47 C.F.R. § 73.512

Special procedures applicable to Class D noncommercial educational stations

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

(a) All Class D stations seeking renewal of license for any term expiring June 1, 1980, or thereafter shall comply with the requirements set forth below and shall simultaneously file an application on FCC Form 2100, Schedule 340, containing full information regarding such compliance with the provisions set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.

(1) To the extent possible, each applicant shall select a commercial FM channel on which it proposes to operate in lieu of the station's present channel. The station may select any commercial channel provided no objectionable interference, as set forth in § 73.509(b), would be caused. The application shall include the same engineering information as is required to change the frequency of an existing station and any other information necessary to establish the fact that objectionable interference would not result. If no commercial channel is available where the station could operate without causing such interference, the application shall set forth the basis upon which this conclusion was reached.

(2) If a commercial channel is unavailable, to the extent possible each applicant should propose operation on Channel 200 (87.9 MHz) unless the station would be within 402 kilometers (250 miles) of the Canadian border or 320 kilometers (199 miles) of the Mexican border or would cause interference to an FM station operating on Channels 201, 202, or 203 or to TV Channel 6, as provided in § 73.509.

(3) If a channel is not available under either paragraph (a) (1) or (2) of this section, the renewal applicant shall study all 20 noncommercial educational FM channels and shall propose operation on the channel which would cause the least preclusion to the establishment of new stations or increases in power by existing stations. Full information regarding the basis for the selection should be provided.

(b) At any time before the requirements of paragraph (a) become effective, any existing Class D station may file a construction permit application on FCC Form 340 to change channel in the manner described above which shall be subject to the same requirements. In either case, any license granted shall specify that the station's license is for a Class D (secondary) station.

(c) Except in Alaska, no new Class D applications nor major change applications by existing Class D stations are acceptable for filing except by existing Class D stations seeking to change frequency. Upon the grant of such application, the station shall become a Class D (secondary) station.

(d) Class D noncommercial educational (secondary) stations (see § 73.506(a)(2)) will be permitted to continue to operate only so long as no interference (as defined in § 73.509) is caused to any TV or commercial FM broadcast stations. In the event that the Class D (secondary) station would cause interference to a TV or commercial FM broadcast station after that Class D (secondary) station is authorized, the Class D (secondary) station must cease operation when program tests for the TV or commercial FM broadcast station commence. The Class D (secondary) station may apply for a construction permit (see § 73.3533) to change to another frequency or antenna site where it would not cause interference (as defined in § 73.509). If the Class D (secondary) station must cease operation before the construction permit is granted, an application for temporary authorization (pursuant to § 73.3542) to operate with the proposed facilities may be submitted; where appropriate, such temporary authorization can be granted. With respect to Class D (secondary) applications on Channels 201 through 220 required to protect television stations operating on TV Channel 6, the non-interference requirements in the preceding sentences will apply unless the application is accompanied by a written agreement between the Class D (secondary) applicant and each affected TV Channel 6 broadcast station concurring with the proposed Class D facilities.

[43 FR 39716, Sept. 6, 1978, as amended at 44 FR 48226, Aug. 17, 1979; 47 FR 28388, June 30, 1982; 50 FR 8326, Mar. 1, 1985; 85 FR 35573, June 11, 2020; 91 FR 29045, May 19, 2026]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1998–2013 · leading case: United States v. Any & All Radio Station Transmission Equip., 29 F. Supp. 2d 393 (E.D. Mich. 1998).
United States v. Any & All Radio Station Transmission Equip., 29 F. Supp. 2d 393 (E.D. Mich. 1998). · cites it 6× “Claimant’s defense is that the FCC regulation prohibiting the issuance of Class D licenses, 47 C.F.R. § 73.512 (c), 12 i.e. licenses which govern low-power broadcast applications such as that attempted by claimant, is unconstitutional because it operates as an impermissible…”
Radio v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 278 F.3d 1314 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “2d 972 , 983, 1979 WL 44256 (1979) (codified at 47 C.F.R. § 73.512 (d))). At all times relevant to this case, appellant Jerry Szoka knew of both the licensing requirement and the microbroadcast-ing ban.”
Luz v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 88 F. Supp. 2d 372 (E.D. Pa. 1999). · cites it 4× “Radio Luz and Radio Vida both allege that the FCC regulation that restricts the issuance of new Class D licenses, 47 C.F.R. § 73.512 (c), violates their First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of religion.”
Mark Leyse v. Clear Channel Broad., Inc, 545 F. App'x 444 (6th Cir. 2013). “at 662, 666-67 . But the district court held “that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Ma-quina Musical’s constitutional defenses because 28 U.”
Ruggiero v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 317 F.3d 239 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “2d 972 , 983 (1979) (codified at 47 C.F.R. § 73.512 (d))). Over the next two decades, often in open defiance of this rule, individual pirates began operating unlicensed low-power stations that broadcast local news, music, and commentary.”
United States v. Dunifer, 997 F. Supp. 1235 (N.D. Cal. 1998). “, 47 C.F.R. § 73.512 (c) (except in the state of Alaska, the FCC will not accept new applications for licenses from Class D stations); 47 C.”
United States v. Any & All Radio Station Equip., 93 F. Supp. 2d 414 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). · cites it 2× “Claimants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and to quash the arrest warrant on the grounds that FCC Regulation 47 C.F.R. § 73.512 prohibiting micro-broadcasting violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.”
United States v. Any & All Radio Station Transmission Equip., 19 F. Supp. 2d 738 (E.D. Mich. 1998). “” 47 C.F.R. § 73.512 (c). The FCC provides a procedure for seeking a waiver or an amendment of its regulations, as well as for reconsideration of its decisions.”
United States v. Any & All Radio Station Transmission Equip., 204 F.3d 658 (6th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “See 47 C.F.R. § 73.512 (c) (providing that no new Class D applications would be accepted, except in Alaska or by existing Class D stations seeking to change frequency).”
Mark Leyse v. Clear Channel Broad. Inc, 697 F.3d 360 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “Maquina Musical argued in defense that 47 C.F.R. § 73.512 (c) — an FCC regulation that effectively barred new microbroadcasting licenses from being issued — “was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.”
La Voz Radio de la Communidad v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 223 F.3d 313 (6th Cir. 2000). “See 47 C.F.R, § 73.512(c) (providing that no new Class D applications would be accepted, except in Alaska or by existing Class D stations seeking to change frequency).”
United States/Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Waterbury Hispanic Commc'ns, Inc., 109 F. Supp. 2d 80 (D. Conn. 1999). · cites it 6× “Defendants move for summary judgment and declaration that 47 C.F.R. § 73.512 (c) is a violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”).”
— 47 C.F.R. § 73.512(c) — 1 case
La Voz Radio de la Communidad v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 223 F.3d 313 (6th Cir. 2000). “See 47 C.F.R, § 73.512(c) (providing that no new Class D applications would be accepted, except in Alaska or by existing Class D stations seeking to change frequency).”
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.