47 C.F.R. § 73.28

Assignment of stations to channels

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Commission will not make an AM station assignment that does not conform with international requirements and restrictions on spectrum use that the United States has accepted as a signatory to treaties, conventions, and other international agreements. See § 73.1650 for a list of pertinent treaties, conventions and agreements, and § 73.23 for procedural provisions relating to compliance with them.

(b) Engineering standards now in force domestically differ in some respects from those specified for international purposes. The engineering standards specified for international purposes (see § 73.1650, International Agreements) will be used to determine:

(1) The extent to which interference might be caused by a proposed station in the United States to a station in another country; and

(2) whether the United States should register an objection to any new or changed assignment notified by another country. The domestic standards in effect in the United States will be used to determine the extent to which interference exists or would exist from a foreign station where the value of such interference enters into a calculation of:

(i) The service to be rendered by a proposed operation in the United States; or

(ii) the permissible interfering signal from one station in the United States to another United States station.

[28 FR 13574, Dec. 14, 1963, as amended at 29 FR 9499, July 11, 1964; 49 FR 32358, Aug. 14, 1984; 50 FR 18821, May 2, 1985; 54 FR 39736, Sept. 28, 1989; 56 FR 64857, Dec. 12, 1991]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1965–1969 · leading case: Deep South Broad. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Triple C Broad. Corp., Intervenor, 347 F.2d 459 (D.C. Cir. 1965).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Deep South Broad. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Triple C Broad. Corp., Intervenor, 347 F.2d 459 (D.C. Cir. 1965). · cites it 2× “” 47 C.F.R. § 73.28 (d) (3). The effect of this rule here was that WKTG’s proposed operation was not to be approved if the interference “to be received by it affected more than 10% of the population in its normally protected primary service area.”

Woodland Broad. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Felix Joynt & James Joynt, D/b as Kwen Broad. Co., Intervenor, 414 F.2d 1160 (D.C. Cir. 1969). “28 (d)(3), 47 C.F.R. § 73.28 (d)(3) (1969)) meant that when a station took advantage of such expansion it should be exempt from the Policy Statement.”

James S. Rivers, Inc., (Wjaz) v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 351 F.2d 194 (D.C. Cir. 1965). “47 C.F.R. § 73.28 (d) (3) (1965). We are not' persuaded that it did.”

— 47 C.F.R. § 73.28(d)(3) — 1 case

Deep South Broad. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Triple C Broad. Corp., Intervenor, 347 F.2d 459 (D.C. Cir. 1965). “” 47 C.F.R. § 73.28 (d) (3). The effect of this rule here was that WKTG’s proposed operation was not to be approved if the interference “to be received by it affected more than 10% of the population in its normally protected primary service area.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.