to:
(a) The extent to which the specified station location has been ascertained by the applicant to have separate and distinct programing needs;
(b) The extent to which the needs of the specified station location are being met by existing standard broadcast stations;
(c) The extent to which the applicant's program proposal will meet the specific unsatisfied programing needs of its specified station location; and
(d) The extent to which the projected sources of the applicant's advertising revenues within its specified station location are adequate to support its proposal, as compared with its projected sources from all other areas.
3. To determine, in the event that it is concluded pursuant to the foregoing issue (a) that the proposal of the applicant will not realistically provide a local transmission service for its specified station location, whether such proposal meets all of the technical provisions of the rules, including sections 73.30, 73.31, and 73.188(b) (1) and (2) for standard broadcast stations assigned to the most populous community for which it is determined that the proposal will realistically provide a local transmission service, namely Philadelphia, Pa.
4. To determine, in the light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the foregoing issues, whether a grant of the application would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
It is further ordered, That, to avail itself of the opportunity to be heard, the applicant, pursuant to section 1.221(c) of the Commission's rules, in person or by attorney, shall, within 20 days of the mailing of this order, file with the Commission in triplicate, a written appearance stating an intention to appear on the date fixed for the hearing and present evidence on the issues specified in this order.
It is furthered ordered, That the applicant herein shall, pursuant to section 1.594 of the Commission's rules, and section 311(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, give notice of the hearing, within the time and in the manner prescribed in such rule, and shall advise the Commission of the publication of such notice as required by section 1.594(g) of the rules.
It is further ordered, That in the event of a grant of this application the construction permit shall include the following condition:
Subsequent to the installation and adjustment of the daytime directional antenna system and prior to the authorization of program tests, sufficient field intensity measurement data shall be made on the nighttime directional antenna system to establish that the nighttime radiation pattern remains adjusted within authorized limits.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, BEN F. WAPLE, Secretary.
[*720] NORRISTOWN BROADCASTING CO., INC., CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
In establishing and enforcing standards regarding the entry requirements for additional stations around large metropolitan areas (as in so many other areas of the Commission's business) I would prefer investigation, analysis, promulgation of fair and rational statements of general policy, and delegation to the staff, rather than the ad hoc hearing approach we adopt here. In my judgment, such an approach would make for fairer and more efficient administration for applicants as well as this Commission. For brief reference to some of the substantive questions I think are involved see McClendon Pac. Corp., 8 FCC 2d 855, 8 R.R. 2d 1187 (1966), and my concurring statement, Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations Relating to Station Identification, FCC 67-114 (Jan. 31, 1967).