Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Owens One Company, Inc.

Download Options

Released: February 2, 2012
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
February 2, 2012

DA 12-122
Released: February 2, 2012
Ref. No. 1800B3-TSN
Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa, Inc.
c/o Lauren A. Colby, Esq.
10 E. Fourth Street
P.O. Box 113
Frederick, MD 21705-0113
Owens One Company, Inc.
c/o Gregory L. Masters, Esq.
Wiley Rein LLP
1776 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Re:
Owens One Company, Inc.
KUZZ-FM, Bakersfield, California
Facility ID No. 7697
File No. BMLH-20110201ACF
File No. BXMLH-20110201ACJ

Application for Modification to FM
Broadcast Station/Auxiliary Licenses

Dear Counsel:
We have before us an Informal Objection (“Objection”), filed by Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa,
Inc. (“Calvary”),1 objecting to the modification applications (“Applications”) of Owens One Company,
Inc. (“Owens”) for the licenses of FM broadcast station KUZZ-FM, Bakersfield, California, and its
auxiliary facilities.2 For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Objection and grant the Applications.

Background.

According to Owens, it filed the Applications after a “recent internal review of
KUZZ-FM’s technical operation indicated that the actual site coordinates of the station’s main and
auxiliary antennas differ slightly from the coordinates set forth on the station licenses.”3 Because the
change in coordinates is 3 seconds of latitude and 1 second of longitude, Owens has filed the Applications


1 Calvary filed the Objection February 8, 2011. Owens filed an Opposition to Informal Objection (“Opposition”) on
February 10, 2011, and Calvary filed its Reply to “Opposition to Informal Objection” (“Reply”) on February 18,
2011.
2 File Nos. BMLH-20110201ACF (station application) and BXMLH-20110201ACJ (auxiliary application).
3 Opposition at 1.

on FCC Form 302, pursuant to Section 73.1690(c)(11) of the Rules, which permits a licensee to correct its
coordinates by no more than three seconds of latitude and/or longitude without prior authorization from
the Commission.4
Calvary’s co-channel station KWVE-FM, San Clemente, California, is short-spaced to KUZZ-
FM, 221 kilometers from KUZZ-FM instead of 241 kilometers as required by Section 73.207(b)(1) of the
Rules.5 As a result, Calvary has operated KWVE-FM with a directional antenna under Section 73.215 of
the Rules, in order to avoid overlap with KUZZ-FM’s signal. Calvary has attempted, unsuccessfully, to
modify its facilities to specify non-directional operation.6
The corrected coordinates reduce the spacing between KUZZ-FM and KWVE-FM from 221.410
kilometers to 221.317 kilometers. Calvary argues that Section 73.1690(c)(11) only allows a coordinate
correction on Form 302 when the correction does “not result in any new short spacings or increases in
existing short spacings.”7 Calvary thus urges a strict reading of Section 73.1690(c)(11), precluding grant
of the Applications because they increase the short spacing between KUZZ-FM and KWVE-FM. Instead,
Calvary states that KUZZ-FM must invoke Section 73.215 in increasing the short spacing, which
according to Calvary would place the two stations in “parity,” thus allowing Calvary to go forward with
its plans to implement a non-directional antenna for KWVE-FM, enabling it to serve an additional 2.5
million people.8
Owens responds that, under Section 73.208(c)(8) of the Rules,9 computations of the distance
between two reference points under 475 kilometers, such as the distance between transmitters, are to be
rounded to the nearest kilometer. Thus, Owens argues, a move from 221.410 kilometers to 221.317
kilometers retains the short spacing of 221 kilometers between the two stations, when rounded to the
nearest kilometer.10 Calvary counters by accusing Owens of confusing two different rules, stating that
rounding the distance to the nearest kilometer under Section 73.208(c)(8) is “irrelevant,” and that the facts
and plain language of Section 73.1690(c)(11) dictate that a coordinate correction filed under that rule
section may not increase existing short spacing to any degree.11

Discussion.

It is an undisputed fact that the coordinate changes proposed in the Applications
increase the existing short spacing between KUZZ-FM and KWVE-FM by 304 feet, or .093 kilometers.
The issue is whether a licensee filing a corrective modification of license application under Section


4 47 C.F.R. § 73.1690(c)(11).
5 47 C.F.R. § 73.207(b)(1).
6 See Lauren Colby, Esq., Gregory Masters, Esq., and Daniel Huber, Esq. Letter, 23 FCC Rcd 9971(MB 2008),
recon. pending.
7 47 C.F.R. § 73.207(b)(1). See Objection at 2.
8 Id. at 2-3.
9 47 C.F.R. § 73.208(c)(8).
10 Opposition at 3.
11 Reply at 2-3.
2

73.1690 may use the rounding methodology of Section 73.208 in determining whether it is exacerbating
existing short spacing and, thus, whether it is eligible to file under Section 73.1690.
We find Calvary’s reading of Section 73.1690(c)(11) to be overly restrictive. The issue,
ultimately, is one of measuring the distances between two transmitter sites under both the authorized and
corrected coordinates. The Commission’s methodology for measuring the distance between two
reference points is set forth in Section 73.208(c), and includes rounding distances to the nearest
kilometer.12 Calvary’s argument, if carried to its logical conclusion, would mean that every rule
implicating the distances between reference points would have to state explicitly whether the Section
73.208 measurement methodology, including rounding, is applicable. This is an overly strained reading
of the Rules, especially given that Calvary does not take issue with any aspect of the Section 73.208(c)
methodology except for the rounding provision.13
In Leonard S. Joyce, Esq.,14 the staff allowed a coordinate correction under factual circumstances
similar to those presented here. In Joyce, a station discovered an error in its transmitter coordinates while
preparing an antenna structure registration. Prior to discovery of the error, the station was 143.54
kilometers from an allotment, which rounded up to the required 144-kilometer spacing between the
station and allotment. The corrected coordinates reduced the actual spacing to 143.45 kilometers, which
when rounded to the nearest kilometer created a one-kilometer short spacing under Section 73.207 of the
Rules.15 While the staff initially denied the applicant’s request for waiver of the Section 73.207 spacing
standards,16 on reconsideration the waiver was granted. The staff found that rigid application of the
spacing requirements in such circumstances might have a deterrent effect on the submission of accurate
site data by structure owners.17 It concluded that where (1) the application was for correction of site data
rather than an actual change in technical facilities; (2) the proposed correction raised no environmental,
international, or other issues; and (3) the difference between the authorized and corrected spacing
involved is de minimis (in Joyce, 0.09 kilometers, or less than one-tenth of a kilometer), waiver of the
Section 73.207 spacing standards was warranted.
Although Joyce antedates the introduction of Section 73.1690(c)(11) of the Rules, we find the
facts to be sufficiently analogous to the instant case to support processing of the Applications under that
rule. As in Joyce, the issue here concerns whether a coordinate change, unaccompanied by an actual
facility change, is of such a magnitude that it should be considered to create or exacerbate a short spacing.
As in Joyce, the coordinate change is less than a tenth of a kilometer (here, 0.093 kilometers), and thus


12 47 C.F.R. § 73.208(c)(8).
13 Similarly, we disregard the additional arguments set forth in the Engineering Exhibit of Mullaney Engineering,
Inc. ("MEI"), attached to Calvary's Reply. Calvary neither cites to nor adopts MEI's arguments, which are
unsupported save for citation to one case that is inapposite to the issue of whether Section 73.208(c) distance
calculation methodology applies to Section 73.1690(c)(11). In any event, we note that were we to consider these
arguments, they would not alter our conclusion in this case.
14 Letter, 13 FCC Rcd 19605 (MMB 1998) (“Joyce”).
15 47 C.F.R. § 73.207. See Joyce, 13 FCC Rcd at 19605.
16 Id. at 19606.
17 Id.
3

may be considered de minimis. Moreover, as in Joyce the proposed correction raises no environmental or
international issues, and the only other issue raised is Calvary’s complaint that Owens should be forced to
apply for Section 73.215 processing. This issue, however, is at best a corollary to Calvary’s argument
regarding exacerbating an existing short spacing, rather than an additional issue to be considered
separately. Finally, we note that nothing in the facts of this case suggests that Owens has availed itself of
Section 73.1690(c)(11) filing procedures to evade compliance with distance separation requirements. We
thus find that the coordinate correction in the Applications does not trigger an obligation either to seek
prior Commission authorization, or to apply for processing under Section 73.215 of the Rules.

Conclusion.

In this case involving a coordinate correction that would change the distance
between two facilities, Calvary urges a selective reading of the distance-measuring methodology set forth
in Section 73.208(c) of the Rules. It does not dispute the methodology, but would have us disregard that
part which mandates rounding of distances to the nearest kilometer, negating Owens’s claim that its
Applications do not exacerbate the existing short spacing between the two facilities and are thus qualified
for Section 73.1690(c) processing. We find that, in measuring distances to determine whether short
spacing is exacerbated under Section 73.1690(c)(11), the measurement methodology set forth in Section
73.208(c) is appropriate, including the rounding provisions. Moreover, under the Joyce precedent, we
find the proposed coordinate correction in the Applications to be de minimis, and thus that the existing
short spacing is not exacerbated to the extent that the Applications are ineligible for Section 73.1690(c)
processing.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Applications were correctly filed pursuant to Section
73.1690(c) of the Rules. It is therefore ORDERED that the Informal Objection filed by Calvary Chapel
of Costa Mesa, Inc. IS DENIED, and that the Applications filed by Owens One Company, Inc. for
modification of the licensed main and auxiliary facilities of station KUZZ-FM, Bakersfield, California,
File Nos. BMLH-20110201ACF and BXMLH-20110201ACJ, ARE GRANTED.
Sincerely,
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau
4

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.