NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1937)

forming services under the circumstances set forth above. However, such ruling is generally applicable in cases where individuals are performing services in a so-called “name” orchestra, since it is the opinion of this office that normally individuals performing in so-called “name” or¬ chestras are employees of the orchestra “leaders” within the meaning of Titles VIII and IX of the Social Security Act. “6. It should be noticed, however, in this connection, that the determination of whether any particular group of musicians constitutes a so-called “name” orchestra will not rest upon the mere adoption of a name by such or¬ ganization. The chief characteristic distinguishing a “name” orchestra from a “nonname” orchestra is the permanency of the organization and the personnel per¬ forming in the orchestra. In general, an orchestra will be considered a “name” orchestra when, in addition to being designated by a name, it has a fixed personnel ex¬ tending from engagement to engagement and holds itself out to the public as a permanent business organization. “Name” orchestras may also be distinguished from other orchestras where the “leader” of the orchestra contracts with the members thereof for their services at a fixed salary, either by term or by engagement, and where the “leader” is liable for the payment of such salary without reference to the discharge of the “purchaser’s” obligation. In the case of a “name” orchestra, the “leader” of the orchestra and not the “purchaser” can select and dis¬ charge the members of the orchestra and the “leader” alone controls and directs their conduct. “7. No single factor should afford the basis of de¬ termining that an orchestra either is or is not a “name” orchestra. Whether or not a particular orchestra is a “name” orchestra may be difficult to determine in some cases. Accordingly, in any case upon which a ruling is desired, a request therefor should be accompanied by in¬ formation sufficiently detailed and complete to enable this office to make a determination upon consideration of the above-mentioned factors and application of the fore¬ going tests.” Guy T. Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue. FCC DISMISSES NEW CALIFORNIA APPLICATION The Broadcast Division of the Federal Communications Commission this week dismissed with prejudice the appli¬ cation of Salinas Newspapers, Inc., for a construction permit for a new station at Salinas, California, to operate daytime on 1390 kilocycles with 250 watts power. RECOMMENDS AGAINST NEW NEW MEXICO STATION Earle Yates applied to the Federal Communications Commission for a construction permit for a new station at Las Cruces, New Mexico, to operate on 930 kilocycles with power of 500 watts, daytime only. Examiner George H. Hill in Report No. 1-494 recom¬ mends that the application be denied. He states that al¬ though the applicant is qualified to construct and operate the proposed station and no interference would be caused to any existing station, that objectionable interference would result if a pending application for a new station at El Paso, Texas, is granted, that it is doubtful if suffi¬ cient local talent is available and that the population of the area is too small to provide adequate commercial sup¬ port for the operation of the proposed station. RECOMMENDS ADVERSELY ON ILLINOIS AND PENNSYLVANIA APPLICATIONS Abraham Plotkin and the Philadelphia Radio Broad¬ casting Company each applied to the Federal Communi¬ cations Commission for a construction permit for a special broadcasting station to operate in Chicago, Ill., and Phila¬ delphia, Pa., respectively, on 1570 kilocycles, with 1000 watts and unlimited hours. As both applicants wanted the same frequency, power and hours of operation, Examiner R. H. Hyde conducted a joint hearing and issued a joint report (No. 1-493). Abraham Plotkin failed to appear for hearing and no evidence was submitted in support of his application so Examiner Hyde recommended that his application be dismissed with prejudice. The Examiner also recommended that the application of the Philadelphia Radio Broadcasting Company be de¬ nied. He pointed out that the research objectives out¬ lined by the applicant, one of the prerequisites for grant¬ ing a special broadcast license, were too general and in¬ definite, that the project appeared to be essentially a busi¬ ness enterprise for profit and not an experimental under¬ taking, and that the provision for employment of an en¬ gineering staff was not such as would permit carrying out a program of research and experimentation. 50 KW RECOMMENDED FOR WWL Broadcasting Station WWL, New Orleans, La., operat¬ ing on 850 kilocycles with specified hours, applied to the Federal Communications Commission for a construction permit to increase its power from 10 kilowatts to 50 kilo¬ watts. Examiner George H. Hill in Report No. 1-491 recom¬ mended that the application be granted. He stated that there is a need for additional service in the area proposed to be served, that the only interference will be with Sta¬ tion WKAR, East Lansing, Mich., and that this will oc¬ cur only in the late afternoon hours and in the very outer portions of that station’s useful service area. He also observed that the operation of WWL with the in¬ creased power would tend to further limit the service of Station XEFE, Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. 2283