FCC Web Documents citing 1.420

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1301A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1409A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1409A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1417A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1418A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1419A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1439A1.txt
  • contact Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Chief, Allocations Branch Policy and Rules Division Mass Media Bureau The community of Dannemora has been added to the caption. Public Notice of the filing of the counterproposal was given on January 18, 2000, Report No. 2383. Petitioner's withdrawal request does not comply with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules. This rule requires that any party seeking to dismiss or withdraw its expression of interest file a request for approval of the dismissal or withdrawal. This request must include a certificate that it has not, and will not, receive any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in exchange for the dismissal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1446A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1446A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1446A1.txt
  • For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Chief, Allocations Branch Policy and Rules Division Mass Media Bureau On April 1, 1999, the construction permit of Station KNYN(FM) at Fort Bridger, Wyoming, was assigned from L. Topaz Enterprises, Inc. to M. Kent Frandsen. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, petitioner states that he has received no money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in exchange for the dismissal of his petition for rule making. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1446 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1446 � � � �@��� � � � � � � � � @& �0� �0� �0�
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1448A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1448A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1448A1.txt
  • in response to the Notice as well as a supplemental statement. Supporting comments were also filed by United States Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, and by KPNX Broadcasting Company (KPNX"). Comments filed by Rick Murphy were subsequently withdrawn. No other comments were received. Background 2. As stated in the Notice, petitioner's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest where the requested allotment would be mutually exclusive with the existing allotment. Moreover, to permit such a reallotment modification the proposal must result in a preferential arrangement of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1472A1.txt
  • 17772 (1999), proposing the reallotment of Channel 252C1 from Metropolis Illinois, to Paducah, Kentucky, and the modification of Station WRIK-FM's construction permit accordingly. Petitioner filed comments in support of the proposal reaffirming its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Paducah. No other comments were received. 2. The proposed reallotment was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1480A1.txt
  • September 5, 2000 By the Chief, Allocations Branch: 1. Before the Commission for consideration is a petition for rule making filed on behalf of Western Slope Communications, L.L.C. (``petitioner''), permittee of Station KAYW, Channel 251C, Meeker, Colorado, requesting the reallotment of its channel to Craig, Colorado, and modification of its authorization accordingly. 2. This request was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Community of License''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2227A1.txt
  • Moose Lake, Minnesota, and modification of the license for Station KBFH at Moose Lake. Smith filed comments supporting an allotment at Coon Rapids. TKC, Inc. (``TKC'') filed comments and Smith and Agate Broadcasting, Inc. filed reply comments. 2. The proposed reallotment of Channel 296C2 from New Richmond, Wisconsin to Coon Rapids, Minnesota, was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recond. granted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2230A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2300A1.txt
  • Detroit, Texas. In this Request, Great Plains rewfers to the fact that prior to the adoption of the Report and Order in this proceeding, it filed a Withdrawal of Expression of Interest. In that Withdrawal, Great Plains stated that it was no longer interested in filing pursuing its proposed Channel 294C2 at allotment at Detroit, Texas. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Rules, Great Plains stated that it neither had or will receive any consideration in exchange for the withdrawal of its expression of interest. In view of the fact that we will not allot a channel in the absence of an expression of interest, we will delete the Channel 294C2 allotment at Detroit, Texas. 4. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2301A1.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2302A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2303A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2326A1.txt
  • Proposed Rule Making (``NPRM''), 14 FCC Rcd 6857 (1999), providing the proponents an opportunity to demonstrate in comments why its community should be preferred. 3. In response to the NPRM, Idaho filed a counterproposal which appeared to be requesting the substitution of Channel 294C1 for Channel 294C2 at McCall, Idaho, and reallotment of Channel 294C1 to Victor, Montana, under Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. Idaho also requested the allotment of Channel 285C3 at Alberton, Montana, and supported the allotment of Channel 268C at Drummond. The counterproposal was found to be unacceptable and was dismissed in the Report and Order on three grounds. First, at the time the counterproposal was filed, Idaho was a first-come/first-serve applicant for Channel 294C2 at McCall,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2332A1.txt
  • Rcd 17772 (1999), proposing the reallotment of Channel 244A from Greenwood to Mauldin, South Carolina, and the modification of Station WCRS-FM's license accordingly. Petitioner filed comments in support of the proposal reaffirming it intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Mauldin. Petitioner also filed reply comments. 2. The proposed reallotment was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2420A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comment herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2421A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2422A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2424A1.txt
  • specified a transmitter site 17.9 kilometers (11.1 miles) northwest of Rosman, too far to assume city-grade coverage of the community by a Class A FM facility pursuant to Section 73.315 of the Commission's Rules. Nevertheless, after the record closed herein, Chase withdrew its proposal stating that it no longer intended to pursue the proposed Rosman allotment. In compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Chase also provides a certification that neither it nor its principals have received or will receive any consideration in exchange for the dismissal or withdrawal of its counterproposal. Since no other party filed comments expressing an intention to apply for the channel, if allotted, we will dismiss Chase's counterproposal. We will, however, address Chase's comments regarding
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2425A1.txt
  • See Santa Isabel, Puerto Rico and Christiansted, Virgin Islands, 3 FCC Rcd 2336 (1988). With respect to the comments filed by Broadcast Services, we find that these comments supporting an allotment at Mount Pleasant are unacceptable. Broadcast Services did not file a certificate of service with its comments indicating that a copy was served on Ashcraft in compliance with Section 1.420(a) of the Commission's Rules. See Wilson Creek, Washington and Pendleton, Oregon, 11 FCC Rcd 11842 (1996). Further, Broadcast Services neglected to provide an address in compliance with Section 1.52 of the Commission's Rules, subscription and verification. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, no further consideration will be given to the allotment of an FM channel at Mount Pleasant, Texas.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2426A1.txt
  • also requested the reallotment of Channel 249A from Jersey Shore to Mill Hall, Pennsylvania, and the modification of Station WVRT(FM)'s license accordingly. Petitioner filed comments in support of the proposal reaffirming its intention to apply for Channel 254A, if reallotted to Pleasant Gap. No other comments were received 2. The proposed reallotments were filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2429A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2429A1.txt
  • Channel 284A at Spokane, Washington, and modify Station KEEH's license at its present site; 5) substitute Channel 283C3 for Channel 285A at Newport, Washington, and modify Station KMJY's license at its present site. The final component of the settlement is that Jeffrey Aaron Bruton withdraws his comment and counterproposal with prejudice. Each party includes a certification in compliance with Section 1.420 of the rules. A Commission engineering analysis shows that the proposed allotments in the settlement comply with our rules and can be granted. We note that since Eatonville, Wenatchee, Spokane and Newport are within 320 kilometers (200 miles) of the U.S.-Canadian border, we have requested concurrence of the Canadian government for the allotments at those communities. Concurrence has been received
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2481A1.txt
  • of Channel 274C3 for Channel 274A, its reallotment from Sparta to Buckhead, Georgia, as the community's first local aural service, and the modification of Station WPMA(FM)'s license accordingly. Comments were filed by the petitioner. No other comments were received. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the proposed reallotment and license modification. 2. Petitioner's request was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which allows the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See, Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Community of License R&O"), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Community
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2485A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2570A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2570A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2570A1.txt
  • for Station KIXK(FM) to specify White Oak as the community of license. To accommodate its proposal for Station KIXK(FM), OARA also requests changes at Lufkin, Corrigan, Mount Enterprise and Pineland, Texas, and Zwolle, Louisiana. OARA stated its intention to apply for Channel 257C2 if it is reallotted to White Oak, as requested. 2. OARA filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O") 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2591A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2591A1.txt
  • miles) southeast of the community at coordinates 35-39-19 NL and 109-01-59 WL. 3. We believe the public interest would be served by consideration of the petitioner's proposal since it could provide Window Rock with an expanded coverage area FM service. Therefore, we will propose to modify the license for Station KWIM, as requested. In accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules, should another party indicate an interest in the Class C2 allotment, the modification could not be implemented unless an additional equivalent class channel is also allotted. 4. Accordingly, we seek comments on the proposed amendment to the FM Table of Allotments, Section 73.202(b) of the Commission's Rules, with respect to Window Rock, Arizona, as follows: Channel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2595A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2595A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2595A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2596A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2597A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2598A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2598A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2598A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2605A1.txt
  • Priorities (2) and (3) are given co-equal weight. See, Revision of FM Assignment Policies and Procedures ("FM Assignment Policies and Procedures"), 90 FCC 2d 88 (1982). Petitioner states, however, that if the Commission does not allocate the channel to Little Valley, it remains committed to applying for the channel at Randolph. Petitioner also filed a statement, in accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, that the petition was not filed for the purpose of reaching or carrying out a settlement and no consideration has been paid to it for withdrawing the Randolph proposal. The coordinates for Channel 290A at Little Valley are 42-15-08 NL; 78-48-20 WL. �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �`� �0�
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2608A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2608A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2608A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2609A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2609A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2609A1.txt
  • Report and Order, a site has been used for Station WYKX that will accommodate the allotment of Channel 286A at Sister Bay as well as the allotment of Channel 284C at Escanaba. See, e.g., Greenville, Texas, 6 FCC Rcd 6048 (1991) (further site restriction imposed where upgrade proponent has already proposed to relocate its transmitter site). In accordance with Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules, we are herein modifying the license for Station WYKX, Escanaba, Michigan, to specify operation on Channel 284C in lieu of Channel 284C1. Canadian concurrence has been obtained for the allotment of Channel 286A at Sister Bay and Channel 284C at Escanaba. 5. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2613A1.txt
  • provide a replacement service at Incline Village the Notice also proposed the reallotment of Channel 295C from Reno to Incline Village and the modification of Station KRNO-FM's authorization accordingly. Petitioners filed supporting comments in response to the Notice. No other comments were filed. 2. As we stated in the Notice, petitioner's proposal, was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, to allot Channel 261C1 from Incline Village to Dayton. Both are incorporated community located outside the Reno Urbanized Area. As the distance between Incline Village and the petitioner's specified site at Dayton is 52.7 kilometers, whereas a distance of 224 kilometers is required pursuant to Section 73.207(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, the petitioner's proposal is mutually
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2639A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2639A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2639A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2676A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2676A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2676A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2677A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2677A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2677A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2691A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2714A1.txt
  • 251C, Meeker, Colorado, proposing the reallotment of Channel 251C to Craig, Colorado, as that community's third local FM transmission service, and modification of its authorization accordingly. Petitioner filed supporting and supplemental comments in response to the Notice. No other comments were filed. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the proposed reallotment. 2. This proposal is filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990). Pursuant to Change of Community, we must determine whether the petitioner's proposal would result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. See Revision of FM Assignment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2771A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2772A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2772A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2772A1.txt
  • response to the Notice, Martin, former permittee of Station KPXA, Channel 281A, Sisters, Oregon, filed a Counterproposal. In that Counterproposal, Martin proposed the substitution of Channel 281C1 for Channel 281A at Sisters, and modification of his Station KPXA construction permit to specify operation on Channel 281C1. Thereafter, Danjon withdrew its proposed Channel 284A allotment at Prineville. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Rules, Danjon stated that no consideration had been received or promised for the withdrawal. In view of this withdrawal, the Report and Order upgraded Station KPXA to specify operation on Channel 281C1. In the Petition for Reconsideration directed against the Report and Order, the petitioners contend that an investigation is warranted into the conduct of Danjon and Martin
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2773A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2773A1.txt
  • A channel allotment at Comobabi were received and therefore, we will delete Channel *275A, Comobabi without replacement. 3. In light of the above, we will substitute Channel 276C for Channel 276C1 at Florence, Arizona, since it would enable Station KCDX to provide an expanded FM service within its 1 mV/m signal coverage contour. Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules, we are modifying the license of Desert West Air Ranchers for Station KCDX to specify operation on Channel 276C in lieu of Channel 276C1 at Florence. 4. Channel 276C can be allotted to Florence at the petitioner's specified site located 46.8 kilometers (29.1 miles) southeast of the community at coordinates 32-48-45 NL and 110-57-30 WL, in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2791A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2791A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2791A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2832A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2885A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2885A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2885A1.txt
  • the modification of Station KWFX's license to specify operation on the Class A channel. At the request of Tyler, licensee of Station KTSH, Tishomingo, Oklahoma, the Notice also proposed the reallotment of Channel 259C3 from Tishomingo to Tuttle, Oklahoma, as the community's first local aural service, and the modification of Station KTSH's license accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. However, because Station KTSH was the only operating aural station at Tishomingo, Tyler was requested to provide further information demonstrating why the public interest would be served by removing the community's sole local aural service in order to provide the same service to Tuttle. To accommodate the Tuttle allotment, the Notice also proposed the substitution of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-474A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-474A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-474A1.txt
  • Reconsideration at 4-5. Formulation of Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, Competing Applicants, and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process and to the Prevention of Abuse of the Renewal Process, First Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd. 4780, 4793 n.3 (1989); see Silver Star Communications-Albany, Inc., 3 FCC Rcd. 6342, 6352 � 41 (1988); Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Process, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 FCC Rcd. 5563, 5563 � 2 (1987); see also Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 1 FCC Rcd. 421 (1986), appeal dismissed mem. sub
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-543A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-543A1.txt
  • license accordingly. Second, it proposes the reallotment of Channel 289C2 from South Bend to Raymond, Washington, and the modification of Station KJET(FM)'s license accordingly. Third, it proposes the allotment of Channel 300A to South Bend, Washington. Petitioner states its intention to apply for the respective channels, if allotted to the specified communities. 2. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1015A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1015A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1015A1.txt
  • for Channel 294C2 at McCall and reallotment of Channel 294C1 from McCall to Pinesdale, Montana. IBC requests modification of its construction permit to specify operation on Channel 294C1 at Pinesdale, Montana. IBC indicated that it would file an application for Channel 294C1 at Pinesdale if the channel is allotted to the community. 2. IBC filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O"), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1018A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1018A1.txt
  • service (RM-8146). Lake counterproposed the substitution of Channel 297C3 for Channel 271A at Cuba, Missouri, and retention of Channel 244A at Bourbon (RM-8147). Counterproposals were also filed by Jeff Weinhaus (``Weinhaus'') for an allotment at Leesburg, Missouri (RM-8144) and by Tony Knipp for an allotment at Gerald, Missouri (RM-8145). Weinhaus and Knipp withdrew their respective counterproposals in compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules. 3. The R&O granted Greenfield's request to substitute Channel 244C1 for Channel 244C3 at Columbia, Missouri, and modify the license for Station KCMQ(FM) accordingly. To accommodate the upgrade at Columbia, alternate Channel 231A was substituted for vacant Channel 244A at Bourbon, Missouri, as Lake filed an application for Channel 244A during the comment cycle in this
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1021A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1021A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1021A1.txt
  • and KZTB(FM), Sunnyside, Washington. Petitioner proposes to substitute Channel 245C2 for 245A at Naches and modify Station KZTA's license accordingly, and to reallot Channel 244A from Sunnyside to Benton City, Washington, and modify Station KZTB's license accordingly. Petitioner states that it will file the necessary applications to effectuate the modifications, if granted. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. This provision applies because the proposal to allot Channel 244A at Benton City is mutually exclusive with Station KZTB's current allotment of Channel 244A at Sunnyside. In addition,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1022A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1022A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1022A1.txt
  • 229A for Channel 228A at Corinth, New York, the reallotment of Channel 229A from Corinth to Scotia, New York, and the modification of the license of Station WHTR(FM), accordingly. It also proposes to reallot Channel 296A from Hudson Falls, New York, to Corinth, and to modify the license for Station WFFG-FM, accordingly. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. It states that each of its proposals falls within the provisions of this rule because the proposal to allot Channel 229A at Scotia is mutually exclusive with Station
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1079A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1079A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1079A1.txt
  • IT IS ORDERED, That the petition for rule making filed by PhaarNorth Radio, IS DISMISSED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 4. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Chief, Allocations Branch Policy and Rules Division Mass Media Bureau In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, PhaarNorth states that it has neither been paid nor promised any money or other consideration in exchange for its withdrawal of interest for an allotment at Northome. Federal Communications Commission DA 01-1079 Federal Communications Commission DA 01-1079 �L� ������������������������������������������������������������ �L� �L� �L� �L� �L� �L� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �`� �0� �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1080A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1080A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1080A1.txt
  • Inc. (``petitioner''), licensee of Station WPUP(FM), Channel 279C3, Royston, Georgia proposing the reallotment of Channel 279C3 from Royston to Arcade, Georgia, as that community's first local aural transmission service. Petitioner filed supporting comments in response to the Notice. No other comments were received. 2. As stated in the Notice, the petitioner filed its request pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed reallotment of Channel 279C3 to Arcade, which is not within an urbanized area, is mutually exclusive with the petitioner's current authorization at Royston. The distance between
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1081A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1081A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1081A1.txt
  • an Order to Show Cause was issued to Halstead Communications, licensee of Station KPNY, Channel 263C1, Alliance, Nebraska, and Imperial Media Association, permittee of a new station on Channel 275C at Imperial Nebraska. The proposed Channel 271C1 allotment at McCook is in conflict with the proposed Channel 271C substitution at Imperial. 3. Meadlowlark Group filed its Counterproposal pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Community of License''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1083A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1083A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1083A1.txt
  • it a petition for rule making filed on behalf of Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (``Clear Channel'') licensee of Station WFKS(FM), Channel 250C2, St. Augustine, Florida., seeking to amend the FM Table of Allotments by reallotting Channel 250C2 from St. Augustine to Neptune Beach, Florida and modifying its authorization accordingly. 2. Clear Channel seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Clear Channel explains that the requested reallotment from St. Augustine to Neptune Beach is mutually exclusive with its existing authorization. Further, Clear Channel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1093A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1093A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1093A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1147A1.txt
  • accordingly; and (2) the reallotment of Channel 264C1 from Alexandria to Sauk Centre, and the modification of Station KIKV-FM's license accordingly. Joint petitioners filed comments reiterating that they will immediately file the necessary applications to implement the changes, if allotted. We received no other comments. Joint petitioners filed their proposals for the reallotments in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In support of the proposals, joint petitioners state that this swap would allow Station KMSR(FM) to upgrade from Class A to Class C3
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1148A1.txt
  • FCC Rcd 49994 (2000), proposing the reallotment of Channel 252A from Charleroi to Duquesne, Pennsylvania, and the modification of Station WOGI-FM's license accordingly. Petitioner filed comments in support of the proposal reaffirming its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Duquesne. No other comments were received. 2. The proposed reallotment was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1152A1.txt
  • Wilks Broadcasting LLC (``Wilks''), proposing the reallotment of Channel 233C1 from Mount Pleasant, Michigan, to Hemlock, Michigan. Wilks also requests modification of its license for Station WCEN-FM, Mount Pleasant, to be modified to specify operation at Hemlock. Wilks stated its intention to apply for Channel 233C1 if it is reallotted to Hemlock. 2. Wilks filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O") 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1153A1.txt
  • locality to effectuate the change of community if the channel is reallotted. D&H Media also filed comments as requested giving additional information with respect to underserved loss areas and the public interest benefit in the change of community. We received no other comments or counterproposals. Both petitioners filed their proposals for the reallotments in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. This is a multiple docket Report and Order issued in response to a Commission Public Notice released October 2, 1998 (DA 98-1987). We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1185A1.txt
  • The Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``Notice'') in this proceeding, 15 FCC Rcd 9155 (2000), in response to a rule making petition (RM-9593) filed on behalf of Desert West, proposing the reallotment of Channel 236C from Winslow to Camp Verde, Arizona, as that community's first local aural transmission service. The reallotment proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In response to the Notice, Desert West filed a counterproposal requesting the reallotment of Channel 236C from Winslow to Sun City West, Arizona, located in the Phoenix, Arizona,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1186A1.txt
  • for Reconsideration. Southern Broadcasting filed an Application for Review. Subsequently, Ham Broadcasting filed a one-step application (File No. BPH-20000427ABE) for a Channel 293C3 upgrade for Station WKDZ-FM at Cadiz. That action is now final. Ham Broadcasting has now filed a Withdrawal of Request for Channel Allotment pertaining to the earlier Channel 293C3 allotment at Oak Grove. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Ham Broadcasting has filed a declaration that it has neither received nor been promised any consideration in exchange for this withdrawal. In view of this withdrawal and the grant of the one-step application, we are setting aside our action in this proceeding upgrading Station WKDZ-FM to Channel 293C3 at Oak Grove, Kentucky. We are also dismissing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1198A1.txt
  • 292C3 to Channel 292A at Newberry, and the reallotment of Channel 292A from Newberry to Simpsonville, South Carolina. Petitioner also requests that Station WGVC(FM)'s construction permit be modified to specify Simpsonville, South Carolina, as its new community of license. Petitioner states its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Simpsonville. 2. The proposal is filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TVAuthorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990). In
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1200A1.txt
  • Opposing comments including a counterproposal were filed by Bee Broadcasting, Inc. (``Bee''), licensee of Montana Stations KDBR(FM) and KBBZ(FM), both of Kalispell, Station KKMT(FM), Columbia Falls, and AM Station KJJR, Whitefish. Bee later withdrew its opposition, but filed an unauthorized pleading to which Alpine responded. Alpine proposed to reallot Channel 264C from Wallace to Bigfork under the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. That section permits modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989) (``Change of Community of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1238A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1238A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1238A1.txt
  • and modification of its authorization for Station KIXK to specify White Oak as the community of license. Reynolds filed comments reaffirming its interest in an allotment at White Oak, Texas. No other comments were received in response to the Notice. 2. As stated in the Notice, Reynolds has filed a petition for rule making pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change of Community MO&O"), 5
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1242A1.txt
  • return for Great Scott's payment of $5,000 to Be-More for Be-More's legitimate and prudent expenditurtes incurred in connection with MM Docket No. 99-347. We grant that Joint Request. Since Great Scott's petition for rule making is the only remaining request for rule making, this Report and Order addresses Great Scott's petition. 3. Great Scott's petition was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which allows the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See, Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Community of License R&O"), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Community
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1290A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1291A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1296A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1296A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1303A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-132A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-133A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-134A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-134A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-136A1.txt
  • Investment, licensee of Station WPMA, Channel 274, Sparta, Georgia, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposed the substitution of Channel 274C3 for Channel 274A at Sparta, reallotment of Channel 274C3 to Buckhead, Georgia, and modification of the Station WPMA license to specify operation on Channel 274C3 at Buckhead. 15 FCC Rcd 9474 (2000). This request was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (`Community of License''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part 5 FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1388A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1388A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1388A1.txt
  • license. Each petitioner states that it will file an application for construction permit at each locality and effectuate the change of community if granted. We believe that each proposal warrants consideration because it complies with our technical requirements and would serve the public interest. Each of the petitioners filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. This is a multiple docket Notice of Proposed Rule Making issued in response to a Commission Public Notice released October 2, 1998 (DA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1390A1.txt
  • with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements at Keymarket's specified site. Keymarket will be required to specify its current licensed site for Station WOGH(FM), Steubenville, Ohio, for the applications for a construction permit and a license for Station WOGH(FM), Burgettstown, Pennsylvania, since the change of community of license is protected as a grandfathered short spaced station. In accordance with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, we will modify the license for Station WOGH(FM) to specify operation on Channel 278B at Burgettstown, Pennsylvania, as its new community of license. 5. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.204(b) and 0.283 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1393A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1393A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1393A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1437A1.txt
  • consideration is the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``Notice''), (DA 01-745), released March 23, 2001, issued in response to a petition filed on behalf of Runnels Broadcasting System, LLC, (``petitioner''), licensee of Station KQTN, Lordsburg, New Mexico, proposing to change its community of license to Deming, New Mexico, and to modify its license accordingly pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. Petitioner filed comments in response to the Notice withdrawing its interest in pursuing its proposal. No other comments were received. 2. As stated in the Appendix to the Notice, a showing of continuing interest is required before a channel will be allotted. Based upon the petitioner's withdrawal of interest in pursuing its proposal, and in accordance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1438A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1438A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1438A1.txt
  • Station WEGY(FM)'s license accordingly; and (b) the reallotment of Channel 232A from Taylorville to Pana, Illinois, and the modification of Station WMKR(FM)'s license accordingly. Petitioners filed comments in support of the proposal reaffirming their intention to filed for the respectively channels, if reallotted. No other comments were received. 2. The proposed reallotments were filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1464A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1465A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1465A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1465A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1482A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1482A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1482A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1483A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1483A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1483A1.txt
  • community's first local television service. TV 31 also requests modification of its construction permit for Station KBCA, Elk City, to be modified to specify operation at Borger. TV 31 indicated that it would file an application for Channel 31 at Borger if the channel is allotted to the community as requested. 2. TV 31 filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O") 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1484A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1484A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1488A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1538A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1538A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1538A1.txt
  • proposing the substitution of Channel 224C for Channel 224C1 at Kingman, the reallotment of Channel 224C to Dolan Springs, Arizona, and modification of the license of Station KRCY accordingly. Petitioner filed supporting comments in response to the Notice. No other comments were received. 2. As stated in the Notice, the petitioner filed its request pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed reallotment of Channel 224C to Dolan Springs, which is not within an urbanized area, is mutually exclusive with the petitioner's current authorization at Kingman. The distance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1539A1.txt
  • the modification of Station KTRL's authorization accordingly. Additionally, petitioner requests the allotment of Channel 283C2 at Las Vegas as a replacement for Channel 275C2. Petitioner states that it will apply for Channel 275C3 if allotted to Pecos, and Channel 283C2 if allotted to Las Vegas, New Mexico. 2. Petitioner filed its rule making request pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See, Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community R&O''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part (``Change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1540A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1540A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1543A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1543A1.txt
  • Petitioner filed comments in support of the proposal reaffirming its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Story. Lovcom, Inc. (``Lovcom'') filed opposing comments. Reply comments were filed by petitioner and Lovcom. After the record closed, petitioner filed a ``Motion for Leave to File and Clarification.'' 2. The proposed reallotment was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1544A1.txt
  • community's first local transmission service, and the modification of Station WGRL(FM)'s license to reflect the change of community. It also proposes the reallotment of Channel 283B from Indianapolis to Noblesville, Indiana, to retain the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of Station WGLD(FM)'s license to reflect the change of community. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. It states that each of its proposals falls within the provisions of this rule because the proposal to reallot Channel 230A from Noblesville to Fishers is mutually exclusive
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1578A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1578A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1593A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1593A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1593A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1594A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1594A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1594A1.txt
  • Comment Date: September 11, 2001 By the Chief, Allocations Branch: The Allocations Branch has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by Louisville Communications, LLC (``petitioner''), requesting the reallotment of Television Channel 34 and DTV Channel 19 from Campbellsville to Bardstown, Kentucky. Bardstown has no television stations or vacant allotments. Petitioner filed its petition pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In order to determine whether the proposal before us will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments, we will be guided by the television allotment priorities in the Television
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1602A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1602A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1602A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1603A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1603A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1603A1.txt
  • proposes to reallot Channel 296A from Hudson Falls, New York, to Corinth, and to modify the license for Station WFFG-FM, accordingly. Petitioner filed comments in response to the Notice reiterating its intention to apply for the modification of its licenses as it proposed. We received no other comments or counterproposals. Petitioner filed its petition pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. It states that each of its proposals falls within the provisions of this rule because the proposal to allot Channel 229A at Scotia is mutually exclusive with Station
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1660A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1660A1.txt
  • which operate in the Charlotte, North Carolina radio market. Susquehanna filed replies to the comments filed by Monroe and Capstar. For the reasons stated below, we grant Susquehanna's request to change its community of license to Indian Trail. Short-Spacing Problem 2. Susquehanna filed its request to reallot Channel 265A to Indian Trail, North Carolina pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. We agree with Susquehanna's assertions that the reallotment will provide Indian Trail with its first local aural transmission service, will eliminate entirely two of three pre-1964 grandfathered short-spacings
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1669A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1669A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1669A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1670A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1670A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1670A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1671A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1671A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1671A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1734A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1734A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1734A1.txt
  • to whether this policy should be extended to pre-1964 stations that have subsequently modified their facilities but still do not comply with the minimum separation standards now set forth in Section 73.207(b) of the Rules. All parties filing Comments or Reply Comments supported the continuation of the Newnan and Peachtree policy. 3. Southern Broadcasting filed its proposal pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Community of License''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1736A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1736A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1736A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1742A1.txt
  • petitioner, Entercom Portland, LLC, licensee of Station KRSK(FM), Salem, Oregon, and Entercom Rochester, LLC, licensee of Station WBBF-FM, Avon, New York, filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for construction permit to effectuate the modification at each locality. No other comments were filed. Both petitioners filed their proposals for the reallotments in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. This is a multiple docket Report and Order issued in response to a Commission Public Notice released October 2, 1998 (DA 98-1987). We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1767A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1767A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1767A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1768A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1768A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1768A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1769A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1770A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1771A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1772A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1772A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1772A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1773A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1773A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1774A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1774A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1774A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1786A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1787A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1787A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1787A1.txt
  • reallotment of Channel 296A from Danville, Kentucky, to Nonesuch, Kentucky. Clear Channel requests modification of its license for Station WHIR-FM to specify operation on Channel 296A at Nonesuch, Kentucky. Clear Channel indicated that it would file an application for Channel 296A at Nonesuch if the channel is allotted to the community. 2. Clear Channel filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O"), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-179A1.txt
  • which MBI would accept an upgrade for Station KFLY(FM), Corvallis, Oregon, from Channel 268C2 to Channel 268C1 for a payment of $950,000. The staff also denied MBI's competing proposal filed as a one-step upgrade application upgrading Station KFLY to Channel 268C at Corvallis. That decision was based on two grounds. First, the settlement could not withstand scrutiny pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Rules because the settlement amount specifies monies in excess of the legitimate and prudent expenses incurred by MBI in preparing and prosecuting its application. Second, the public interest was better served by the allotment to The Dalles, as the community's first local noncommercial educational service, as well as a new primary service than allotting Channel 268C in lieu
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1804A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1828A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1828A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1828A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-182A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1859A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1859A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1859A1.txt
  • Fort, North Carolina, and the modification of Station WKSF(FM)'s license accordingly; (b) the modification of the transmitter site of Station WEYE-FM, Channel 282A, Surgoinsville, Tennessee; and (c) the modification of the transmitter site of Station WBBQ-FM, Channel 282C, Augusta, Georgia. Petitioners state their intention to apply for the respective channels, if reallotted. 2. The proposal is filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1860A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1860A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1860A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1861A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1861A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1861A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1862A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1862A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1862A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1863A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1863A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1863A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-186A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-18A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-18A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-18A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1906A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1906A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1906A1.txt
  • the U.S.-Canadian border, concurrence of the Canadian Government will be requested for the proposed allotments. As requested, we shall also propose to modify the license for Station WIAR to specify operation on Channel 264C3, the license for Station WSRQ to specify operation on Channel 291A, and the license for Station WKLA to specify operation on Channel 254A accordance with section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules. 3. Whenever an existing licensee is ordered to switch frequencies to accommodate a new channel allotment, we require the proponent of a new allotment to make a commitment that it would reimburse the affected station for the costs incurred in changing frequencies. Northern has acknowledged its responsibility to reimburse Station WKLA, Ludington, Michigan, for the reasonable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1907A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1907A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1907A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1908A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1908A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1908A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1909A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1909A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1909A1.txt
  • 15 FCC Rcd 2012 (2000), proposing the reallotment of Channel 276A from Elkhorn City, and the modification of Station WPKE-FM' license accordingly. Petitioner filed comments in support of the proposal reaffirming its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Coal Run. No other comments were received. 2. The proposed reallotment was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1910A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1910A1.txt
  • Notice proposed the substitution of Channel 245C2 for 245A at Naches and modification of Station KZTA's license accordingly, and the reallotment of Channel 244A from Sunnyside to Benton City, Washington, and modification of Station KZTB's license accordingly. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file the necessary applications to effectuate the modifications, if granted. Petitioner invokes the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. This provision applies because the proposal to allot Channel 244A at Benton City is mutually exclusive with Station KZTB's current allotment of Channel 244A at Sunnyside. In addition,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-192A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-193A1.txt
  • 15 FCC Rcd 15902 (2000), proposing the substitution of Channel 275C3 for Channel 275C2, the reallotment of the channel from Las Vegas to Rowe, New Mexico, as its first local aural service, and the modification of Station KTRL's construction permit accordingly. Comments were filed by the petitioner. No other comments were received. 2. Petitioner's request was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which allows the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See, Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Community of License R&O"), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Community
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1998A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1998A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1998A1.txt
  • Wireless, L.L.C., requesting the substitution of Channel 281C2 for Channel 281C3 at Scappoose, Oregon, IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 6. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Chief, Allocations Branch Policy and Rules Division Mass Media Bureau Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Thunderegg declares that neither it nor any of its principals have receive or will receive any money or other consideration in exchange for the dismissal of its counterproposal. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 01-1998 Federal Communications Commission DA 01-1998 ) * + . / 1 4 5 �@��� $ % & ' ( ) * +
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2001A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2001A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2001A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2002A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2002A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2002A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2003A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2003A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2003A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2004A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2048A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2049A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2049A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2049A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2056A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2056A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2056A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2057A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2057A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2057A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2058A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2058A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2058A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2061A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2061A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2061A1.txt
  • Channel 261C1 to Dayton, Nevada, and modification of the Station KTHX-FM license to specify operation on Channel 261C1 at Dayton. The Notice also proposed the reallotment of Channel 295C from Reno to Incline Village and modification of the Station KRNO-FM license to specify Incline Village as the community of license. 3. The petitioners filed this joint proposal pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Community of License''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 91989), recon. granted in part, 5
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2088A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2088A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2088A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2102A1.txt
  • filed by Tichenor License Corporation (``Tichenor''), proposing the substitution of Channel 287C3 for Channel 287A at Crystal Beach, Texas, reallotment of Channel 287C3 from Crystal Beach to Stowell, Texas, and the modification of the authorization for Station KLTO(FM) accordingly. Tichenor stated its intention to file an application for Channel 287C3 at Stowell. 2. Tichenor filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O") 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2103A1.txt
  • before it a petition for rule making petition filed by WYCQ, Inc. (``petitioner''), licensee of Station WZPC(FM), Shelbyville, Tennessee, proposing the reallotment of Channel 275C1 from Shelbyville to LaVergne, Tennessee, and the modification of Station WZPC(FM)'s license accordingly. Petitioner states its intention to apply for the channell, if reallotted to La Vergne. 2. The proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2106A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2145A1.txt
  • KBCA, Channel 31, Elk City, Oklahoma, proposing the reallotment of Channel 31 from Elk City to Borger, Texas, as that community's first local television service. TV 31 filed supporting comments in response to the Notice. No other comments were received. 2. As stated in the Notice, TV 31's petition for rule making was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest where the requested allotment would be mutually exclusive with the existing authorization. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specity a New Community of License, 4 FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2146A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2156A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2156A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2156A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2160A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2161A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2205A1.txt
  • to Granby. We also return Clear Channel's application to modify the facilities of Station WXBB to the Audio Services Division, Mass Media Bureau. The applicant has 30 days, from the effective date of this Report and Order to amend its application. 2. Galaxy filed its request to reallot Channel 288A to Granby, New York, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal by itself, we compare the existing allotment versus the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2206A1.txt
  • Before the Commission for consideration is a Petition for Rule Making filed by KNTO, Inc. (``Petitioner''), proposing the reallotment of Channel 240A from Dos Palos, California to Chualar, California, and the modification of the authorization for Station KNTO(FM) accordingly. Petitioner stated its intention to file an application for Channel 240A at Chualar. 2. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O") 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2207A1.txt
  • Station KRYD, Channel 285C1, Telluride, Colorado, requesting the reallotment of Channel 285C1 to Norwood, Colorado, as that incorporated community's first local aural transmission service, and modification of its license accordingly. Petitioner stated its intention to apply for Channel 285C1 if it is reallotted to Norwood, as requested. 2. Petitioner filed its rule making request pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community R&O''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part (``Change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2208A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2209A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2210A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2236A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2249A1.txt
  • area as Pinesdale is not located within a U.S. Census Urbanized Area. 4. Channel 241C2 can be allotted to Pinesdale, Montana, in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements at IBC's specified site. Since Pinesdale is located within 320 kilometers of the U.S-Canadian border, concurrence of the Canadian Government has been requested for this allotment. In accordance with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, we will modify the authorization for Channel 294C2, McCall, Idaho, to specify operation on Channel 294C1 at Pinesdale, Montana, as its new community of license. 5. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.204(b) and 0.283 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2250A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2251A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making to which this Appendix is attached, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and public notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2263A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2263A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2316A1.txt
  • to East Dublin, Georgia and modify the Station WELT license to specify operation on Channel 251C3 at East Dublin. The comment date in MM Docket No. 99-259 was September 7, 1999. Multi-Service filed its Counterproposal on March 23, 2000. As such, it is unacceptable for consideration either in the context of MM Docket No. 99-259 or this proceeding. See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules; see also Pinewood, South Carolina, 5 FCC Rcd 7609 (1990). 5. We are substituting Channel 257C1 for Channel 256C3 at Barnwell, South Carolina, reallotting Channel 257C1 to Pembroke, Georgia, and are modifying the Station WBAW license to specify operation on Channel 257C1 at Pembroke. This will result in a preferential arrangements of allotments by providing Pembroke
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2317A1.txt
  • permittee of television Station KRII, Channel 11, International Falls, Minnesota, proposing the reallotment of Channel 11 from International Falls to Chisholm, Minnesota, and modification of its authorization accordingly. Petitioner filed supporting comments in response to the Notice. Informal comments were also filed by various individuals. 2. As stated in the Notice, petitioner's proposal, filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, would reallot Channel 11 from International Falls (pop. 8,325) to Chisholm (pop. 5,290), without affording other parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest as the requested allotment is mutually exclusive with the existing authorization at International Falls. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2318A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2319A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2320A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2320A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2320A1.txt
  • making filed on behalf of Southern Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (``Southern''), which has recently received Commission approval to acquire the license of Station WXKT(FM), Channel 261A, Washington, Georgia. Southern seeks to amend the FM Table of Allotments by reallotting Channel 261A from Washington to Watkinsville, Georgia and modifying Station WXKT's authorization accordingly. 2. Southern seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Southern explains that the requested reallotment from Washington to Watkinsville is mutually exclusive with WXKT's existing authorization. Further, Southern states that the town
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2324A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2324A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2324A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2376A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2376A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2378A1.txt
  • allotment priorities, both would trigger priority (3) of the FM allotment priorities since each would provide the community with its first local transmission service. If this were a situation comparing two de novo requests for allotments proposing first local service, we would normally favor the larger community of Johnsonville. In addition, as noted in the generic rulemaking proceeding adopting Section 1.420(i), the Commission generally prohibited the removal of a community's sole local service but stated that ``a waiver of the prohibition will be considered `in the rare circumstances where removal of a local service might serve the public interest.' '' In this regard, petitioner has failed to persuade us that removal of this service would serve the public interest. First, irrespective
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2379A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2379A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2379A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2380A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2381A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2381A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2437A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2445A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2445A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2445A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2446A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2446A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2446A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2447A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2447A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2447A1.txt
  • Station WCEN-FM's licensed site 46.1 kilometers (28.7 miles) northwest of the community. Wilks will be required to specify its current licensed site for Station WCEN-FM, Mount Pleasant, for the applications for a construction permit and a license for Station WCEN-FM, Hemlock, since the change of community of license is protected as a grandfathered short spaced station. In accordance with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, we will modify the license for Station WCEN-FM to specify operation on Channel 233C1 at Hemlock, Michigan, as its new community of license. Since Hemlock, Michigan, is located within 320 kilometers of the U.S.-Canadian border, the Canadian Government will be notified of the change of community for Channel 233C1 from Mount Pleasant to Hemlock. 5. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2448A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2448A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2448A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2468A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2468A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-247A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2487A1.txt
  • FCC Rcd 5374 (1988), to demonstrate that Neptune Beach is sufficiently independent of Jacksonville to merit a first local service preference. For the reasons stated below, we grant Clear Channel's request to change its community of license to Neptune Beach. 2. Clear Channel filed its request to reallot Channel 250C2 to Neptune Beach, Florida, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. 3. The Notice in this proceeding observed that Clear Channel argues that the reallotment of Channel 250C2 from St. Augustine (1990 U.S. Census population of 11,692 persons) to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2489A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-248A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2490A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2490A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2490A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-249A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-251A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-252A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-253A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-254A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-254A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2556A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2556A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2568A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2568A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2568A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-256A1.txt
  • filed by Tugart Communications to allot Channel 236A to Blairsville, Georgia (RM-9983) IS DISMISSED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 5. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Chief, Allocations Branch Policy and Rules Division Mass Media Bureau In compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, petitioner submits a certification that neither the petitioner nor any of its principals has received or will receive any money or other consideration for the withdrawal of its expression of interest. �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �`� �0�
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2572A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2572A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2627A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2627A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2627A1.txt
  • at Huntsville and Nacogdoches, Texas, and Lake Charles, Louisiana. New Wavo filed comments in which it reaffirmed its interest in Channel 297C at La Porte. No other comments were received in response to the Notice in this proceeding. 2. The proposed reallotment of Channel 279C from Willis, Texas to La Porte, Texas, was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recond. granted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2629A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2629A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2629A1.txt
  • that community's second local FM service, and modification of Station KTRL's authorization accordingly. Additionally, Channel 283C2 was proposed at Las Vegas as a replacement for Channel 275C2, as requested by the petitioner. Supporting comments were filed by the petitioner in response to the Notice. No other comments were received. 2. Petitioner's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community R&O''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part (``Change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2681A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2681A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2681A1.txt
  • involves a change of community of license. Each petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for construction permit at each locality and effectuate the change of community if granted. No opposing comments or counterproposals were filed in any of the proceedings. Each of the petitioners filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. This is a multiple docket Report and Order issued in response to a Commission Public Notice released October 2, 1998 (DA 98-1987). We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-271A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-271A1.txt
  • Porte, Texas, and the modification of the license for Station KVST(FM), accordingly. To accommodate its proposal for Station KVST(FM), New Wavo also requests changes at Huntsville and Nacogdoches, Texas, and Lake Charles, Louisiana. New Wavo stated its intention to apply for Channel 279C at La Porte if its proposal is granted. 2. New Wavo filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O") 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2735A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2735A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2735A1.txt
  • complete record, and to eliminate the conflict with the counterproposal request at Vail, as well as pending modification applications at Oro Valley and Clifton, Arizona, as discussed, infra. Comments received from Paul S. Lotsof (``Lotsof'') were not considered because they were not accompanied by a certificate of service indicating that a copy was served on DWAR, as required by Section 1.420(a) of the Commission's Rules. See, Wilson Creek, Washington and Pendleton, Oregon, 11 FCC Rcd 11842 (1996). Five people in an area of 32 sq. km. would receive no fulltime services (white area), and fifty people in an area of 255 sq. km would receive one fulltime service (grey area). However, the Notice announced that should the construction permit for Station
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2736A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2736A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2736A1.txt
  • TV Station KBNY, Channel 6, Ely, Nevada (``Petitioners''). They propose reallotment of NTSC television Channel 6 from Vernal to Santaquin, Utah and NTSC television Channel 6 from Ely to Caliente, Nevada and modification of the construction permits at Vernal (BPCT-960919KG) and at Ely (BPET-970331LN) to specify Santaquin and Caliente, respectively. Petitioner filed its rulemaking request under the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules that permit modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community R&O''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part (``Change of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2737A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2737A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2737A1.txt
  • 1. The Allocations Branch has before it a petition for rule making filed on behalf of Chase Radio Properties, L.L.C. (``Chase''), licensee of Station KCNL(FM), Channel 285A, Fremont, California, seeking to amend the FM Table of Allotments by reallotting Channel 285A from Fremont to Sunnyvale, California, and modifying its authorization accordingly. 2. Chase seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Chase explains that the requested change in operations is mutually exclusive with its existing authorization. Further, Chase observes that its reallotment proposal would
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-274A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-274A1.txt
  • be considered as counterproposals in this proceeding. 6. Second, it appears that at least one of these applicants recognized the technical conflict between Channel 254C1 at Keno and Channel 255A at Hornbrook and stated ``The instant application is being filed as a COUNTER PROPOSAL to ... pending Rulemakings to allocate FM Channel 255A at Hornbrook..... However, this applicant violated Section 1.420(a) of the Commission's Rules as well as the specific language in this proceeding requiring that counterproponents serve the initial petitioner, and this is another basis for not considering that application as a counterproposal. 7. Alternatively, even if we were to consider the amended applications as counterproposals in this proceeding, they would still lose on a comparative basis. Comparative proposals such
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2753A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2753A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2753A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2782A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2782A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2782A1.txt
  • is the holder of an option to purchase Station KCSX. Missouri Valley Broadcasting, Inc. (``MVB'') filed reply comments. 2. Joint Parties counterproposed the substitution of Channel 247C1 for Channel 247C3 at Moberly, Missouri and reallotment of Station KCSX from Moberly to Lee's Summit, Missouri, as a first local service. The counterproposal has been filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change of Community MO&O"), 5
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2785A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2785A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2786A1.txt
  • As part of the settlement agreement, Panhandle requests the dismissal of its Petition for Reconsideration of the Commission's R & O in this proceeding. Cosmos and Panhandle contend that the grant of the Joint Request will resolve the potential mutual exclusivity and serve the public interest by enhancing the new digital television service for Lubbock, Texas. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Panhandle filed an affidavit stating that neither Panhandle nor any of its principals has paid, received, promised, or been promised any other 1 Public Notice of the Petition for Reconsideration was given on June 29, 2001, Report No. 2490. Federal Communications Commission DA 01-2786 2 consideration in connection with the dismissal of its Petition for Reconsideration.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2812A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2847A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2847A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2847A1.txt
  • Tichenor initially filed comments restating is support of Channel 287C3 at Stowell, on November 28, 2001, Tichenor submitted comments withdrawing its interest in the upgrade and reallotment of Station KLTO(FM) from Crystal Beach to Stowell stating that it did not receive any consideration for the withdrawal of its expression of interest for Channel 287C3 at Stowell in compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules. As stated In the Notice, a showing of continuing interest is required before a channel will be allotted. It is the Commission's policy to refrain from making an allotment to a community absent an expression of interest. In this case, since Tichenor has stated that it no longer intends to pursue an allotment at Stowell, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2848A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2848A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2848A1.txt
  • law, because they are not mutually exclusive with Four Rivers' proposal to substitute Channel 266A for Channel 224A at Mendocino. See, e.g., Implementation of BC Docket 80-90 to Increase the Availability of FM Broadcast Assignments, 5 FCC Rcd 931, n.5 (1990). Second, since we are granting an equivalent class channel change, as opposed to a channel upgrade pursuant to Section 1.420(g) of the Rules, we are not required to accommodate other expressions of interest in similar facilities from parties other than the licensee. Nevertheless, CCN is free to file a petition for rule making to add a channel to Mendocino in a new and different proceeding than this one, if it so desires. 4. As stated in the Notice, Channel 266A
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2856A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2856A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2856A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2867A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2867A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2867A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2868A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2868A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2868A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-286A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-286A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-286A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2907A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2907A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2907A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making to which this Appendix is attached, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and public notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2908A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2908A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2908A1.txt
  • its Petition for Reconsideration. As requested, we shall dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration. 2. Background. The Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding in response to a petition filed by Graham Tollway Broadcasting Company (``Graham Tollway'') requesting the allotment of Channel 253A at Graham, Texas. Graham Tollway withdrew its proposal for Graham in compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules. NTRG filed a counterproposal requesting the substitution of Channel 252C for Channel 252A at Bridgeport and modification of the license for Station KBOC accordingly. To accommodate the upgrade at Bridgeport, NTRG also requested changes at Bonham, Palestine, Price, Ranger and Stephenville, Texas, and Ardmore, Lawton, Tecumseh and Fort Towson, Oklahoma. Action in the Report and Order
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2909A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2909A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2909A1.txt
  • proposed that Channel 270A could be allotted to Paonia in lieu of Channel 293A, GGR and MGI explicitly withdrew these proposals. 9. Second, there is no information in the record of this proceeding indicating whether any consideration was paid to Babudro in exchange for his expression of interest in a lower class channel and whether there is compliance with Section 1.420(j) establishing settlement limitations regarding withdrawals of expression of interest. In this regard, we have interpreted Section 1.420(j) as applying to mutually exclusive situations where one party agrees to accept a lower class channel because agreeing to accept a lower class channel is the functional equivalent of withdrawing a conflicting counterproposal for a higher class channel. See Banks, the Dalles, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2985A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2985A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2985A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2987A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2987A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2987A1.txt
  • Notice, Enderlin Broadcasting filed a Counterproposal proposing the allotment of Channel 233C1 to Enderlin, North Dakota, as a first local service. In its Comments, Triad Broadcasting contended that due to proximity of the Fargo-Moorhead Urbanized Area, the proposed reallotment to Barnesville is not entitled to consideration as a first local service. 3. T&J Broadcasting filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license. See Modification of FM and Television Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Community of License''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989); recon. granted in part 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990). Under Community of License, we are required to determine whether
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2988A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2988A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2988A1.txt
  • of Channel 292C3 from Newberry to Simpsonville, South Carolina, as the community's first local aural transmission service (RM-10336). Petitioner also filed a Motion to Expedite Uncontested Proceeding. In its counterproposal, petitioner affirms its intention to apply for Channel 292C3, if reallotted to Simpsonville. No other comments were received 2. The proposed reallotment was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3021A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3021A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3021A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-334A1.txt
  • Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Chief, Allocations Branch Policy and Rules Division Mass Media Bureau Petitioner's request was late-filed. However, in view of the fact that this proceeding is uncontested, we have accepted the request for the purpose of allowing petitioner to withdraw its interest in pursuing the proposal. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, petitioner advises that it, nor any of its principals, has received or will receive any money or other consideration in exchange for withdrawing its expression of interest in the proposed allotment. Federal Communications Commission DA 01-334 Federal Communications Commission DA 01-334 M N @��� M M �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �`� �0�
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-335A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-336A1.txt
  • Accordingly, we are herein issuing an Order to Show Cause to Pembrook Pines Elmira, Ltd., licensee of Station WZKZ(FM), Alfred, New York, to show why its license should not be modified as proposed. 5. As requested, we also propose to modify the license for Station WHUG(FM) at Jamestown, New York, to specify operation on Channel 270B1. In accordance with Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules, we will not accept competing expressions of interest for the use of Channel 270B1 at Jamestown, or require petitioner to demonstrate the availability of an additional equivalent class channel for use by such parties. 6. Accordingly, we seek comments on the proposed amendment of the FM Table of Allotments, Section 73.202(b) of the Commission's Rules, for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-347A1.txt
  • channel reallotment. Further, our analysis indicates that the reallotment will not remove service from a rural area to serve an urban area as Wells is not located within a U.S. Census Urbanized Area. 4. Channel 234C2 can be allotted to Wells, Texas, in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements at Radio Woodville's specified site. In accordance with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, we will modify the license for Station KVLL to specify operation on Channel 234C2 at Wells, Texas, as its new community of license. 5. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.204(b) and 0.283 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-348A1.txt
  • and 604 of the RegulatoryFlexibility Do Not Apply to Rule Making to Amend Sections 73.202(b) and 73.606(b) of the Commission's Rules, 46 FR 11549, February 9, 1981. .420(a), (b) and (c) of the Commission's Rules .) Comments should be filed with the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. 5. Number of Copies. In accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420 of the Commission's rules and regulations, an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments, pleadings, briefs or other documents shall be furnished the Commission. 6. Public Inspection of Filings. All filings made in this proceeding will be available for examination by interested parties during regular business hours in the Commission's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), at its headquarters,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-349A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-374A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-388A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-388A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-388A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-389A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-390A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-391A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-391A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-391A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-398A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-399A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-413A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-414A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-415A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-416A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-417A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-419A1.txt
  • filed supporting comments in response to the Notice stating its intention to apply for Channel 285C2, if allotted. No other comments were filed. 2. We believe the public interest would be served by substituting Channel 285C2 for Channel 274C3 at Window Rock, Arizona, since it could provide the community with an expanded coverage area FM service. In accordance with Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules, interested parties were given an opportunity to file for an additional equivalent Class C2 channel at Window Rock. However, no other expressions of interest were received. Therefore, as proposed, we will substitute Channel 285C2 for Channel 274C3 at Window Rock, Arizona, and modify the license for Station KWIM, as requested. 3. As stated in the Notice,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-425A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-426A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-427A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-427A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-427A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-428A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-445A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-445A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-445A1.txt
  • modify the license for Station KFYZ to specify operation on Channel 262A at Fort Towson. North Texas states that the reallotment will not deprive Bonham of local service as Station KFYN(AM) is licensed to the community. 3. Withdrawal. On June 16, 2000, Graham Tollway Broadcasting Company withdrew its proposal to allot Channel 253A at Graham, Texas. In compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Graham Tollway provided an affidavit stating that it would be reimbursed for expenses incurred in processing the rulemaking petition for Graham, Texas, and will receive no other consideration in excess of legitimate expenses for the dismissal of its petition. Therefore, since Graham Tollway has withdrawn from the proceeding and no other interest has been expressed for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-496A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-496A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-546A1.txt
  • persons. It has its own post office and zip code (51063). Whiting has two schools (elementary and senior high), a public library, three churches (Church of Christ, the Congregational Church, and Jehovah's Witnesses). There is also a bank (Sloan State Bank), and a variety of other local businesses. 3. The proposed reallotment was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-560A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-560A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-560A1.txt
  • council. Its police department has eight employees, provides fire, water, and sewage facilities to the community. There are two schools, eight churches, numerous retail establishments, gas stations, and charitable and service organizations such as the Lions Club, Eastern Star, and Masons. The community also has a city park. 4. The proposed reallotments were filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-561A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-561A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-561A1.txt
  • (``petitioner''), licensee of Station KRCY, Kingman, Arizona, requesting the substitution of Channel 224C for Channel 224C1 at Kingman, the reallotment of Channel 224C to Dolan Springs, Arizona, and modification of the license of Station KRCY accordingly. Petitioner stated its intention to apply for Channel 224C if allotted to Dolan Springs, as requested. 2. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community R&O''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part (``Change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-562A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-562A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-563A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-563A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-563A1.txt
  • Alabama, and Station WRTR, Channel 288A, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and Jacor Licensee of Louisville II, Inc. (``Jacor''), licensee of WTRZ-FM, Channel 280A, McMinnville, Tennessee. The Petition for Rule Making sets forth eight interrelated proposals. We will discuss each of these proposals below. 2. Seven of these proposals request a change in community of license. These requests are filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Community of License''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-564A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-564A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-564A1.txt
  • believes it would serve the public interest to solicit comments on the proposal to substitute Channel 261C3 for Channel 261A and modify the license for Station KEMB accordingly. A staff engineering analysis confirms that Channel 261C3 can be allotted to Emmetsburg in compliance with the Commission's spacing requirements provided Channel 262A is deleted at Sibley, Iowa. In accordance with Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules, we will not accept competing expressions of interest for the use of Channel 261C3 at Emmetsburg. We shall also seek comments as to whether we should delete vacant Channel 261A at Sibley, Iowa, to accommodate the upgrade at Emmetsburg. Channel 262A was allotted to Sibley in MM Docket 84-231. See 100FCC 2d 1332 (1985). The channel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-565A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-565A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-565A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-60A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-60A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-60A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-631A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-631A1.txt
  • a short spacing to the proposed reallotment of Channel 224A to Fountain Valley, California. Petitioner filed comments in support of its proposal, restating its commitment to file the necessary applications and proceed with construction. Adelman Communications, Inc, filed comments in support of the proposal. Petitioner filed reply comments. No counterproposals were received. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. As noted in the Notice, petitioner established that both proposed communities are incorporated and self-contained. As also noted in the Notice, both proposed reallotments are mutually exclusive with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-63A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-63A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-63A1.txt
  • as the community of license. Background 2. At the request of KQQK License, licensee of Station KQQK-FM, Channel 293C, Galveston, Texas, the Notice proposed the reallotment of Channel 293C from Galveston to Missouri City, Texas, and the modification of the Station KQQK-FM license to specify Missouri City as the community of license. KQQK License filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. In order to favorably consider such a proposal , we must find that it would result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. See Modification of FM and TV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-64A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-64A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-64A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-683A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-683A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-683A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-692A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-692A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-693A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-693A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-693A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-700A1.txt
  • transmitter site and because it is not a migration to this Urbanized Area. Indeed, the station is currently licensed to the central city of this Urbanized Area. Comparative Analysis 6. Having determined that Park Forest is entitled to a first local service, we must compare the existing and proposed arrangement of allotments as required by the generic proceeding adopting Section 1.420(i) of the Rules. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990). Retaining the station in Kankakee would result in a seventh local transmission service, triggering priority 4, other pubic interest matters. By way of contrast, reallotting and changing the community
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-739A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-739A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-739A1.txt
  • reallotment to Bosque Farms, New Mexico, as the community's second local FM service, and the modification of Station KQLV's permit accordingly. In addition, petitioner requests the allotment of Channel 244C3 to Grants. Petitioner states that it will apply for both Channel 288C2 at Bosque Farms and Channel 244C3 at Grants, if allotted. 2. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See, Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O"), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-741A1.txt
  • Station WQBJ's license to specify Saint Johnsville as its community of license. Comments were filed by the petitioner reiterating its intention to apply for the channel, if allotted. No other comments were received. 2. As stated in the Notice, petitioner seeks the modification of Station WQBJ's license to specify a new community of license pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. We find that Saint Johnsville is a community for allotment purposes, with a 1990 U.S. Census population of 1,825 people. It has its own police department, schools, library, town clerk, youth center, village justice center, housing authority, ambulance organization, post office and zip code. In addition, it has several local churches, restaurants and food stores, a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-745A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-745A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-745A1.txt
  • herein a petition for rule making filed on behalf of Runnels Broadcasting System, LLC, licensee of Station KQTN, Lordsburg, New Mexico, requesting the reallotment of its channel to Deming, New Mexico, and modification of its authorization accordingly. Petitioner stated its intention to apply for Channel 250C if it is reallotted to Deming. 2. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Community of License''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part (``Change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-804A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-860A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-860A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-860A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-861A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-861A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-861A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-862A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-862A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-862A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-863A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-863A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-863A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-866A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-866A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-866A1.txt
  • by Idaho Broadcasting Corsortium, Inc. ("petitioner"), permittee of Station KSXZ-FM, Channel 256C, Lost Cabin, Wyoming, proposing the reallotment of Channel 256C from Lost Cabin to Arapahoe, Wyoming, and the modification of Station KSXZ-FM's construction permit accordingly. Petitioner states its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Arapahoe. 2. Petitioner files its proposal pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-867A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-867A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-867A1.txt
  • License, Inc. (``petitioner''), permittee of a television station to operate on NTSC Channel 11 at International Falls, Minnesota (File No. BPCT-19960709KR), proposing the reallotment of Channel 11 from International Falls to Chisholm, Minnesota, and modification of its authorization accordingly to specify Chisholm as its community of license., 2. Petitioner filed its rule making request pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community R&O''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part (``Change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-879A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-879A1.txt
  • BBC states that it withdraws it expression of interest in the allotment of Channel 263A at Bogata so that the channel is available for allotment to another community. This action will also allow Inspiration, proposed assignee of an unbuilt permit for Channel 264C, Highland Village, Texas, to make technical improvements to the facility at Highland Village. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, BBC filed an affidavit stating that the monies received for withdrawal of its interest in Channel 263A at Bogata from Inspitation do not exceed its reasonable and prudent expenses incurred for the preparation and filing of its counterproposal in this proceeding. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the aforementioned Petition for Reconsideration filed by Bogata Broadcasting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-880A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-880A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-880A1.txt
  • 2001 By the Chief, Allocations Branch: The Allocations Branch has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by Word of God Fellowship, Inc. (``petitioner''), requesting the reallotment of Television Channel 29 from Decatur to Plano, Texas. Decatur, 1990 U.S. Census population 4,252 persons, has no other television stations or allotments. Petitioner filed its petition pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commsision's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In order to determine whether the proposal before us will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments, we will be guided by the television allotment priorities in the Television
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-927A1.txt
  • at both Wickenburg and Aguila to be accommodated. 5. In response, BBC advises that its proposal to allot Channel 242C3 to Bagdad as its second local FM service is superior to the proposed allotment of Channel 242C3 at Wickenburg as its third local FM service. Further, BBC remarks that the Circle S proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of � 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules as its proposed move from Channel 231C3 at Wickenburg to Channel 242C3 at that community is not mutually exclusive with its present assignment and would open it to competing expressions of interest. BBC adds that although the requested allotment of Channel 231C3 at Aguila would be mutually exclusive with Circle S's present allotment, Circle S has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-928A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-928A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-928A1.txt
  • KAPV(FM)) license accordingly. Petitioners also proposed the reallotment of Channel 257C1 from Aberdeen to Elma, Washington, and the modification of Station KAYO-FM's license accordingly. Petitioners filed comments in support of the proposal reaffirming their intention to apply for the respective channels, if reallotted. No other comments were received. 2. The proposed reallotments were filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-931A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-931A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-931A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-93A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-93A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-93A1.txt
  • proposing the reallotment of Channel 278B from Steubenville, Ohio, to Burgettstown, Pennsylvania. Keymarket also requests modification of its license for Station WOGH(FM), Steubenville, to be modified to specify operation at Burgettstown. Keymarket indicated that it would file an application for Channel 278B at Burgettstown if the channel is allotted to the community. 2. Keymarket filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O") 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1042A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1042A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1043A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1043A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1043A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1099A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1099A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1099A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1153A1.txt
  • and MainQuad filed Further Comments in response to Garysburg Radio's most recent Reply. For the reasons stated below, we grant Garysburg Radio's counterproposal to substitute Channel 299A for Channel 276A at Alberta and to allot Channel 276A to Garysburg. Community Proposals 3. MainQuad filed its request to reallot Channel 276C3 to Whitakers, North Carolina, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. MainQuad's reallotment proposal is mutually exclusive with the allotment it is presently using, as required by Section 1.420(i) of the Rules. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1154A1.txt
  • Tennessee, to accommodate the allotment at Horn Lake. Clear Channel filed comments in which it reaffirmed its interest in Channel 239A at Horn Lake. No other comments were received in response to the Notice in this proceeding. 2. The proposed reallotment of Channel 239A from Olive Branch, Mississippi to Horn Lake, Mississippi, was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recond. granted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1157A1.txt
  • (``HAAT''), which is below the minimum Class C antenna height of 450 meters HAAT. HCR avers that as Station KEXL is operating below minimum Class C standards, it is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the Second Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98-93, 15 FCC Rcd 21649 (2000), and as set forth in Section 1.420(g), note 2, and Section 73.3574, note 4, of the Commission's Rules. 2. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and Section 1.420(g), note 2, the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station may be initiated through the filing of a petition for rule making to amend the FM
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1158A1.txt
  • Channel 284C3 from Rose Hill to La Grange, North Carolina. Conner requests modification of its license for Station WZUP to specify operation on Channel 284C3 at La Grange, North Carolina. Conner indicated that it would file an application for Channel 284C3 at La Grange if the channel is allotted to the community. 2. Conner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O"), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1159A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1160A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1191A1.txt
  • of community of license. Each petitioner states that it will file an application for construction permit to effectuate the change of community if granted. We believe that each proposal warrants consideration because it complies with our technical requirements and would serve the public interest. Each of the petitioners filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In each case, the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1198A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1246A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1247A1.txt
  • rule making filed on behalf of CSN International (``Petitioner''), licensee of Station WWUN-FM, Channel 268A, Clarksdale, Mississippi. Petitioner seeks to amend the FM Table of Allotments by changing the community of license of Station WWUN-FM from Clarksdale to Friars Point, Mississippi, and to upgrade Channel 268A, Station WWUN-FM, to Channel 268C3. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The requested reallotment from Clarksdale to Friars Point is mutually exclusive with Station WWUN-FM's existing authorization. second local aural transmission service. We note that the allotment of Channel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1248A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1249A1.txt
  • have reviewed all the pleadings filed in this proceeding and we have determined that there are two significant defects that render FERN's counterproposal unacceptable for consideration. It is well established that counterproposals must be technically correct and substantially complete when filed and that counterproposals will be considered only if they are filed by the deadline date for comments. See Section 1.420 (d) of the Commission's Rules, Broken Arrow and Bixby, Oklahoma, 3 FCC Rcd 6507, 6511 (1988) and Springdale Arkansas et al., 4 FCC Rcd 674 (1989), recon., 5 FCC Rcd 1241 (1990). At the time that FERN filed its counterproposal, FERN did not provide the Commission with any statement from H & R Broadcasting, Inc. (``H&R''), the licensee of Station
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1279A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1279A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1280A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1280A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1280A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1281A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1281A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1290A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1339A1.txt
  • Parties request the allotments of Channel 283C1 to Moro, Oregon, Channel 261C2 to Arlington, Oregon, and Channel 226A to Trout Lake, Washington, as first local aural transmission services. FBC states that it will apply for the foregoing channels, if allotted to those communities, and construct facilities thereon as authorized. 2. The Joint Parties seek to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The requested reallotment from The Dalles, Oregon, to Covington, Washington, is mutually exclusive with Station KMCQ's existing authorization. 3. The Joint Parties assert that the adoption of its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1340A1.txt
  • to implement its proposal if the reallotment of Channel 259A to Westwood occurs. No other party filed comments or any other pleading in this proceeding. For the reasons stated below, we grant Petitioner request to change its community of license to Westwood. 2. Petitioner filed its request to reallot Channel 259A to Westwood, California, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. 3. We believe that the public interest would be served by reallotting Channel 259A from Chester to Westwood because Westwood would receive its first local commercial aural transmission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1344A1.txt
  • service, and modify Station WEXM's license to reflect the change of community. They also request that the Commission reallot Channel 241B from Cape Charles to Exmore, Virginia to maintain the community's sole local aural transmission service, and modify Station WROX's license to reflect the change of community. Petitioners filed their proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In each case, the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1356A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1356A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1356A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1372A1.txt
  • mutually exclusive with the pending Channel 257A proposal at Knox City in MM Docket No. 00-148. In order for the Benjamin proposal to be considered, that proposal must have been filed by the October 10, 2000, comment date in MM Docket No. 00-148. Charles Crawford did not do so. Accordingly, we are dismissing the Benjamin proposal as untimely. See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules; see also Pinewood, South Carolina, 5 FCC Rcd 7609 (1990). 3. In his Reply Comments, Charles Crawford argues that dismissal of his Benjamin proposal would ``run counter to fundamental due process and fair notice protections.'' We disagree. The Notice in MM Docket 00-148 elicited counterproposals which, in turn, could cause the subsequent exclusion of the Benjamin
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1373A1.txt
  • since Apex has stated that it no longer intends to pursue the reallotment of Channel 225C2 from Jennings to Iowa, Louisiana, we shall dismiss the proposal. See, e.g., Joshua Tree, California, 4 FCC Rcd 3801 (1989), Bridport, Vermont, 5 FCC Rcd 6172 (1990), and paragraph 2 of the Appendix to the Notice. Apex filed its comments in compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules stating that it did not receive any consideration for the withdrawal of its Petition for Rule Making. 3. In view of the above, IT IS ORDERED, That the Petition for Rule Making filed by Apex Broadcasting, Inc. (RM-10385), requesting the reallotment of Channel 225C2 to Iowa, Louisiana, IS DISMISSED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1378A1.txt
  • and reiterating its intent to implement its proposal if the reallotment of Channel 285A to Sunnyvale occurs. No other party filed comments in this proceeding. For the reasons stated below, we grant Chase's request to change its community of license to Sunnyvale. 2. Chase filed its request to reallot Channel 285A to Sunnyvale, California, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. 3. The Notice in this proceeding observed that Chase argues that the reallotment of Channel 285A from Fremont to Sunnyvale is to be preferred under the Commission's allotment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1413A1.txt
  • on behalf of Radio One (``petitioner''), licensee of Station WYJZ(FM), Lebanon, Indiana, proposing to reallot Channel 265A from Lebanon, Indiana, to Speedway, Indiana, and modify the license of Station WYJZ(FM) to reflect the changes. Petitioner pledges to file the necessary application to effectuate the changes, if granted. Petitioner filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In this case, the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal such as this,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1479A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1480A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1481A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1482A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1482A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1482A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1483A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1483A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1483A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1551A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1551A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1551A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1553A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1553A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1553A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-158A1.txt
  • grant of the upgrade application and adoption of the Counterproposal substituting Channel 230C1 at Archer City, AM & FM Broadcasters would file an application to downgrade its allotment back to Channel 229C2. Pursuant to to agreement, the Joint Parties would ``compensate'' AM & FM Broadcasters for the downgrade of Station KICM. In this regard, the Joint Parties contend that Section 1.420(j) of the Rules, which limits reimbursement to a party withdrawing or dismissing an expression of interest in a rulemaking proceeding, applies only to a dismissal, modification or withdrawal of an expression of interest and not to an agreement to file a subsequent application to downgrade an allotment. It is our view that under these circumstances, AM & FM Broadcasters is,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-159A1.txt
  • Bend. Jodesha has filed Comments and Reply Comments, while 3 Cities, Inc., licensee of Station KXXO, Olympia, Washington, has filed ``Comments in Opposition to Proposed Rulemaking,'' Reply Comments, and ``Supplement to Reply Comments.'' For the reasons stated in this Report and Order, we grant Jodesha's petition for rule making. 2. Jodesha filed its request pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Each of Jodesha's reallotment proposals is mutually exclusive with the allotment it is presently using, as required by Section 1.420(i) of the Rules. In considering a reallotment proposal,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1620A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1620A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1620A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1621A1.txt
  • KHTN, Channel 284B, Los Banos, California, requesting the reallotment of Channel 284B from Los Banos to Planada, California, as that community's first local aural transmission service, and modification of its authorization accordingly. Petitioner stated its intention to apply for Channel 284B if it is reallotted to Planada, as requested. 2. Petitioner's request is filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In support of the proposal petitioner states that the requested use of Channel 284B at Planada (pop. 4,369), is mutually exclusive with its current
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1624A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1624A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1624A1.txt
  • proposal if the reallotment of Channel 264C3 to Buena Vista occurs. No other party filed comments or any other pleading in this proceeding. For the reasons stated below, we grant Petitioner's request to change its community of license to Buena Vista. 2. Petitioner filed its request to reallot Channel 264C3 to Buena Vista, Georgia, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. 3. We believe that the public interest would be served by served by reallotting Channel 264C3 from Cuthbert to Buena Vista because Buena Vista would receive its first
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1650A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1650A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1651A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1651A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1651A1.txt
  • C antenna height of greater than 450 meters HAAT with 100 kW ERP. Harper asserts that because Station WBPT is operating below minimum Class C standards, it is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the triggering procedures adopted in the Commission's Second Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-93, and outlined in note 2 to Section 1.420(g) and note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's Rules. The staff has tentatively concluded that if WBPT operates as a Class C0 facility, any short-spacing between Station WBPT and the proposed use of Channel 292A at the proposed Maplesville site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to CXR
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1652A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1652A1.txt
  • application to effectuate its proposal. We received no other comments on this proposal. The Notice proposed to substitute Channel 257A for Channel 257C3 at Harrodsburg and reallot Channel 257A from Harrodsburg to Keene, Kentucky, as the community's first local aural transmission service, and modify the license for Station WJMM-FM to reflect the changes. This proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules that authorizes the Commission to modify the license or permit of an FM station to specify a new community of license where the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1729A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1729A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1729A1.txt
  • of Proposed Rule Making, 16 FCC Rcd 18092 (2001), requesting the allotment of Channel 246A at Roscommon, Michigan. Comments were received from Crawford and Fort Bend Broadcasting Company (``Fort Bend''). No other comments were received at the Commission in response to the Notice. 2. On November 2, 2001, Crawford filed a statement withdrawing from this proceeding. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Rules, Crawford submitted a declaration that he has not and will not receive any consideration for this withdrawal. In view of this statement and the fact that no other party has expressed an interest in an allotment at Roscommon, we will dismiss the Petition for Rule Making filed by Crawford. 3. In view of the above, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1730A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1730A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1730A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1805A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1805A1.txt
  • Audio Division has before it a petition for rule making filed on behalf of Miller Communications, Inc. (``Miller''), licensee of StationWKHT(FM), Channel 229A, Bishopville, South Carolina. Miller seeks to amend the FM Table of Allotments by reallotting Channel 229A from Bishopville to Lamar, South Carolina, and modifying Station WKHT's authorization accordingly. 2. Miller seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Miller explains that the requested reallotment from Bishopville to Lamar is mutually exclusive with Station WKHT's existing authorization. 3. Miller asserts that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1812A1.txt
  • three of the FM allotment priorities. Each petitioner states that it will file an application for construction permit at each locality and effectuate the change of community if granted. We believe that each proposal warrants consideration because it complies with our technical requirements and would serve the public interest. Each proposal is filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. This is a multiple docket Notice of Proposed Rule Making issued in response to a Commission Public Notice released October 2, 1998 (DA 98-1987). We are combining separate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1813A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1813A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1813A1.txt
  • of Channel 249A at Bethel Springs, Tennessee, as a first local aural service. A Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``NPRM'') was subsequently released, proposing the Bethel Springs allotment. In response to the NPRM, Thunderbolt filed a counterproposal, seeking to upgrade and change the community of license of its Station WCMT-FM, Channel 269A, Martin, TN, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 1.420(g)(3) and (I) of the Commission's Rules. Specifically, Thunderbolt proposed the substitution of Channel 267C3 for Channel 269A at Martin, TN, the reallotment of Channel 267C3 from Martin to South Fulton, TN, as a first local service, and the modification of WCMT-FM's license accordingly. To accommodate this counterproposal, Thunderbolt proposed two allotment plans. Option I proposed (1) the downgrade of vacant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1861A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1861A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1861A1.txt
  • Background 2. At the request of Desert West, licensee of Station KFMR, Channel 236C, Winslow, Arizona, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding proposed the reallotment of Channel 236C from Winslow to Camp Verde, Arizona, and modification of the Station KFMR authorization to specify Camp Verde as the community of license. This request was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Under Community of License, we determine whether the proposed change in community of license will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. In making this determination, we compare the existing versus the arrangement of allotments using
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1866A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1866A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1866A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply Comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1867A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1867A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1867A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1868A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1868A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1868A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1869A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1869A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1869A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1873A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1873A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1873A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1874A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1874A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1875A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1875A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1875A1.txt
  • Hills, Florida, requesting the reallotment of Channel 292C3 from Beverly Hills to Spring Hill, Florida, and the modification of its license for Station WGUL-FM to reflect the change of community. Petitioner filed comments restating its interest in the reallotment and its intention to file the necessary applications to effectuate the change, if granted. This proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules that authorizes the Commission to modify the license or permit of an FM station to specify a new community of license where the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment with the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1877A1.txt
  • separate proceeding. We will evaluate the Ralph Tyler proposal on the basis of the record now before us. 5. We are reallotting Channel 259C3 from Tishomingo to Tuttle, Oklahoma, and are modifying the Station KTSH license to specify Tuttle, as the community of license. This will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments as required by the Commission on Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules and Community of License ,supra. In reaching this determination, we compared the existing versus the proposed arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies and Procedures. This will provide Tuttle, with a population of 2,807 persons, with a first local service under Priority 3 while Station KZAC will
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1897A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1897A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1897A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1900A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1900A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1901A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1901A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1901A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1912A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1912A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1912A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1913A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1913A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1913A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1938A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1938A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1938A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1948A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1948A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1948A1.txt
  • to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. � Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1950A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1950A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1950A1.txt
  • That the petition for rule making filed by Charles Crawford IS DISMISSED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 5. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Sharon P. McDonald, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau Pearsall, Texas, 16 FCC Rcd 33942 (2001). In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, (47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j)), Petitioner states that he has not nor will not receive, either directly or indirectly, any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in connection with the dismissal of his petition. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 02-1950 Federal Communications Commission DA 02-1950 ! " # $ % & ''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1951A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1951A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1951A1.txt
  • That the Petition for Rule Making filed by Charles Crawford IS DISMISSED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 5. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Sharon P. McDonald, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau Oscoda, Michigan, 16 FCC Rcd 16470 (2001). In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, (47 C.F.R. 1.420(j)), Petitioner states that he has not nor will not receive, either directly or indirectly, any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in connection with the dismissal of his petition. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 02-1951 Federal Communications Commission DA 02-1951 v w � { } � � w
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-205A1.txt
  • Class C antenna height of 450 meters HAAT. Harper asserts that because Station WOGK is operating below minimum Class C standards, it is subject to reclassification as a Class CO facility pursuant to the triggering procedures adopted in the Commission's Second Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-93, 15 FCC Rcd 21649 (2000) and outlined in note 2 to Section 1.420(g) and note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's Rules. The staff has tentatively concluded that if WOGK operates as a Class CO facility, any short-spacing between Station WOGK and the proposed use of Channel 229C3 at the proposed St. Simons Island site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2061A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2061A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2061A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2062A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2062A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2062A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2063A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2063A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2063A1.txt
  • COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau The communities of Northport, Tuscaloosa, Camp Hill, Gardendale, Homewood, Birmingham, Dadeville, Orrville, Goodwater, Pine Level, Jemison, and Thomaston, Alabama were added to the captioned. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to withdraw its expression of interest for the Auburn allotment. In compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, petitioner stated that an oral agreement was entered into with Cox Radio, Inc., paying petitioner $25,000 for expenses incurred in return for the dismissal of the Auburn petition. Petitioner also filed a supplement with an itemization of its legitimate and prudent expenses which indicates that the $25,000 payment does not exceed its expenses. Additionally, a declaration
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2066A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2066A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2066A1.txt
  • 283C3 for Channel 288A at Cottage Grove, Oregon, reallot Channel 288C3 to Veneta, Oregon, and modify the license of Station KEUG(FM) to specify the new community. Finally, the petition requests that we reallot Channel 264C2 from Toledo, Oregon to Depoe Bay, and modify the license of Station KPPT(FM) to specify the new community. This proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules that authorizes the Commission to modify the license or permit of an FM station to specify a new community of license where the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-206A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-207A1.txt
  • Inc. (``petitioner''), licensee of Station KTSO(FM), Channel 231C1, Okmulgee, Oklahoma, proposing the reallotment of Channel 231C1 from Oklahoma to Glenpool, Oklahoma. Petitioner also requests the modification of Station KTSO(FM)'s license to reflect Glenpool as its new community of license. Petitioner states its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Glenpool. 2. The proposal is filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TVAuthorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990). Revision
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2099A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2099A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2099A1.txt
  • Radio filed Reply Comments and Further Reply Comments. For the reasons discussed below, we are modifying the licenses of eight stations and are allotting new FM channels to three communities as first local services. Background 2. Seven of the proposals set forth in the original Notice request a change in community of license. These requests were filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. In evaluating a proposal, we compare the existing versus the proposed arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2100A1.txt
  • to Channel 293A. If the Commission grants the Joint Parties' petition for rule making, they will file applications to modify the license of Station WMRN-FM to specify operation on Channel 294B1 at Dublin and to modify the license of Station WSRW-FM to specify operation on Channel 293A at Chillicothe. 2. The Joint Parties seek to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The Dublin and Chillicothe relocations of Stations WMRN-FM and WSRW-FM are each mutually exclusive with their existing allotments. 3. The Joint Parties assert that the adoption of its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2101A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2101A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2101A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • amend the FM or TV Table of Allotments, and the filing party seeks to dismiss or withdraw the expression of interest, the party must file with the Commission a request for approval of the dismissal or withdrawal. Need: Without the requirement, the Commission could not monitor the Tables. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. �� 154, 303, 307. Section Number and Title: 1.420 (j) Additional procedures in proceedings for amendment of the FM or TV Tables of Allotments. PART 21 -- DOMESTIC PUBLIC FIXED RADIO SERVICES SUBPART K - MULTIPOINT DISTRIBUTION SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe procedures for Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) licensees in the domestic public fixed radio services. Need: These rules are established to provide procedures for common carrier MDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2201A1.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2225A1.txt
  • 300 meters height above average terrain (HAAT), which is below the minimum Class C antenna height of 451 meters HAAT. It asserts that because Station KJEL is operating below minimum Class C standards, it is subject to reclassification as a Class CO facility pursuant to the triggering procedures adopted recently by the Commission and outlined in note 2 to Section 1.420(g) and note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's Rules. Four Him states that if KJEL operates as a Class CO facility, any short-spacing between Station KJEL and the proposed use of Channel 276A at the present Station KDAA site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order To Show Cause directed to Ozark Broadcasting,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2226A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2231A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2231A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2231A1.txt
  • to the coordinates of the DTV allotment to determine protection from new DTV allotments pursuant to �73.623(d).'' See 47 U.S.C. �� 309(j)(14), 337 (requiring the Commission to recover broadcast spectrum for new uses.) We will not, in this proceeding, consider Sunbelt's request that we amend the DTV Table of Allotments to substitute Channel 55 for Channel 44 at Barstow. Section 1.420 of the rules clearly provides that ``counterproposals shall be advanced in initial comments only and will not be considered if they are advanced in reply comments.'' 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(d). Moreover, Sunbelt's request that we substitute Channel 55, rather than Channel 47, is not mutually exclusive with Pappas' proposal that we allot Channel 47c to Avalon. Sunbelt may, however, file
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2233A1.txt
  • as that community's first local aural transmission service, and modify the license of Station WTWR(FM) to reflect the change of community. Petitioner filed comments in support of its proposal and reiterated its intention to file the necessary applications to implement the modification. We received no other comments. Petitioners filed their proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Here, the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2257A1.txt
  • requirements at Conner's specified site. From this site, the loss area of Channel 284A at Ross Hill contains 29,468 people in 1,821 square kilometers while the gain area for Channel 284C3 at La Grange contains 195,226 people in 4,112 square kilometers. Both the loss area and the gain area currently receive five or more aural services. In accordance with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, we will modify the license for Station WZUP to specify operation on Channel 284C3 at La Grange, North Carolina, as its new community of license. 4. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.204(b) and 0.283 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2281A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2281A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2286A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2286A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2286A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2287A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2287A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2287A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2308A1.txt
  • 17, 2001, petitioner submitted a motion requesting that the Commission dismiss his petition to allot Channel 232C3 at Clayton, Oklahoma. The motion was accompanied by petitioner's affidavit certifying that he has not and will not receive any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in connection with the dismissal of the petition. See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(j). 3. A showing of continuing interest is required before a channel will be allotted. It is the Commission's policy to refrain from making an allotment to a community absent an expression of interest. We shall, therefore, grant petitioner's request to dismiss the instant proposal. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the motion of Maurice Salsa to dismiss his petition to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2309A1.txt
  • to implement its proposal if the reallotment of Channel 276C2 to Valparaiso occurs. No other party filed comments or any other pleading in this proceeding. For the reasons stated below, we grant Petitioner's request to change its community of license to Valparaiso. 2. Petitioner filed its request to reallot Channel 276C2 to Valparaiso, Florida, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. 3. We believe that the public interest would by served by reallotting Channel 276C2 from De Funiak Springs to Valparaiso because Valparaiso would receive its first local FM
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2310A1.txt
  • kilowatts at 302 meters HAAT. Both stations are below the minimum Class C antenna height requirements of 450 meters HAAT. Since Station WLWI-FM and WQST-FM are operating below minimum Class C standards, they are subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the Second Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98-93, and as set forth in Section 1.420(g), note 2, and Section 73.3574, note 4, of the Commission's Rules. 2. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and Section 1.420(g), note 2, the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station may be initiated through the filing of a petition for rule making to amend the FM
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2311A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2311A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2311A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2319A1.txt
  • foregoing relocations of Stations WUSW and KFXN are permitted, Joint Petitioners will file applications to modify the license of Channel WUSW to specify operation on Channel 279C0 at Westwego, Louisiana, and of Station KFXN to specify operation on Channel 281C0 at Gonzales, Louisiana. 2. With respect to the foregoing proposals, the Joint Petitioners seek to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. 3. The Joint Petitioners assert that the adoption of their change of community proposals for Stations WUSW and KFXN will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments consistent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2320A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2320A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2320A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2321A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2389A1.txt
  • within the gain areas indicates that adoption of the Emmetsburg proposal would result in a net gain of service to 29,029 people whereas the Brandon proposal would result in service to an additional 24,614 people. Therefore, the counterproposal filed by Saga to upgrade vacant Channel 261A at Brandon, South Dakota, to Channel 261C3, will be denied. In accordance with Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules, we are herein modifying the license for Station KEMB, Emmetsburg, Iowa, to specify operation on Channel 261C3 in lieu of Channel 261A at coordinates 43-07-24 and 94-51-29. To accommodate the upgrade at Emmetsburg, we shall also delete vacant Channel 262A at Sibley, Iowa. No comments were received supporting retention of Channel 262A at Sibley, Iowa. 6.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2390A1.txt
  • rule making filed by Cecil P. Staton IS DISMISSED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 5. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau Port St. Joe, Florida, 16 FCC Rcd 14,912 (M.M.Bur. 2001). In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, (47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j)), Petitioner states that he has not nor will not receive, either directly or indirectly, any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in connection with the dismissal of his petition. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 02-XXXX Federal Communications Commission DA 02-2390 ` a k e g j k
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-241A1.txt
  • Commission as accepted late-filed comments. 4. Although Georgia Public attempted to correct the technical deficiency with its counterproposal by filing a corrected engineering statement that includes different coordinates, ERP and HAAT, we find that the amended counterproposal is unacceptable. Counterproposals must be technically and procedurally correct when initially filed and may not be amended at a later date. See Section 1.420 of the Commission Rules; see also Broken Arrow and Bixby, Oklahoma, and Coffeyville, Kansas 3 FCC Rcd 6507 (1988), recon. denied 4 FCC Rcd 6981 (1989); Fort Bragg, California, 6 FCC Rcd 5817 (1991); and, Detroit, Howe and Jacksboro, Texas, 13 FCC Rcd 15591 (1998). In addition, we disagree with Georgia Public's claim that the Commission routinely accepts late-filed reply
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-243A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-243A1.txt
  • KIKT to specify Cooper as its community of license. KRBE filed comments reaffirming its interest in an allotment at Cooper, Texas. The City of Greenville, Texas (``Greenville City'') filed comments. Cooper Radiocasting Company filed comments. Reply comments were filed by KRBE. 2. As stated in the Notice, KRBE filed a petition for rule making pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change of Community MO&O"), 5
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2506A1.txt
  • for rule making filed by Monterey Licenses, LLC (``petitioner''), licensee of Station WHQX(FM), Channel 299C3, Cedar Bluff, Virginia, proposing the reallotment of Channel 299C3 from Cedar Bluff to Gary, West Virginia, and the modification of Station WHQX(FM)'s license accordingly. Petitioner states its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Gary. 2. The proposal is filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, petitioner states that Gary is an incorporated city located in McDowell County, West Virginia, and has a 2000 U.S. Census population of 917
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-255A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2601A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2601A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2601A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2603A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2603A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2603A1.txt
  • grant petitioners' request and dismiss the petition for rulemaking and terminate this docket. Tidewater's comments will not be considered in this proceeding and any objection they expressed is moot. We accept petitioner's statement that they wish to withdraw their petition and the expression of interest in implementing the changes imposed in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the rules, they attach a sworn declaration attesting that neither of the companies or any of their principals have received or will receive any consideration for this withdrawal. They also attest that they have not entered into any oral or written agreement pertaining to the dismissal. We accept these statements as well. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED That the petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2612A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2612A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2612A1.txt
  • modified the Station KZNO license to specify operation on Channel 253A at Vail. In addition, the Report and Order allotted Channel 283A to Vail, Arizona, and Channel 251A to Patagonia, Arizona. In its Request to Withdraw Expression of Interest, Big Broadcast withdraws its expression of interest in applying for the Channel 283A allotment at Vail. This request complies with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules with respect to limiting reimbursement to only legitimate and prudent expenses in exchange for this dismissal. In this regard, Big Broadcasting has included a copy of the agreement, and affidavits itemizing its engineering and legal expenses incurred in participating and pursuing its counterproposal in this proceeding. 3. The Contingent Request to Withdraw and Dismiss Application for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2694A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2694A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2694A1.txt
  • discussed below, we are reallotting Channel 227B to Ashville, Ohio, and are modifying the Station WFCB license to specify Ashville, Ohio, as its community of license. Background 2. The Petition for Rule Making in this proceeding was filed by Secret Communications, licensee of Station WFCB, Channel 227B, Chillicothe, Ohio. Secret Communications filed this Petition for Rule Making pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2695A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2695A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2695A1.txt
  • reaffirming its proposal and reiterating its intent to implement its proposal if it is granted. No other party filed comments or any other pleading in this proceeding. For the reasons stated below, we grant Petitioner's request to upgrade its channel and change its community of license to Friars Point. 2. Petitioner filed its proposal pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. 3. We believe that the public interest would by served by upgrading Channel 268A, Station WWUN-FM, to Channel 268C3 and reallotting Channel 268C3 from Clarksdale to Friars Point,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-270A1.txt
  • petitions for rulemaking proposing new NTSC television allotments on channels 52-59 that had been amended to specify a core channel (between 2 and 51). We remind new digital television licensees on Channels 52 to 59 that they will be required to move to the core by the end of the digital transition. See Sections 1.401 (c) and (d) and Section 1.420 of the Commission's Rules regarding channel allotment matters. As used herein, the term ``DTV stations'' here includes DTV allotments, authorized or requested increases in DTV allotment facilities and proposals for new or modified DTV allotments. Applying these criteria is consistent with the Commission action in the Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and Order that allows
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2720A1.txt
  • local aural transmission service. We further observe that Bernice P. Hedrick, who filed the original rulemaking petition in MM Docket No. 01-123, has requested that her petition for rulemaking be dismissed. That request includes a statement that she has not received and will not receive any consideration in connection with her request for dismissal, which we find complies with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, her request is granted. Thus, at this point in time, we have a consolidated rulemaking proceeding involving ISC's original petition to allot Channel 260A to Screven, Georgia, and the two counterproposals filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules by Radio Statesboro and Renda that are mutually exclusive with ISC's petition for rulemaking. 4.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2721A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2721A1.txt
  • license for Station WCXT accordingly. Petitioners also request the reallotment of Channel 231C3 from Pentwater, Michigan to Hart, Michigan to maintain the community's sole local aural transmission service with the license for Station WWKR modified accordingly. Petitioners indicate they will file applications for Channel 287B at Coopersville and Channel 231C3 at Hart. 2. Petitioners filed the petition pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of the proposal, Petitioners state that Channel 287B may be allotted to Coopersville consistent with the Commission's separation requirements. Further, allotting Channel 287B to Coopersville would
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2814A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2814A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2814A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2816A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2816A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2816A1.txt
  • on April 12, 2002, and no other parties filed comments or expressions of interest in that allotment. In its petition for reconsideration, petitioner now withdraws its expression of interest in the allotment of Channel 226A at Coosada. It states that the allotment conflicts with another allotment opportunity that it has chosen to pursue. It includes a statement consistent with Section 1.420(j) of our rules attesting to the fact that it has received no consideration for this withdrawal and that it has not been promised any future consideration for this withdrawal. We will grant the petition for reconsideration. With petitioner's withdrawal, there is no interest in the allotment. Accordingly, we will delete the allotment. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2818A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2818A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2818A1.txt
  • a pre-1964 ``grandfathered'' station that is short-spaced to Station WKDF(FM), Channel 277C, Nashville, Tennessee. However, since Station WBUZ(FM) does not seek to change its transmitter site, no new short-spacing would be created, and no existing short-spacing would be exacerbated, Station WBUZ(FM) should be afforded the opportunity to change its community of license. 3. The proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Although Station WBUZ(FM) does not seek to changes its transmitter, its 70 dBu signal presently covers 66.5% of the Nashville Urbanized Area. The issue of whether a proposed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2819A1.txt
  • of 99 kilowatts at 367 meters HAAT. The station is below the minimum Class C antenna height requirements of 450 meters HAAT. Because Station WJMH-FM is operating below minimum Class C standards, it is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the Second Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98-93, and as set forth in Section 1.420(g), note 2, and Section 73.3574, note 4, of the Commission's Rules. 2. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and Section 1.420(g), note 2, the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station may be initiated through the filing of a petition for rule making to amend the FM
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2820A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2820A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2820A1.txt
  • of 100 kilowatts at 329 meters HAAT. The station is below the minimum Class C antenna height requirements of 450 meters HAAT. Because Station WDOD-FM is operating below minimum Class C standards, it is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the Second Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98-93, and as set forth in Section 1.420(g), note 2, and Section 73.3574, note 4, of the Commission's Rules. 2. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and Section 1.420(g), note 2, the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station may be initiated through the filing of a petition for rule making to amend the FM
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2927A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-297A1.txt
  • of community of license. Each petitioner states that it will file an application for construction permit to effectuate the change of community if granted. We believe that each proposal warrants consideration because it complies with our technical requirements and would serve the public interest. Each of the petitioners filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. This is a multiple docket Notice of Proposed Rule Making issued in response to a Commission Public Notice released October 2, 1998 (DA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-298A1.txt
  • of Station KRYD, Channel 285C1, Telluride, Colorado, proposing the reallotment of Channel 285C1 to Norwood, Colorado, as that incorporated community's first local aural transmission service, and modification of its license accordingly. Petitioner filed supporting comments in response to the Notice. No other comments were received. 2. As stated in the Notice, petitioner's proposal, filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, would reallot Channel 285C1 from Telluride (pop. 1,309), to Norwood (pop. 438). The Notice advised that petitioner's requested reallotment, which is mutually exclusive with its existing authorization at Telluride, would enable it to provide a first local aural transmission service to Norwood, and would not leave Telluride devoid of local broadcast service. 3. The Notice also
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-299A1.txt
  • for Reconsideration. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition for Reconsideration. 2. At the request of Alpine Broadcasting, permittee of Station KSIL, Channel 264C, Wallace, Idaho, the Report and Order reallotted Channel 264C to Bigfork, Montana, and modified the Station KSIL construction permit to specify operation on Channel 264C at Bigfork. The request was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Community of License''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989); recon. granted in part, 5 FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-300A1.txt
  • 8. Conflicting proposals, such as those filed in this proceeding, are generally considered under the guidelines set forth in Revision supra. However, in this instance, we have confirmed that an alternate, equivalent channel is available for allotment at Arriba, and therefore, there is no need to compare that community with Bennett, Colorado. 9. KSIR's proposal is filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. See Community of License, supra. Pursuant to the stated policy, we must determine whether the petitioner's proposal would result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. See Revision, supra. The reallotment proposal would enable Station KSIR to provide Bennett, Colorado, an incorporated community that is not associated with an urbanized area, with its first local aural transmission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3017A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3017A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3017A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3064A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3064A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3064A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3065A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3066A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3066A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3066A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3069A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3069A1.txt
  • stating that it has no plans to apply for the channel, if allotted. 2. On October 29, 2002, Dangerous Broadcasting filed a Motion to Withdraw its Petition for Rule Making. In its Motion, Dangerous Broadcasting stated that on October 24, 2002, it entered into a written agreement with American General Media of Texas, Inc., (``American General''). In compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Dangerous Broadcasting submitted a copy of the written agreement. The written agreement is subject to Commission approval. The written agreement was entered into because it would expedite the resolution of MB Docket No. 02-58, which American General, the licensee of Station KRFR, Channel 282A, Shafter, California, filed a petition requesting the substitution of Channel 226A in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3087A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3087A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3087A1.txt
  • requesting that the Commission take notice of this change. 2. The counterproposal filed by Joint Parties requested the substitution of Channel 238C1 for Channel 238C3 at Littlefield, Texas, the reallotment of Channel 238C1 from Littlefield, Texas, to Wolfforth, Texas, and the modification of the license for Station KAIQ to reflect the higher class channel and new community pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. In support of its proposal, Joint Parties state that reallotment of Station KAIQ will provide a first local service to Wolfforth while not depriving Littlefield of its sole local service. Joint Parties also state that its proposal provides a gain in service to 238,081 people. Joint Parties indicate a loss of service to 2,086 people but
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-313A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3170A1.txt
  • request of Dangerous Broadcasting, L.P. II, the allotment of Channel 265A to Buttonwillow, California. 17 FCC Rcd 14701 (Med. Bur. 2002). Subsequently, Dangerous Broadcasting withdrew its request and the proceeding was terminated. DA 02-3069 (released November 8, 2002). As such, Channel 265A, as originally advanced by Dangerous Broadcasting, is now available as an alternate channel in this proceeding. See Section 1.420(d) of the Rules. See State of Oregon v. FCC, 102 F.2d 583 (D.C. Cir. 1996), C.f. Sterling, Colorado, 16 FCC Rcd 4326 (2001). The reference coordinates for the Channel 265A allotment at Buttonwillow, California, are 35-23-56 and 119-29-52. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 02-3170 Federal Communications Commission DA 02-3170 � " � � @&
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3171A1.txt
  • Amaturo Group of Los Angeles, Ltd. (``Petitioner''), directed to the Report and Order issued in this proceeding. This petition for reconsideration was opposed by Adelman Communications, Inc, and petitioner filed a response. Petitioner subsequently filed a request to withdraw the petition for reconsideration, contingent on the finality of the Report and Order in MM Docket No. 99-329. Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the rules, Petitioner filed an affidavit attesting to the fact that it neither received nor was promised any consideration for its withdrawal. Adelman also filed a statement attesting that it did not promise or pay petitioner any consideration for its withdrawal. We are dismissing the petition for reconsideration at Petitioner's request. The action in MM Docket No. 99-329 has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-317A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3189A1.txt
  • has before it a petition for rule making filed by Meredith Corporation (``Petitioner''), licensee of Station WHNS(TV), channel 21 (FOX), and paired digital channel 57, Asheville, North Carolina, proposing the reallotment of channel 21 and paired digital channel 57, from Asheville to Greenville, South Carolina, and the modification of Station WHNS(TV)'s license accordingly. 2. Petitioner's petition is filed pursuant Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3213A1.txt
  • Blossom, Texas. Thus, North Texas's counterproposal is dismissed as fatally defective. After discovering that Channel 224A at Kiowa would be short-spaced to the FM allotment for Channel 224C2 at Blossom, Texas, North Texas requested, in its reply comments, the allotment of Channel 228A at Kiowa instead of Channel 254A. That request constitutes an untimely counterproposal and is dismissed. See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules. In any event, we note that allotting Channel 228A to Kiowa would result in a short spacing to Station KISR(FM), Channel 229C, at Fort Smith, Arkansas. No other counterproposals or additional comments were received in this proceeding. FCC Contact: R. Barthen Gorman (202) 418-2180 D. MM Docket No. 01-210; RM-10225 Action: Katherine Pyeatt filed a petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3215A1.txt
  • modification of its authorization accordingly. Petitioner also filed a supplement to its petition for rulemaking to include a letter from the mayor of Timnath, setting forth the attributes of that community for allotment purposes. Petitioner stated its intention to apply for Channel 288C2 if it is reallotted to Timnath, as requested. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The allotment of Channel 288C2 at Timnath, Colorado, is mutually exclusive with its allotment at Laramie, Wyoming. The communities are located 47.4 kilometers (29.4 miles) apart, while the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3216A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3360A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3360A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3360A1.txt
  • Santa Clara. Petitioner states that if the Commission approves the reallotment of Channel 237C to Tombstone, Arizona, it will apply for the channel and construct the facility if authorized, and reimburse the licensee of Station KNUW(FM) for the reasonable and prudent costs associated with the requested change in its operating channel. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed allotment of Channel 237C at Tombstone, Arizona, is mutually exclusive with the current allotment of Channel 237A at Douglas. The communities are located 64.2 kilometers apart,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3361A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3361A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3361A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3362A1.txt
  • making an allotment to a community absent an expression of interest. In this proceeding, since both Salsa and Fabian each have stated they no longer intend to pursue their allotment requests, we will dismiss the petition for rule making and grant Fabian's request to withdraw its counterproposal. 3. Salsa and Fabian each filed comments consistent with the requirements of Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, stating that they did not receive any consideration for the withdrawal of their interest in this proceeding. 4. In view of the above, IT IS ORDERED, That the petition for rule making filed by Maurice Salsa (RM-10301), requesting the allotment of Channel 237C2 to Cherokee, Oklahoma, IS DISMISSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the counterproposal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3363A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3363A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3363A1.txt
  • to implement its proposal if the Commission reallots Channel 229A to Lamar. No other party filed comments or any other pleading in this proceeding. For the reasons stated below, we grant Petitioner's request to change its community of license to Lamar. 2. Petitioner filed its request to reallot Channel 229A to Lamar, South Carolina, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. 3. We believe that the public interest would by served by reallotting Channel 229A from Bishopville to Lamar because Lamar would receive its first local aural transmission service.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3364A1.txt
  • proposing the allotment of Channel 233C1 to Enderlin, North Dakota, as a first local service. The Report and Order also rejected an argument advanced by Triad Broadcasting that due to proximity of the Fargo-Moorhead Urbanized Area, the proposed reallotment to Barnesville is not entitled to consideration as a first local service. 3. T&J Broadcasting filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license. Under Community of License, we are required to determine whether the proposed change in community of license will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. The staff compares the existing against the proposed arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3380A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3418A1.txt
  • 265A, Lebanon, Indiana, proposing to reallot Channel 265A from Lebanon, Indiana, to Speedway, Indiana, and modify the license of Station WYJZ(FM) to reflect the changes. Petitioner filed comments, reiterating its intention to file the necessary application to effectuate the changes, if granted. No other comments were filed. Petitioner filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In this case, the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal such as this,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3456A1.txt
  • Inc., (``Petitioners''), proposing the substitution of Channel 300A for Channel 299B at Bridgeton, New Jersey, and the reallotment of Channel 300A from Bridgeton to Pennsauken, New Jersey, as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station WSNJ-FM to reflect the changes. Petitioners filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3504A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3504A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3504A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3506A1.txt
  • to retain Port Royal's sole local aural transmission service and modify the license of Station WLOW(FM) to reflect the new community. Petitioners filed comments in support of the proposal and reiterated the intention to file the necessary applications to implement the modification. We received no other comments. Petitioners filed their proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Here, the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3567A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3567A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3567A1.txt
  • kilowatts of power, but it has lowered its antenna height from its initial proposal of 2,000 feet to 600 feet in height above average terrain (HAAT). In this light, Petitioner must provide the gains and losses in service it anticipates as a result of its current engineering proposal. 4. Since Petitioner's reallotment request is consistent with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, we shall propose to modify the authorization of Station KUPN without entertaining competing expressions of interest in the use of NTSC Channel 3 and Digital Channel 23 at Fort Morgan, Colorado, or requiring Petitioner to demonstrate the availability of additional equivalent channels for use by other parties. 5. NTSC Channel 3 and Digital Channel 23 can
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3568A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3568A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3568A1.txt
  • changing Station KLHI's community of license from Lahaina to Waianae, Hawaii and provide Waianae with its first local aural transmission service. Petitioner states that if the Commission grants its petition for rule making, petitioner will file an application specifying operation on Channel 266C at Waianae and will construct the requested facility. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Petitioner explains that the proposed use of Channel 266C at Waianae is mutually exclusive with Station KLHI's existing authorization at Lahaina. 3. Petitioner
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-367A1.txt
  • local aural service at Olive Branch, Clear Channel further requests the reallotment of Channel 266C1 from Memphis, Tennessee to Olive Branch, Mississippi, and modification of the license for Station KJMS accordingly. Clear Channel indicated that it would file applications for Channel 239A at Horn Lake and Channel 266C1 at Olive Branch. 2. Clear Channel filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O") 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-409A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-409A1.txt
  • a petition for rule making filed on behalf of New Age Communications, Inc., (``New Age''), licensee of Station WKIX(FM), Channel 272A, Goldsboro, North Carolina. New Age seeks to amend the FM Table of Allotments by reallotting Channel 272A from Goldsboro to Smithfield, North Carolina and modifying Station WKIX's authorization accordingly. 2. New Age seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, New Age explains that the requested reallotment from Goldsboro to Smithfield is mutually exclusive with WKIX's existing authorization. 3. New Age asserts that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-424A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-486A1.txt
  • petition for rule making filed by Katherine Pyeatt on June 12, 2001, IS DISMISSED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 5. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Chief, Allocations Branch Policy and Rules Division Mass Media Bureau In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, petitioner states that she has not received money or other consideration in excess of her expenses. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 02-486 Federal Communications Commission DA 02-486 - � � `` '' �@��� - ! " � � � ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������� - ! " � � � � � � ` `` '' � ` '
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-487A1.txt
  • The Allocations Branch has before it a petition for rule making filed on behalf of Tom F. Huth (``Petitioner''), permittee of Station KTOR(FM), Channel 259A, Chester, California. Petitioner seeks to amend the FM Table of Allotments by reallotting Channel 259A from Chester to Westwood, California, and modifying Station KTOR's authorization accordingly. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Petitioner explains that the requested reallotment from Chester to Westwood is mutually exclusive with Station KTOR's existing authorization. 3. Petitioner asserts that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-488A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-489A1.txt
  • IS ORDERED, That the petition for rule making filed by Charles Crawford, IS DISMISSED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 5. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Chief, Allocations Branch Policy and Rules Division Mass Media Bureau In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, petitioner states that he has not received, either directly or indirectly, any money or other consideration in exchange for his dismissal. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 02-489 Federal Communications Commission DA 02-489 @& �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� ��� $j� $j�
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-495A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-495A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-495A1.txt
  • Arizona. Therein, Mountain West also submitted an affidavit of its principal and owner, Victor Michael, declaring that Mountain West has not been paid or promised any consideration for dismissal of its expression of interest in the proposed Littlefield allotment. Since the withdrawal of the application of review and the expression of interest in the proposed Littlefield allotment complies with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, we will approve the request for withdrawal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the Application for Review filed by Mountain West Broadcasting IS DISMISSED. For further information, contact Andrew J. Rhodes, Mass Media Bureau, at (202) 418-2120. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Chief, Allocations Branch Policy and Rules Division Mass Media Bureau 15 FCC Rcd 21547
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-498A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-498A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-498A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-564A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-564A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-564A1.txt
  • Allocations Branch has before it a petition for rule making filed on behalf of Alaga Communications Corp. (``Petitioner''), licensee of Station WMRZ(FM), Channel 264C3, Cuthbert, Georgia. Petitioner seeks to amend the FM Table of Allotments by reallotting Channel 264C3 from Cuthbert to Buena Vista, Georgia, and modifying Station WMRZ's authorization accordingly. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Petitioner explains that the requested reallotment from Cuthbert to Buena Vista is mutually exclusive with Station WMRZ's existing authorization. 3. Petitioner asserts that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-565A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-565A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-565A1.txt
  • Worcester, Massachusetts, proposing the reallotment of Channel 297B from Worcester to Westborough, Massachusetts, as the community's first local aural transmission service. Petitioner also requests the modification of Station WAAF(FM)'s license to specify Westborough as its new community of license. Petitioner states its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Westborough. 2. The proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-58A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-58A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-58A1.txt
  • pleadings were filed: Supplemental Comments accompanied by a Motion for Leave to File were filed by KGNT Inc; an Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Comments and a Motion to Strike were filed by petitioner; and a Statement for the Record was filed by KGNT Inc. 2. The proposed reallotment was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-613A1.txt
  • Branch has before it a petition for rule making filed on behalf of Apex Broadcasting, Inc. (``Petitioner''), licensee of Station KROK(FM), Channel 221C3, De Ridder, Louisiana. Petitioner seeks to amend the FM Table of Allotments by reallotting Channel 221C3 from De Ridder to Merryville, Louisiana and modifying Station KROK's authorization accordingly. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Petitioner explains that the requested reallotment from De Ridder to Merryville is mutually exclusive with Station KROK's existing authorization. 3. Petitioner asserts that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-614A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-614A1.txt
  • or adjacent channels due to spacing restrictions. Petitioners further state that this proposal requests an upgrade on an nonadjacent channel which would normally allow for competing expressions of interest. However, in similar situations, the Commission has acknowledged that while not strictly adjacent channel relationships, the mutual exclusivity of the channels involved is similar to the scenario provided for in Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's Rules. Section 1.420(g)(3) allows the modification of a station's license to a higher class channel if the channel is a co-channel or adjacent channel mutually exclusive with the existing license. However, the Commission has acknowledged that it will consider analogous proposals involving channel substitutions at other communities which would be necessary to create a mutually exclusive relationship
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-620A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-620A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-620A1.txt
  • Grundy, Virginia, to show why its license should not be modified to specify operation on Channel 264A. Comments in support of the counterproposal were filed by Peggy Sue Broadcasting Corporation, licensee of WRIC-FM, Richands, Virginia. Holston filed further comments. Reply comments to the counterproposal were filed by petitioner. 2. The proposed reallotment was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-687A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-687A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-687A1.txt
  • and Long Nine, Inc. (``Long Nine''), filed comments in opposition to the proposal. Petitioner filed consolidated reply comments addressing both oppositions. The Notice proposed to reallot Channel 230B1 from Lincoln, Illinois, to Sherman, Illinois as the community's first local aural transmission service, and modify the license for Station WMHX(FM) to reflect the changes. This proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules that authorizes the Commission to modify the license or permit of an FM station to specify a new community of license where the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-688A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-688A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-688A1.txt
  • a petition for rule making filed on behalf of Root Communications License Company, L.P. (``Petitioner''), licensee of Station WMXZ(FM), Channel 276C2, De Funiak Springs, Florida. Petitioner seeks to amend the FM Table of Allotments by reallotting Channel 276C2 from De Funiak Springs to Valparaiso, Florida, and modifying Station WMXZ's authorization accordingly. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Petitioner explains that the requested reallotment from De Funiak Springs to Valparaiso is mutually exclusive with Station WMXZ's existing authorization. 3. Petitioner asserts
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-691A1.txt
  • petition for rule making filed by Alexandra Communications (``petitioner''), permittee of Station KUJ-FM, Channel 256C1, Walla Walla, Washington, proposing the reallotment of Channel 256C1 from Walla Walla to Burbank, Washington, and the modification of Station KUJ-FM's construction permit accordingly. Petitioner states its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Burbank. 2. The proposal is filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TVAuthorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990). In
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-693A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-693A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-693A1.txt
  • West filed reply comments. In their jointly filed counterproposal, the transferor and transferee of Station KAVD(FM), Channel 276C1, Limon, Colorado, proposed to upgrade Station KAVD(FM) by substituting Channel 276C for Channel 276C1 at Limon, to reallot the upgraded channel to Parker, Colorado, as the community's first local service, and to modify the license of the station accordingly, pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. In order to make the proposed changes to Station KAVD, the counterproposal proposed that (1) Channel 288C2 be substituted for Channel 276C2 at Avon, Colorado, and the license for Station KZYR(FM), Avon, CO be modified accordingly; (2) Channel 274C be substituted for vacant Channel 273C at Craig, Colorado; (3) Channel 270C be substituted for Channel 287C
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-710A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-710A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-711A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-711A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-735A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-735A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-735A1.txt
  • Louisiana, requesting the reallotment of Channel 225C2 from Jennings, Louisiana to Iowa, Louisiana. Apex requests modification of its license for Station KJEF-FM to specify operation on Channel 225C2 at Iowa, Louisiana. Apex indicated that it would file an application for Channel 225C2 at Iowa if the channel is allotted to the community. 2. Apex filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O"), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-737A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-737A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-737A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-749A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-749A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-749A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-770A1.txt
  • That the petition for rule making filed by Vox Allegany, LLC, IS DISMISSED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 5. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief Audio Division Office of Broadcast License Policy Media Bureau In compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Vox Allegany, LLC and Pembrook Pines Elmira, Ltd. submitted declarations stating that neither party has paid nor received consideration from the other in exchange for the withdrawal of their pleadings and termination of this proceeding. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 02-770 Federal Communications Commission DA 02-770 � � � ' `` � � tm 6 J
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-784A1.txt
  • Alabama Educational Television Commission, seeking the substitution of DTV channel *5 for DTV channel *53 at Birmingham, Alabama (RM-9898), IS DISMISSED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 5. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Pam Blumenthal, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Barbara A. Kreisman Chief, Video Division Media Bureau In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, AETC states that it has neither received nor will receive any money or other consideration in exchange for the dismissal or withdrawal of its expression of interest. �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �`� �0�
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-858A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-858A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-858A1.txt
  • has complied accordingly. The petition for rule making was filed by Alpine Wireless of Frederic (``Alpine''). In its comments, Alpine stated that it was no longer interested in pursuing the allotment of Channel 237A at Frederic, Michigan. However, comments in support of the proposal were also filed by Jeraldine Anderson, so we are allotting the channel. In accordance with Section 1.420 (j) of the Commission's Rules, Alpine filed a declaration stating that it received no consideration in exchange for not pursuing the allotment. Federal Communications Commission DA 02-858 Federal Communications Commission DA 02-858 7 8 9 @ � � � � 8 9 8 9 ? k y � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-864A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-864A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-864A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-908A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-908A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-908A1.txt
  • to file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-915A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-915A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-915A1.txt
  • Therefore, the counterproposal was not placed on public notice. Additionally, Circle S provided a declaration by Harold Shumway, a principal of Circle S, stating that he, nor any other principals of Circle S, have received or will receive any financial consideration in exchange for the withdrawal of the Surprise counterproposal. As Circle S has complied with the requirements of Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, we will consider only the Wickenburg modification proposal. The Commission does not generally contemplate the filing of comments beyond the deadline specified in a proceeding. See Section 1.415 of the Commission's Rules. However, in this instance, we have accepted Fitzgerald's comments since they will not affect the outcome of this proceeding. Fitzgerald advises that Interstate 10
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-919A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-919A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-919A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-925A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-925A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-925A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-926A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-926A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-926A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-927A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-928A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-928A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-928A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-977A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-977A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-978A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-978A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-978A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-979A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-980A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-981A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-982A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-982A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-992A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-992A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-992A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-99A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-99A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-99A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1013A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1013A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1013A1.txt
  • Station KVWG-FM, Channel 237A, Pearsall, Texas, proposing the reallotment of Channel 237A from Pearsall to Dilley, Texas, and the modification of Station KVWG-FM's license accordingly. Petitioner also requests the allotment of Channel 227A at Pearsall, Texas, as a replacement service. Petitioner states its intention to apply for the respective channels, if allotted. 2. This proposal is filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Petitioner states that the reallotment would allow Station KVWG-FM to substantially expand its service area and population. Specifically, the reallotment of Channel 237A
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1015A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1015A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1015A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1016A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1016A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1016A1.txt
  • In response to a petition filed by Buckley Communications, Inc. (``Petitioner''), licensee of FM Station KHTN, Channel 284B, Los Banos, California, the Audio Division issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing the reallotment of Channel 284B from Los Banos to Planada, California and the modification of Station KHTN's license accordingly. Petitioner's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Petitioner filed comments supporting the reallotment of Channel 284B at Planada, California. No other comments were received in response to the Notice. 2. The
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1076A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1076A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1076A1.txt
  • having a first local service at the larger community. We have already expended Commission resources in making this determination. As such, favorable action on the Petition for Reconsideration and Joint Request for Approval of Option Agreement would not conserve administrative resources as suggested by the Joint Parties. 6. We also find that the proposed withdrawal does not comply with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules. To withdraw an expression of interest, the filing party must certify that it has received no ``money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in exchange for the dismissal or withdrawal of the expression of interest.'' ``Other consideration'' includes financial concessions, such as the transfer of assets, the provision of tangible pecuniary benefit,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1077A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1077A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1077A1.txt
  • of its authorization accordingly. Petitioner filed supporting comments in response to the Notice reaffirming its intention to apply for Channel 288C2 if it is allotted to Timnath, Colorado, as requested. No other comments were received. For the reasons discussed below, we are granting the Petitioner's request 2. As stated in the Notice, petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The requested allotment of Channel 288C2 to Timnath, Colorado, an incorporated community, is mutually exclusive with its existing authorization at Laramie, Wyoming. The distance between the two communities
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1081A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1081A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1081A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1082A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1082A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1082A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1110A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1117A1.txt
  • transmitter site of Station KNUW(FM), and modification of the license of Station KNUW(FM) to reflect the new channel. Petitioner filed supporting comments Duran-Hill, Inc. (``Duran-Hill''), the current licensee of Station KNUW(FM), also filed responsive comments to the Notice/OSC. No additional comments were received. For the reasons discussed below, we are granting the Petitioner's request. Petitioner invokes the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. This provision applies as the proposal to allot Channel 237C at Tombstone, Arizona, is mutually exclusive with Station KCDQ's current allotment of Channel 237A at Douglas. The communities
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1118A1.txt
  • the original proposal, we note that the reallotment of Channel 230A from Noblesville to Fishers is mutually exclusive with Station WGRL's existing authorization for Channel 230A at Noblesville, and the proposal to reallot Channel 283B from Indianapolis to Noblesville is mutually exclusive with Station WGLD's current allotment of Channel 283B at Indianapolis. Accordingly, we will apply the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In addition, because the allotment of Channel 230A at Fishers will provide the community with a first local transmission service and the allotment of Channel 283B retains a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1120A1.txt
  • Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. 13. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Deborah A. Dupont. Media Bureau, at (202)418-7072. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and Section 1.420(g), n. 2, and Section 73.3573, n. 4, of the Commission's Rules. See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n. 2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1121A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1121A1.txt
  • Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. 11. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Deborah A. Dupont. Media Bureau, at (202)418-7072. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and Section 1.420(g), n. 2, and Section 73.3573, n. 4, of the Commission's Rules. See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n. 2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1122A1.txt
  • 229B, Seymour, Indiana (``Petitioners''), proposing the substitution of Channel 230A for Channel 229B at Seymour, Indiana, and the reallotment of Channel 230A from Seymour to Sellersburg, Indiana, as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station WQKC(FM) to reflect the changes. Petitioners filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1124A1.txt
  • service. A Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``NPRM'') was subsequently released, proposing the Auburn allotment. In response to the NPRM, three counterproposals were filed. First, RSI, the licensee of Stations WLXY(FM), Channel 263C1, Northport, Alabama, and WTUG(FM), Channel 225C1, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, proposed to reallot and to change the communities of license of these stations pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. Specifically, RSI proposed the reallotment of Channel 263C1 from Northport to Helena, Alabama, as a first local service and the modification of Station WLXY(FM)'s license accordingly. To prevent the removal of the only local aural service in Northport, RSI also proposed the reallotment of Channel 225C1 from Tuscaloosa to Northport and the modification of Station WTUG's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1156A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1156A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1156A1.txt
  • of Channel 232A to Broken Bow, Oklahoma. Petitioner filed comments, a statement, and a supplement to that statement. Radio One Licenses, L.L.C., (``ROL'') filed ``Comments and Counterproposal'' and reply comments. In her statement and supplement to that statement, Petitioner requests dismissal of her proposal to allot Channel 232A to Broken Bow. 2. Petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules by filing a declaration as part of her supplement to her statement, in which she states that she has not and will not receive any consideration in return for the dismissal of her Petition for Rule Making in MM Docket No. 02-301. Therefore, we dismiss her Petition for Rule Making in MM Docket No. 02-301. 3.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1157A1.txt
  • (File No. BPH-20010830ABN) (RM-10496) filed by Radio One Licenses, L.L.C. IS GRANTED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that MM Docket No. 01-216 IS TERMINATED. 7. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau Valliant,Oklahoma, 16 FCC Rcd 16002 (MMBur. 2001). See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules and Conflicts Between Applications and Petitions for Rule Making to Amend the FM Table of Allotments, 7 FCC Rcd 4917 (1992), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 8 FCC Rcd 4743 (1993). Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1157 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1157 - A D ^ &^ n r w y | � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1225A1.txt
  • reallotment of Channel 289A to Malta, New York, reallotment of Channel 240A from Glens Falls to Queensbury, New York, and the allotment of Channel 290A at Indian Lake, New York. Petitioners state that if the Commission grants its request, it will file applications for channels at Malta, Glens Falls and Queensbury. 2. Petitioners seek to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Petitioners state that each allotment is mutually exclusive with the existing allotments and would provide the requisite 70 dBu coverage to the principal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1227A1.txt
  • City, Louisiana, as the community's first local transmission service, and modify Station KVMA's authorization to specify Oil City as the community of license. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its interest in the reallotment and pledging to file the necessary applications. Access.1 Communications-Shreveport, LLC (``Access.1'') filed comments opposing the reallotment and Petitioner filed reply comments. This proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules that authorizes the Commission to modify the license or permit of an FM station to specify a new community of license where the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present authorization. This permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-144A1.txt
  • be addressed adequately through the reimbursement process. Sandlin requests that the counterproposal be denied or dismissed with respect to the requested changes at Bay City and Columbus. Discussion 5. Sunburst Media, LP, license of Station KAAG, Channel 241C2, Madisonville, Texas, initiated this proceeding by requesting the reallotment of Channel 241C2 from Madisonville to College Station, Texas. In compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Sunburst Media has since withdrawn its proposal for Station KAAG. Therefore, we need not consider an allotment for College Station. We received two counterproposals. Giddings Community has requested the allotment of Channel 240A at Giddings and Garwood Broadcasting requests the allotment of Channel 241A at Garwood with changes at Edna, Sheridan, Columbus, Bay City and Palacios,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1473A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1474A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1474A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1474A1.txt
  • and reply comments expressing continuing interest in the allotment of Channel 296A at Nonesuch. Reply comments were filed by L.M. Communications, Inc. (``L.M.''). Late-filed comments with motions to accept were filed by Clear Channel and L.M. We shall accept the comments to ensure a complete and accurate record in this proceeding. 2. Clear Channel filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Clear Channel contends that its proposal will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments by providing Nonesuch, Kentucky, with its first local service while not depriving Danville, Kentucky,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1477A1.txt
  • KPPT(FM) to specify the new community. Petitioners filed comments reiterating their intentions to file applications to effectuate the changes, and, if authorized, to build each facility promptly. Signal Communications filed separate comments in favor of the upgrade and reallotment of Station KEUG(FM), pledging to file the requisite applications. We received no other comments. This proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules that authorizes the Commission to modify the license or permit of an FM station to specify a new community of license where the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1483A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1483A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1483A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-151A1.txt
  • the counterproposal submitted in this proceeding. In its Withdrawal, Eagar Broadcasting stated that it has entered into a settlement agreement with 3 Point Media-Arizona (``3 Point Media''). 3 Point Media has agreed to reimburse Eagar Broadcasting for its reasonable and legitimate expenses relating to the preparation, filing and prosecution of its counterproposal filed in this proceeding. In compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Eagar Broadcasting submitted a copy of the settlement agreement which is subject to Commission approval. 4. The settlement agreement stated that 3 Point Media agrees to pay Eagar Broadcasting $5,000 for expenses incurred in preparation, filing, and prosecution of its counterproposal that proposed the allotment of Channel 246C at Eagar, Arizona in exchange for the withdrawal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1533A1.txt
  • Salsa, M&M Broadcasters, AM&FM Broadcasters and the Joint Parties have filed additional pleadings. In view of our action dismissing the Joint Parties Counterproposal, it will not be necessary to discuss these pleadings in the context of this Report and Order terminating this proceeding. Nation Wide Radio Stations has withdrawn its expression of interest in this allotment. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Rules, Nationwide Radio Stations states that neither it nor any of its principals have been paid or promised any consideration for the withdrawal of its expression of interest in the Quanah allotment. See Note to Section 73.208 of the Rules; see also Conflicts Between Applications and Petitions for Rule Makingto Amend the FM Table of Allotments, 8 FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1534A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1534A1.txt
  • to file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1545A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-154A1.txt
  • of community of license. Each petitioner states that it will file an application for construction permit to effectuate the change of community if granted. We believe that each proposal warrants consideration because it complies with our technical requirements and would serve the public interest. Each of the petitioners filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In each case, the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1684A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1684A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1684A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1707A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1707A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1707A1.txt
  • to Springfield, Georgia, as a replacement service for Channel 280C3 at Springfield. Cumulus states its intention to file applications for the channels at Tybee Island and Springfield if its proposal is granted. 2. Cumulus has requested to change the community of license for Station WSIS, Springfield, Georgia, and for Station WEAS, Savannah, Georgia, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Cumulus states that each allotment is mutually exclusive with the existing allotment, its proposal results in a preferred arrangement of allotments under the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1708A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1708A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1709A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1709A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1709A1.txt
  • separation requirements at Radio Beam's specified site. From this site, the loss area of Channel 236C2 at Lincoln City contains 39,000 people in 1,664 square kilometers while the gain area for Channel 236C3 at Monmouth contains 203,770 people in 2,161 square kilometers. Both the loss gain areas are considered to be well served with aural services. In accordance with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, we will modify the license for Station KSND to specify operation on Channel 236C3 at Monmouth, Oregon, as its new community of license. 4. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.204(b) and 0.283 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-17A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-17A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-17A1.txt
  • March 26, 2001. In response to Notice I and Notice II, RBC simultaneously and timely filed the identical counterproposal in both proceedings. In its counterproposal, RBC proposed to upgrade its Station KNBB(FM), Ruston, Louisiana, from Channel 257C3 to Channel 257C2 and to modify its license for Station KNBB(FM) to specify operation on Channel 257C2 pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's Rules. To accommodate this co-channel upgrade, RBC proposed to (1) substitute Channel 266A for Channel 257A at Clayton, Louisiana; (2) allot Channel 300C3 at Saint Joseph, Louisiana, rather than Channel 257C3 as proposed by SJBC in MM Docket No. 01-19; and (3) allot Channel 279A at Wisner, Louisiana, rather than Channel 300C3 as proposed by WBC in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1842A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1842A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1842A1.txt
  • issuing this Request for Supplemental Information. Background 2. At the request of Secret Communications, former licensee of Station WFCB, Channel 227B, Chillicothe, Ohio, the Report and Order in this proceeding reallotted Channel 227B from Chillicothe to Ashville, Ohio, and modified the Station WFCB license to specify operation on Channel 227B at Ashville. The Report and Order was pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1845A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1845A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1845A1.txt
  • allotment of Channel 288C2 at Bosque Farms, New Mexico. CCN stated its intention to apply for Channel 288C2 at Bosque Farms, if allotted. After the record closed, the parties filed a Joint Request for Approval of Settlement Agreement. On May 9, 2003, CCN filed a ``Notice of Voluntary Withdrawal of Comments.'' 2. The proposed reallotment was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In evaluating a proposal, we compare they existing versus the proposed arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities. In support of its proposal, petitioner states that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-185A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1898A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1898A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1898A1.txt
  • 232A, Springfield, Tennessee, proposing the reallotment of Channel 232A from Springfield, Tennessee to Oak Grove, Kentucky, as that community's first local aural transmission service, and the modification of its license for Station WJOI-FM accordingly. Saga Communications stated its intention to apply for Channel 232A at Oak Grove if the reallotment is granted. Saga Communications filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. When considering a reallotment proposal, a comparison is made between the existing allotment and the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment would result
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1899A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1899A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1899A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-192A1.txt
  • 2003 Reply Date: April 8, 2003 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division: 1. Before the Commission for consideration is a multiple docket Notice of Proposed Rule Making setting forth three separate proposals to amend the FM Table of Allotments, Section 73.202(b) of the Rules. Each proposal seeks to change the community of license for an existing channel, pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. In each instance, the petitioner states that the proposal comports with the requirement that the proposed channel must be mutually exclusive with the existing channel, and the new community must be preferred over the existing community under the commission's allotment priorities. Each proposal warrants consideration because it complies with our technical requirements and would serve the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1935A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1935A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1935A1.txt
  • fact that the DeQuincy reallotment proposal would have been originally precluded by the Radio Maria, Inc. application, we find that consideration of this proposal is consistent with Taccoa, Georgia, et al. We will now consider the Apex Broadcasting counterproposal. 3. Apex Broadcasting filed its request to move Station KNUF, Channel 221C3, to DeQuincy, Louisiana, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. We grant the Apex Broadcasting counterproposal to reallot Channel 221C3 from DeRidder to DeQuincy and we modify the license of Station KNUF in accordance with this reallotment. Apex
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-193A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-194A1.txt
  • states that it will file an application for construction permit at each locality to effectuate the change of community if the channel is reallotted. We believe that each proposal warrants consideration because it complies with our technical requirements and would serve the public interest. Each of the petitioners filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2034A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2034A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2034A1.txt
  • Wilkes-Barre to Freeland, Pennsylvania, as a replacement service for Channel 276A at Freeland. Entercom states its intention to file applications for the channels at Avoca and Freeland if its proposal is granted. 2. Entercom has requested to change the community of license for Station WAMT, Freeland, Pennsylvania, and for Station WKRZ, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Entercom states that each allotment is mutually exclusive with the existing allotment, its proposal results in a preferred arrangement of allotments under the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2035A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2035A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2035A1.txt
  • modification of the transmitter site of Station WEYE(FM), Channel 282A, Surgoinsville, Tennessee; and (c) the modification of the transmitter site of Station WBBQ-FM, Channel 282C, Augusta, Georgia. Petitioners filed comments in support of the proposal reaffirming their intention to apply for the respective channels, if allotted. No other comments were received. 2. The proposed reallotment was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. As stated in the Notice, Fletcher is an incorporated town in located in Henderson County and has a 2000 U.S. Census population of 4,185 persons. Fletcher has a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2036A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2036A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2036A1.txt
  • loss area. Our analysis also shows that both areas are considered to be well served with five or more services. Additionally, although not of decisional significance, since the Commission does not consider the availability of video services in a community when examining an FM proposal, we do note that TV Channel 14 is allotted to Pelham. In accordance with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, we will modify the license for Station WQLI to specify operation on Channel 222A at Meigs, Georgia, as its new community of license. 4. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.204(b) and 0.283 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2038A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2038A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2038A1.txt
  • licensee of Class D Station WHHS, Channel 300D, Havertown, Pennsylvania, West Windsor Plainsboro Regional School District, licensee of Class D Station WWPH, Channel 300D, Princeton, New Jersey, and David Brouda and David C. Weston, former students at Haverford Township. Petitioner filed reply comments responding to the oppositions. Petitioners filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2067A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2067A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2067A1.txt
  • of Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, Competing Applicants, and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process and to the Prevention of Abuse of the Renewal Process, First Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd. 4780, 4793 n.3 (1989); see Silver Star Communications-Albany, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd. 6342, 6352 � 41 (1988); Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Process, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 FCC Rcd. 5563, 5563 � 2 (1987); see also Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 1 FCC Rcd. 421 (1986), appeal dismissed mem. sub
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2090A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2090A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2090A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2091A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2091A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2091A1.txt
  • KKYZ(FM), Sierra Vista, Arizona, requesting that we substitute Channel 267C3 for Channel 269A at Sierra Vista, reallot Channel 267C3 from Sierra Vista to Corona de Tucson, Arizona and modify the license of Station KKYZ(FM) to specify the new community. Petitioner pledges to file an application for the facilities and construct them, if granted. This proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules that authorizes the Commission to modify the license or permit of an FM station to specify a new community of license where the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2092A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2092A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2092A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2093A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2093A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2093A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2104A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2112A1.txt
  • The Audio Division issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in response to a petition filed by Petition for Rule Making filed by Piedmont Communications, Inc. (``Piedmont''), licensee of Station WJMA-FM, Orange, Virginia, and Old Belt Broadcasting Corporation (``Old Belt''), licensee of Station WKSK-FM, South Hill, Virginia (together, ``Joint Petitioners''). Joint Petitioners' request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The Notice proposed to change the community of license for Station WJMA-FM from Orange to Midlothian, Virginia. The Notice further proposed to change the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2186A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2258A1.txt
  • it a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, proposing the reallotment of Channel 231C1 from Okmulgee to Glenpool, Oklahoma, and the modification of Station KTSO(FM)'s license accordingly. Petitioner filed comments in support of the proposal reaffirming its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Glenpool. No other comments were received. 2. The proposed reallotment was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. As stated in the Notice, Glenpool has a 2000 U.S. Census population of 8,123 persons. It has its own post office and zip code. Glenpool has its own
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2259A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2260A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2260A1.txt
  • for rule making filed by Beckham Palmer, III , as Receiver (``Petitioner''), licensee of Station WNPT-FM, Channel 275C2, Linden, Alabama, proposing the reallotment of Channel 275C2 from Linden to Marion, Alabama, and the modification of Station WNPT-FM's license accordingly. Petitioner states its intention to apply for the channel, if allotted to Marion. 2. This proposal is filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Petitioner states that the reallotment could provide Marion with its first local FM transmission service. Moreover, the reallotment would allow Station WNPT-FM to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2261A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2261A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2261A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2262A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2262A1.txt
  • Station WKVW's community of license from Montgomery to Marmet, West Virginia, and providing Marmet with its first local aural transmission service. Petitioner states that if the Commission grants its petition for rule making, petitioner will file an application to permit operation of the station on Channel 227A as a Marmet station. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Petitioner explains that the proposed use of Channel 227A at Marmet is mutually exclusive with Station WKVW's existing authorization at Montgomery. 3. Petitioner
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2263A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2263A1.txt
  • Payson, Arizona, requesting the reallotment of Channel 282C from Payson, Arizona, to Camp Verde, Arizona, and the modification of its authorization for Station KAJM to specify operation on Channel 282C at Camp Verde. Sierra stated its intention to file an application for Channel 282C at Camp Verde. Sierra filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2283A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2283A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2283A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2346A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2346A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2346A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2347A1.txt
  • NW Washington, D.C. 20007 8. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and Section 1.420(g), n. 2, and Section 73.3573, n. 4, of the Commission's Rules. See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n.2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15 FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2349A1.txt
  • received. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the Petition for Rule Making filed by Sierra H Broadcasting, Inc. IS DISMISSED. 3. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau Ash Fork, Arizona, 17 FCC Rcd 1660 (MB 2002). In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, the Secretary of Sierra H states that neither Sierra H nor any of its principals has entered into any agreement concerning the requested dismissal of its Petition for Rule Making. Further, the Secretary states that neither Sierra H nor any of its principals have received or been promised any money or other consideration or reimbursement of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2350A1.txt
  • response to a Petition for Rule Making filed by Wheeler Broadcasting, Inc. (``petitioner''), licensee of FM Station KZLN, Othello, Washington. The Notice proposed to upgrade the license for FM Station KZLN from Channel 248C3 to Channel 248C2, and to change the community of interest from Othello to Basin City, Washington. Petitioner's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Petitioner filed comments supporting the changes proposed in the Notice. No other comments were received in response to the Notice. 2. Petitioner has established
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2351A1.txt
  • Lake, New York. Petitioners filed comments in which they restated their intention to file applications for Channel 289A at Malta, Channel 240A at Queensbury and Channel 290A at Indian Lake. No other comments were received in response to the Notice in this proceeding. 2. The proposed reallotment of Stations WNYQ and WCQL was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. 3. As explained in the Notice, Petitioners requested the substitution of Channel 289A for Channel 289B1 at Queensbury, reallotment of Channel 289A to Malta, New York, and modification
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2413A1.txt
  • of Stations WNND(FM), WLUP-FM, and WDRV(FM), Chicago, Illinois, WTMX(FM), Skokie, Illinois, and WWDV(FM), Zion, Illinois (collectively referred to as ``Joint Parties'') filed comments. For the reasons stated below, we grant Petitioner's request to change its community of license to Johnston City. 2. Petitioner filed its request to reallot Channel 297B to Johnston City, Illinois, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Johnston City is not located within any Urbanized Area, and Petitioner's 70 dBu signal will not cover any portion of an Urbanized Area. Petitioner is licensed to serve
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2429A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2429A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2430A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2431A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2432A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2479A1.txt
  • for Rulemaking filed by Meredith Corporation (``Meredith''), licensee of Station WHNS(TV), Channel 21 (FOX), and paired digital Channel 57, Asheville, North Carolina, proposing the reallotment of Channel 21 and paired digital Channel 57, from Asheville to Greenville, South Carolina, and the modification of Station WHNS(TV)'s license accordingly. 2. As stated in the Notice, Meredith's petition was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2571A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2571A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2571A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2573A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2573A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2573A1.txt
  • Rule Making, proposing the reallotment of Channel 299C3 from Cedar Bluff, Virginia to Gary, West Virginia, and the modification of Station WHQX(FM)'s license accordingly. Petitioner filed comments in support of the proposal reaffirming its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Gary, West Virginia. No other comments were received. 2. The proposed reallotment was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. As stated in the Notice, Gary is an incorporated city located in McDowell County, West Virginia, and has a 2000 U.S. Census population of 917 persons. It has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2574A1.txt
  • OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING Adopted: July 30, 2003 Released: August 1, 2003 Comment Date: September 22, 2003 Reply Date: October 7, 2003 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by Wright Broadcasting Systems, Inc. (``Petitioner''), licensee of FM Station KWEY, Channel 247C1,Weatherford, Oklahoma. Pursuant to Sections 1.420(g) and (i) of the Commission's Rules, Petitioner proposes to change the community of license for KWEY-FM from Weatherford to Blanchard, Oklahoma, and to change the corresponding channel allotment from Channel 247C1 to Channel 247A. Petitioner represents that if its request is granted, it will file an application to modify the facilities of KWEY-FM to specify operation on Channel 247A and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2636A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2636A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2636A1.txt
  • of Harrison County Radio, the Audio Division has before it a Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposing the allotment of Channel 293A to Woodbine, Iowa. WJAG, Inc. filed opposition comments. On June 19, 2003, Harrison County Radio withdrew its interest in the proposed allotment at Woodbine and requested that its Petition for Rule Making be dismissed. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Harrison County Radio stated that it has received no compensation for the dismissal of its Petition for Rule Making. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the aforementioned Petition for Rule Making filed by Harrison County Radio IS HEREBY DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 4. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-265A1.txt
  • of 311 meters. The station is operating below the minimum Class C antenna height requirement of 451 meters in HAAT. SSR asserts that because Station WSTR is operating below minimum Class C standards, it is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the triggering procedures adopted recently by the Commission and outlined in note 2 to Section 1.420(g) and note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's Rules. SSR states that if Station WSTR operates as a Class C0 facility, any short-spacing between Station WSTR and the proposed use of Channel 230A at SSR's proposed allotment site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order To Show Cause directed to Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-266A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-266A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2681A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2681A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2681A1.txt
  • of Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, Competing Applicants, and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process and to the Prevention of Abuse of the Renewal Process, First Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd. 4780, 4793 n.3 (1989); see Silver Star Communications-Albany, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd. 6342, 6352 � 41 (1988); Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Process, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 FCC Rcd. 5563, 5563 � 2 (1987); see also Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 1 FCC Rcd. 421 (1986), appeal dismissed mem. sub
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2705A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2705A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2705A1.txt
  • Wright City proceeding are defective, because ROL did not express any interest in applying for Channel 286A in Wright City, if that channel were allotted to that city. Further, ROL's counterproposal in MM Docket No. 01-255 and its reply comments in this proceeding were filed after the comment due date in this proceeding and need not be considered. See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules. Federal Communications Commission DA 03-2705 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-2705 ! 4 6 : F S X ` � � gd J K � � 3- �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2714A1.txt
  • Georgia, proposing the reallotment of Channel 238C1 from Athens, Georgia, to Doraville, Georgia, as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the authorization for Station WBTS to reflect the changes. Cox stated its intention to file an application for Channel 238C1 at Doraville, Georgia. Cox filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2715A1.txt
  • Georgia, as a replacement service for Channel 280C3 at Springfield. Cumulus filed comments restating its intention to file applications for Channel 280C2 at Tybee Island and Channel 226C1 at Springfield. No other comments were received in response to the Notice in this proceeding. 2. The proposed reallotment of Stations WSIS and WEAS was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. 3. As explained in the Notice, Cumulus requested the substitution of Channel 280C2 for Channel 280C3 at Springfield, reallotment of Channel 280C2 to Tybee Island, Georgia, and modification
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2716A1.txt
  • the WUSX(FM) license accordingly. Petitioner subsequently modified its proposal in reply comments, proposing, in addition to the reallotment, its downgrade from Channel 227C1 to 227C2 and the relocation of the proposed transmitter site in order to provide 100 percent city-grade coverage to the recently-expanded city limits of Madison. 2. The proposed reallotment was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In evaluating a proposal, we compare the existing arrangement of allotments with the proposed arrangement of allotments using our FM allotment priorities. The FM allotment priorities are: (1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2721A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2721A1.txt
  • of Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, Competing Applicants, and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process and to the Prevention of Abuse of the Renewal Process, First Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 4780, 4793 n.3 (1989); see Silver Star Communications-Albany, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 6342, 6352 � 41 (1988); Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Process, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 FCC Rcd 5563, 5563 � 2 (1987); see also Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 1 FCC Rcd 421 (1986), appeal dismissed mem. sub
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-273A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-273A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2753A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2753A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2753A1.txt
  • on co-adjacent channels due to spacing restrictions. Petitioners further state that this proposal requests an upgrade on a nonadjacent channel which would normally allow for competing expressions of interest. However, in similar situations, the Commission has acknowledged that while not strictly adjacent channel relationships, the mutual exclusivity of the channels involved is similar to the scenario provided for in Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's Rules. Section 1.420(g)(3) allows the modification of a station's license to a higher class channel if the channel is a co-channel or adjacent channel mutually exclusive with the existing license. However, the Commission has acknowledged that it will consider analogous proposals involving channel substitutions at other communities which would be necessary to create a mutually exclusive relationship
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2763A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2763A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2763A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2825A1.txt
  • Station WXKT to specify operation on Channel 261A at Watkinsville, Georgia. Background 2. At the request of Southern Broadcasting, licensee of Station WXKT, Channel 261A, the Notice proposed the reallotment of Channel 261A from Washington to Watkinsville, Georgia, and modification of the Station WXKT license to specify operation on Channel 261A at Watkinsville. This request was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Community of License''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2828A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2828A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2828A1.txt
  • substitution of Channel 285A for Channel 285C2 at Marble Falls, Texas, reallotment of Channel 285A to Dripping Springs, Texas, and the modification of the authorization for Station KXXS to reflect the changes. Amigo stated its intention to file an application for Channel 285A at Dripping Springs, Texas. Amigo filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2829A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2890A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2890A1.txt
  • Freeland, Pennsylvania, as a replacement service for Channel 276A at Freeland. Entercom filed comments restating its intention to file applications for Channel 276A at Avoca and Channel 253B at Freeland. No other comments were received in response to the Notice in this proceeding. 2. The proposed reallotment of Stations WAMT and WKRZ was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. 3. As explained in the Notice, Entercom requested the reallotment of Channel 276A to Avoca, Pennsylvania, from Freeland, Pennsylvania, and modification of the authorization for Station WAMT to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2892A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2892A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2892A1.txt
  • Channel 289C3 at Fredericksburg, Texas. Background 2. At the request of Jayson and Janice Fritz, the Notice proposed the substitution of Channel 289C3 for Channel 289C2 at Mason, Texas, reallotment of Channel 289C3 to Fredrericksburg, Texas, and modification of their construction permit (File No. BPH-19960826MS) to specify operation on Channel 289C3 at Fredericksburg. This request was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing versus the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. This determination
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2893A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2893A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2893A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2910A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2910A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2925A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2925A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2925A1.txt
  • Barbara A. Kreisman Chief, Video Services Division Mass Media Bureau Civic's comments were limited to stating its confirmation to construct and operate station WLBT-DT on DTV channel 9. Vicksburg requested dismissal of its counterproposal after the record closed. Therefore, the comments and responses relating to Vicksburg's proposal will not be discussed and the counterproposal is dismissed. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Vicksburg submitted a statement that it has not received any consideration, directly or indirectly, in exchange for the withdrawal of its counterproposal. After the record closed CivCo, Inc., (successor-in-interest to Civic License Holding Company, Inc.) filed a Section 1.65 Supplement and Blailock filed a response. CivCo filed its late-filed comments pursuant to the provisions outlined in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2930A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2930A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2981A1.txt
  • AND ORDER (Proceeding Terminated) Adopted: October 1, 2003 Released: October 3, 2003 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division: 1. The Audio Division issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in response to a Petition for Rule Making filed by Montgomery Broadcasting Company (``Petitioner''), licensee of Station WQZQ-FM, Channel 273C1, Dickson, Tennessee. Petitioner's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The Notice proposed to change the community of license for Station WQZQ-FM from Dickson to Pegram, Tennessee, as a first local service, and to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2990A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2990A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2990A1.txt
  • specified in paragraphs 36-37 in the NCE Second Report and Order. Counterproposals or amendments to the reservation showing as originally submitted in the Petition for Rulemaking will not be considered. The time for filing reply comments will also be specified in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Comments and replies shall conform to the applicable requirements of 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.419, 1.420 (a), (b) and (c). For further information contact Jim Bradshaw or Lisa Scanlan, Audio Division, Media Bureau at 418-2700. Adopted by Chief, Media Bureau FCC NOTICE TO INDIVIDUALS REQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT AND THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT The FCC is authorized under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to collect the personal information we request in this notice.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3028A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3028A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3028A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3039A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3039A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3039A1.txt
  • WFMX(FM), Statesville, North Carolina (``Petitioner''), proposing the substitution of Channel 289C1for Channel 289C at Statesville, the reallotment of Channel 289C1 from Statesville to Clemmons, North Carolina, as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station WFMX (FM) to reflect the changes. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3040A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3040A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3040A1.txt
  • modification of its license for Station KAJM to specify operation on Channel 282C at Camp Verde. Sierra filed comments restating its intention to file an application for Channel 282C at Camp Verde. No other comments were received in response to the Notice in this proceeding. 2. The proposed reallotment of Station KAJM was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Sierra states that the proposed use of Channel 282C at Camp Verde is mutually exclusive with the use of that channel at Payson,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3144A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3227A1.txt
  • allotment to Channel 239A, the reallotment of Channel 239A to Waverly Hall, Georgia, and the modification of Station WKZJ(FM)'s license accordingly; and (2) the reallotment Channel 281C1 from LaGrange to Greenville, Georgia, and the modification of Station WALR-FM's license accordingly. Petitioners state their intention to apply for the respective channels, if reallotted. 2. The proposal is filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Petitioners state that the proposal would result in a preferential arrangement of allotments pursuant to the Commission's FM allotment priorities. In support of their proposal, petitioners also state
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3228A1.txt
  • by changing Station WQTX's community of license from Charlotte to Grand Ledge, Michigan. This reallotment would provide Grand Ledge with its first local aural transmission service. Petitioner states that if the Commission grants its petition for rule making, petitioner will file an application to operate on Channel 225A at Grand Ledge. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Petitioner explains that the proposed use of Channel 225A at Grand Ledge is mutually exclusive with Station WQTX's existing authorization at Charlotte. 3.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3334A1.txt
  • (``HAAT''), which is below the minimum Class C antenna height of 451 meters HAAT. SSR asserts that as Station WYSF currently operates below minimum Class C standards, it is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the Commission's Second Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98-93, 15 FCC Rcd 21649 (2000), and as set forth in 1.420(g), note 2, and Section 73.3573, note 4 of the Commission's Rules. For the reasons discussed below we are reissuing this Order to Show Cause to Citadel Broadcasting Company (``Citadel''), licensee of Station WYSF, Channel 233C, Birmingham, Alabama. 2. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and Section 1.420(g), note 2, the reclassification of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3337A1.txt
  • this document. 18 FCC Rcd 17622 (MB 2003). ROL's Counterproposal in this proceeding was filed November 19, 2001, whereas the comment due date for the Broken Bow proceeding (MM Docket No. 01-209) was October 22, 2001. Thus, ROL's Counterproposal was not timely filed to be considered with the proposal for Channel 285A that was granted in Broken Bow. See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules. In this light, ROL's Counterproposal must be dismissed. Federal Communications Commission DA 03-3337 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-3337 3 < > A S T U X a t w � � � ` � � � `` `` � � � � 3- � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3338A1.txt
  • its proposal if the Commission reallots Channel 252A to Stephens City. No other party filed comments or any other pleading in this proceeding. For the reasons stated below, we grant Petitioner's request to change its community of license to Stephens City. 2. Petitioner filed its request to reallot Channel 252A to Stephens City, Virginia, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. 3. We believe that the public interest would by served by reallotting Channel 252A from Charles Town, West Virginia to Stephens City, Virginia, because Stephens City would receive
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3345A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3443A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3443A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3443A1.txt
  • below, we deny the Petition for Reconsideration. Background 2. At the request of Secret Communications II, LLC, former licensee of Station WFCB, Channel 227B, Chillicothe, Ohio, the Report and Order reallotted Channel 227B from Chillicothe to Ashville, Ohio, and modified the Station WFCB license to specify operation on Channel 227B at Ashville. The Report and Order was pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3534A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3534A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3535A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3551A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3551A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3551A1.txt
  • and ) Nashville, North Carolina) ) NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING Adopted: November 12, 2003 Released: November 14, 2003 Comment Date: January 5, 2004 Reply Date: January 20, 2004 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by Joyner Radio, Inc. (``Petitioner''), pursuant to Sections 1.401 and 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. Petitioner requests the reallotment of Channel 260C3 from Chase City, Virginia to Creedmoor, North Carolina, and the modification of the license of Station WFXQ(FM) accordingly. In order to facilitate the reallotment of Channel 260C3 at Creedmore, Petitioner requests the substitution of Channel 257A for Channel 259A at Nashville, North Carolina, and the modification of the license
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3552A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3552A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3552A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3555A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3555A1.txt
  • in response to a Petition for Rule Making filed by Cox Radio, Inc. (``Petitioner''), licensee of FM Station WPYO, Apopka, Florida. The Notice proposes to upgrade the license for FM Station WPYO from Channel 237A to Channel 237C3, and to change the community of license from Apopka to Maitland, Florida. Petitioner's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In order to facilitate the proposed upgrade and change of community, the Notice further proposes to relocate the transmitter site of Station WXCV(FM), Homosassa
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3561A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3561A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3561A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3644A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3644A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3644A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3648A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3648A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3648A1.txt
  • for rule making in which Franklin Communications Inc., licensee of Station WJZA(FM), Lancaster, Ohio, (``Petitioner''), proposes the reallotment of Channel 278A from Lancaster, Ohio, to Pickerington, Ohio, as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station WJZA(FM) to reflect the changes. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3651A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3651A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3651A1.txt
  • Cause, DA No. 03-429, was released on February 18, 2003, directing Jackson Telecasters, Inc., licensee of Station WDEF to show cause why its authorization should not be modified to specify operation on Channel 222C0 in lieu of Channel 222C at Chattanooga. SSR has withdrawn its proposal for the allotment of Channel 223A at Tallapoosa, Georgia, RM-10651, in accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules. In response to SSR's withdrawal, an Order was adopted on July 23, 2003, terminating the proceeding. See 18 FCC Rcd 15162 (Audio Division 2003). See 18 FCC Rcd 4962 (M.B. 2003). MB Docket 03-77 proposed changes at Ashland, Coaling, Cordova, Decatur, Dora, Hackleburg, Hobson City, Holly Pond, Midfield, Sylacauga, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and Atlanta Georgia, in response
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-366A1.txt
  • REC's areas of interest. While REC urged that the allotments be granted, it did not state an interest in applying for the channels, if allotted. Consequently, we conclude that no valid expressions of interest have been expressed by REC for the channels. On October 17, 2002, Sierra Grande Broadcasting filed a motion to withdraw its petition. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Petitioner states that it has not received any consideration in exchange for its withdrawal. REC Networks also filed opposing comments in response to the Notice and an errata stating that Channel 296C should not be allotted to Baker due to possible obstructions between the transmitter site and the community. REC also questioned Baker's community status for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-367A1.txt
  • petition for rule making filed by Sutton Radio Company IS DISMISSED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 5. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau Sutton, Nebraska, 17 FCC Rcd 9557 (M.Bur. 2002). In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, (47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j)), a principal of Sutton Radio Company states that Petitioner has not nor will not receive, either directly or indirectly, any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in connection with the dismissal of his petition. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 02-XXXX Federal Communications Commission DA 03-367 w x
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-368A1.txt
  • the petition for rule making filed by Maurice Salsa IS DISMISSED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 5. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau Hartshorne, Oklahoma, 16 FCC Rcd 16,341 (M.M.Bur. 2001). In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, (47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j)), Petitioner states that he has not nor will not receive, either directly or indirectly, any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in connection with the dismissal of his petition. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 02-XXXX Federal Communications Commission DA 03-368 W X b \ ^ a b
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-369A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-370A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3747A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3747A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3747A1.txt
  • aural services. Further, 98 percent of the population within the loss area will receive ten or more aural services and no white or gray areas will be created with the channel reallotment which provides a first local service at Dripping Springs. Both the loss and gain areas are considered to be well served with aural services. In accordance with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, we will modify the license for Station KXXS to specify operation on Channel 285A at Dripping Springs, Texas, as its new community of license. 4. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.204(b) and 0.283 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3748A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3748A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3748A1.txt
  • Broadcasting''), licensee of Station KSGC, has agreed to the channel substitution and Spectrum Scan has committed to reimburse Tusayan Broadcasting for the costs of changing its channel. In a related matter, we reject Tusayan Broadcasting's request to substitute Channel 222C2 for Channel 221A at Tusayan, because it was filed after the comment date in this proceeding. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(d). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 03-3748 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-3748 � � � � � � F � $ T T Z (R) (R) � " * * Y ` ` � � � T Y "=GC'' � � � � ~ " � A \ (c) � b V � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3854A1.txt
  • of KSKN Television, Inc., seeking the substitution of DTV channel 48 for DTV channel 36 at Spokane, Washington (RM-10491), IS DISMISSED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 5. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Pam Blumenthal, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Barbara A. Kreisman Chief, Video Division Media Bureau In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, KSKN states that it has not been paid or promised any consideration, directly or indirectly, in exchange for the withdrawal of its expression of interest. (R) � � 7 8 ` a b c d  � (R) � � � � � �� �Year �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3868A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3868A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3868A1.txt
  • PROPOSED RULE MAKING Adopted: December 3, 2003 Released: December 8, 2003 Comment Date: January 30, 2004 Reply Date: February 17, 2004 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by RTG Radio, LLC (``Petitioner''), licensee of Station WKAA(FM), Channel 249A, Ocilla, Georgia, pursuant to Sections 1.401 and 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. Petitioner requests the substitution of Channel 250A for Channel 249A at Ocilla, Georgia, the reallotment of Channel 250A to Ambrose, Georgia, and the modification of the license of Station WKAA(FM) accordingly. Petitioner states that it will apply for Channel 250A when allotted to Ambrose, and further states that it will construct the facilities if the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3869A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3869A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3869A1.txt
  • RULE MAKING Adopted: December 3, 2003 Released: December 8, 2003 Comment Date: January 30, 2004 Reply Date: February 17, 2004 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by Tennessee Valley Radio, Inc. (``Petitioner''), licensee of Station WUSX(FM), Channel 227C1, Tullahoma, Tennessee, pursuant to Sections 1.401 and 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. Petitioner requests the substitution of Channel 227C2 for Channel 227C1 at Tullahoma, Tennessee, the reallotment of Channel 227C2 to New Market, Alabama, and the modification of the license of Station WUSX(FM) accordingly. Petitioner states that it will apply for Channel 227C2 when allotted to New Market, and further states that, it will construct the facilities if
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3870A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3870A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3870A1.txt
  • Station KLAK's community of license from Durant, Oklahoma, to Whitewright, Texas, thus providing Whitewright with its first local aural transmission service. Petitioner states that if the Commission grants its petition for rule making, Petitioner will file an application to permit operation of the station on Channel 248C2 as a Whitewright station. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Petitioner explains that the proposed use of Channel 248C2 at Whitewright, Texas, is mutually exclusive with Station KLAK's existing authorization at Durant, Oklahoma.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3871A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3871A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3871A1.txt
  • Channel 232A from Springfield, Tennessee to Oak Grove, Kentucky, as that community's first local aural transmission service, and the modification of its license for Station WJOI-FM accordingly. Saga Communications filed a Counterproposal in this proceeding No other comments or counterproposals were received in response to the Notice in this proceeding. 2. Saga Communications filed its original proposal pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. When considering a reallotment proposal, a comparison is made between the existing allotment and the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment would result
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3872A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3872A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3872A1.txt
  • the petition for rule making filed by Jeraldine Anderson IS DISMISSED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 5. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau Early, Texas, 16 FCC Rcd 17,072 (M.M.Bur. 2001). In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, (47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j)), Petitioner states that she has not nor will not receive, either directly or indirectly, any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in connection with the dismissal of her petition. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 02-XXXX Federal Communications Commission DA 03-3872 G H " � � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3874A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3874A1.txt
  • the community's first local aural transmission service, and modify the license for Station KASR(FM) to reflect the changes. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for construction permit to effectuate the change of community if the channel is reallotted. No other comments were filed. Petitioner filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3875A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3875A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3875A1.txt
  • change of community. Petitioner filed comments after the comment deadline with a motion to accept, reiterating its intention to file an application for construction permit at to effectuate the change of community if the channel is reallotted. No other comments were filed. We hereby accept Petitioner's comments. Petitioner filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3879A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3879A1.txt
  • RULE MAKING Adopted: December 3, 2003 Released: December 8, 2003 Comment Date: January 30, 2004 Reply Date: February 17, 2004 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by Caldwell Broadcasting, LLC (``Petitioner''), licensee of Station KKSY(FM), Channel 296C3, Bald Knob, Arkansas, pursuant to Sections 1.401 and 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. Petitioner requests the reallotment of Channel 296C3 to Greenbrier, Arkansas, and the modification of the license of Station KKSY(FM) accordingly. Petitioner states that it will apply for Channel 296C3 when allotted to Greenbrier and further states that it will construct the facilities if the application is granted. 2. Petitioner states that it desires to change the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3919A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3919A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3919A1.txt
  • Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau Las Animas, Colorado, Muleshoe, Texas, Rocksprings, Texas, Rankin, Texas, and Big Lake Texas, 17 FCC Rcd 16,220 (M.Bur. 2002). Petitioner states that she has not nor will not receive, either directly or indirectly, any money or other consideration in connection with the dismissal of the petition. This statement satisfies the requirements of Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 02-XXXX Federal Communications Commission DA 03-3919 R S T U '' � � � S T � � � � � � �@��� �@��� @& 0 0 0 0 0 $j� $j� �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4034A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4034A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4034A1.txt
  • (a) the reallotment of 279A from Hartford to South Haven, Michigan, and the modification of Station WZBL(FM)'s license accordingly; and (b) the reallotment of Channel 252A from South Haven to Hartford, Michigan, and the modification of Station WCSY-FM's license accordingly. Petitioner states its intention to apply for the respective channels, if reallotted. 2. The proposal is filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, petitioner states that Stations WZBL(FM) and WCSY-FM are located on the same tower and are currently prohibited from increasing facilities on their own
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4035A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4035A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4035A1.txt
  • miles) east of the community. To accommodate Channel 258C0 at Newcastle we shall also propose the substitution of Channel 260A for vacant Channel 259A at Pine Haven, Wyoming. It has been determined that Channel 260A can be allotted to Pine Haven, consistent with the minimum distance separation requirement of the Commission's Rules at city reference coordinates. In accordance with Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules, we will not accept competing expressions of interest for the use of Channel 258C0 at Newcastle, Wyoming or require Petitioner to demonstrate the availability of an additional equivalent class channel for use by such parties. 3. Accordingly, we seek comment on the proposed amendments of the FM Table of Allotments, Section 73.202(b) of the Commission's Rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4036A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4036A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4036A1.txt
  • the downgrade of Station WZBQ(FM), Carrollton, Alabama, from Channel 231C to Channel 231C0 to accommodate the modification at Gurley. Petitioners filed joint comments reiterating their intentions to file the necessary applications to effectuate these changes and to construct and operate the stations as authorized. We received no other comments. Petitioners filed their proposal in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Here, the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-427A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-427A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-427A1.txt
  • Channel 236C2 at Lincoln City, Oregon, reallotment of Channel 236C3 to Monmouth, Oregon and modification of the license for Station KSND to specify Monmouth as its community of license. Radio Beam states that if the Commission grants its request, Radio Beam will file an application for Channel 236C3 at Monmouth. 2. Radio Beam seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Radio Beam states that the proposed use of Channel 236C3 at Monmouth is mutually exclusive with Station KSND's existing authorization at Lincoln City.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-428A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-429A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-429A1.txt
  • of 100 kilowatts at 360 meters HAAT. The station is below the minimum Class C antenna height requirements of 450 meters HAAT. Because Station WDEF-FM is operating below minimum Class C standards, it is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the Second Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98-93, and as set forth in Section 1.420(g), note 2, and Section 73.3574, note 4, of the Commission's Rules. 2. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and Section 1.420(g), note 2, the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station may be initiated through the filing of a petition for rule making to amend the FM
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-430A1.txt
  • 2d 12798 (M.M. Bur. 2002), and Grandin, Missouri, 17 FCC Rcd 12810 (M.M. Bur. 2002). In light of developments that have occurred in the Bad Axe, Michigan, proceeding, as noted infra, we are deciding MM Docket No. 01-257 separately from the remaining docketed proceedings contained in the Notice. Petitioner's motion to dismiss was filed consistent with the requirements of Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules (47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j)). Petitioner stated in his affidavit that he did not receive any consideration in connection with the requested dismissal of his petition for rulemaking at Bad Axe, Michigan. Czelda's counterproposal incorporated interrelated dockets (i.e., MM Docket Nos . 01-220, 01-230, 01-231, 01-232, and 01-257). Czelda did not commit to apply for an alternate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-431A1.txt
  • Clayton and Haileyville is 41.3 kilometers (25.6 miles) while a minimum distance separation of 72 kilometers (45 miles) is required between Class A first adjacent channels. Public Notice of Keystone's counterproposal at Haileyville, Oklahoma, and Crawford's interrelated proposal at Clayton, Oklahoma, was given February 8, 2002 (Report No. 2530). The withdrawal motions were filed consistent with the requirements of Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules (47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j)). Petitioner and Crawford each state that they did not receive any consideration in connection with the requested dismissal of their petitions for rule making at Atoka and Clayton, Oklahoma, respectively. See, e.g., Joshua Tree, California, 4 FCC Rcd 3801 (M.M. Bur. 1989); Bridport, Vermont, 5 FCC Rcd 6172 (M.M. Bur. 1990); and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-437A1.txt
  • Comment Date: April 11, 2003 Reply Date: April 28, 2003 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by Piedmont Communications, Inc. (``Piedmont''), licensee of WJMA-FM, Orange, Virginia, and Old Belt Broadcasting Corporation (``Old Belt''), licensee of WKSK-FM, South Hill, Virginia (together, ``Joint Petitioners''). Pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, Joint Petitioners propose to change the community of license for Station WJMA-FM from Orange to Midlothian, Virginia, and to change the corresponding channel allotment from Channel 255A to Channel 255B1. In order to permit the allotment of Channel 255B1 at Midlothian, Joint Petitioners propose to substitute Channel 270A for Channel 255C3 at South Hill, Virginia, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-489A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-49A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-49A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-49A1.txt
  • which is below the minimum Class C antenna height of 451 meters HAAT. Petitioner asserts that because Station KEZK-FM is operating below minimum Class C standards, it is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the triggering procedures adopted in the Commission's Second Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-93, and outlined in note 2 to Section 1.420(g) and note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's Rules. The staff has tentatively concluded that if KEZK-FM operates as a Class C0 facility, any short-spacing between Station KEZK-FM and the proposed use of Channel 271B1 at the proposed Okawville site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to Infinity
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-50A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-50A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-50A1.txt
  • states that it will file an application for construction permit at each locality to effectuate the change of community if the channel is reallotted. We believe that each proposal warrants consideration because it complies with our technical requirements and would serve the public interest. Each of the petitioners filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-52A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-52A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-52A1.txt
  • of Station WJES-FM, Channel 221A, Saluda, South Carolina. Petitioner seeks to amend the FM Table of Allotments by upgrading Station WJES-FM from Channel 221A to 221C3 and changing Station WJES-FM's community of license from Saluda to Irmo, South Carolina. These changes would provide Irmo with its first local aural transmission service. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Petitioner explains that the proposed use of Channel 221C3 at Irmo is mutually exclusive with Station WJES-FM's existing authorization at Saluda. 3. Petitioner
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-583A1.txt
  • ) ) NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING Adopted: February 26, 2003 Released: March 4, 2003 Comment Date: April 25, 2003 Reply Date: May 12, 2003 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by Montgomery Broadcasting Company (``Petitioner''), licensee of Station WQZQ-FM, Dickson, Tennessee. Pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, Petitioner proposes to change the community of license for Station WQZQ-FM from Dickson to Pegram, Tennessee, and to change the FM Table of Allotments by deleting Channel 273C1 at Dickson, Tennessee, and by adding Channel 273C1 at Pegram, Tennessee as the community's first local aural broadcast service. In addition to WQZQ-FM, two additional broadcast stations currently
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-584A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-585A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-585A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-585A1.txt
  • C antenna height of greater than 450 meters HAAT with 100 kW ERP. Petitioner asserts that because Station KRFX(FM) is operating below minimum Class C facilities, it is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the triggering procedures adopted in the Commission's Second Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-93, and outlined in note 2 to Section 1.420(g) and note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's Rules. The staff has tentatively concluded that if KRFX(FM) operates as a Class C0 facility, any short-spacing between Station KRFX(FM) and the proposed use of Channel 279C1 at the proposed site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to Jacor Broadcasting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-586A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-586A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-586A1.txt
  • MM Docket No. 01-227, the Petitioner filed a separate Petition for Rule Making, requesting the allotment of Channel 263C3 to Memphis, Texas. That rulemaking petition was in conflict with the instant proposal to allot Channel 264C2 to Reydon. However, the Memphis petition was subsequently dismissed by a separate staff letter, at the request of the Petitioner, in accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules. See, e.g., Revision of FM Assignment Policies and Procedures, 90 FCC 2d 101 (1982); and Cleveland and Ebenezer, MS, 10 FCC Rcd 8807, 8808 (Allocations Br. 1995). See, e.g., Implementation of BC Docket 80-90 to Increase the Availability of FM Broadcasting Assignments (Semora, North Carolina), 5 FCC Rcd 934 (1990) (community of 150 persons qualifies as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-588A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-588A1.txt
  • at Llano,Texas in MM Docket No. 00-148. Given the foregoing mutual exclusivity, the Junction proposal would ordinarily have to be filed by the October 10, 2000, comment date in MM Docket No. 00-148 in order to receive consideration. Charles Crawford did not file his proposal by that date. Accordingly, we would ordinarily dismiss the Junction proposal as untimely. See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules; see also Pinewood, South Carolina. Nevertheless, our engineering staff has found a transmitter site for Crawford's proposed allotment of Channel 297A to Junction that would not be mutually exclusive with the Joint Parties' proposal for Channel 297A in Llano included in their Counterproposal in MM Docket No. 00-148. In these circumstances, the public interest is better
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-624A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-624A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-624A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-625A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-625A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-625A1.txt
  • 7.1 kilometers (4.4 miles) southwest at petitioner's presently licensed site. Since Victoria is located within 320 kilometers (199 miles) of the U.S-Mexican border, concurrence of the Mexican government has been requested. We shall propose to modify Station KEPG(FM)'s license to specify operation on Channel 265C3 in lieu of Channel 265A at Victoria, Texas. In accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's Rules, we shall not accept competing expressions of interest in the use of Channel 265C3 at Victoria, Texas, or require petitioner to provide an equivalent class channel for use by other interested parties. 5. Accordingly, we seek comments on the proposed amendment of the FM Table of Allotments, Section 73.202(b) of the Commission's Rules, for the communities
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-626A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-626A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-626A1.txt
  • Georgia, proposing the reallotment of Channel 222A from Pelham, Georgia, to Meigs, Georgia, as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the authorization for Station WQLI to reflect the changes. Mitchell stated its intention to file an application for Channel 222A at Meigs, Georgia. Mitchell filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-627A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-627A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-627A1.txt
  • modification of the license for Station KTCL to specify Wheat Ridge as its community of license. TCI also requests the substitution of Channel 249A for vacant Channel 227A at Westcliffe, Colorado. TCI states that if the Commission grants its request, TCI will file an application for Channel 227C0 at Wheat Ridge. 2. TCI seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, TCI states that the proposed use of Channel 227C0 at Wheat Ridge is mutually exclusive with Station KTCL's existing authorization at Ft. Collins.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-628A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-628A1.txt
  • (``HAAT''), which is below the minimum Class C antenna height of 451 meters HAAT. SSR asserts that as Station WYSF currently operates below minimum Class C standards, it is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the Commission's Second Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98-93, 15 FCC Rcd 21649 (2000), and as set forth in 1.420(g), note 2, and Section 73.3573, note 4 of the Commission's Rules. 2. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and Section 1.420(g), note 2, the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station may be initiated through the filing of a petition for rule making to amend the FM
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-630A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-630A1.txt
  • at a site designated by Tel-Dodge in its comments, both proposals would comply with the Commission's Rules and could be granted. This recommendation cannot be favorably entertained for two reasons. First, since the Tel-Dodge proposal suggesting a Class A allotment at Alamo was filed after the date for filing counterproposals in this proceeding, it must be rejected pursuant to Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules. Second, if it were to be considered, our engineering studies show that Station WMCG at the revised site would fail to provide the required 70 dBu city grade coverage of its city of license, namely, Milan, Georgia. In its reply comments to the foregoing Public Notice, Petitioner argues that its proposal to allot Channel 287C3 to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-766A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-766A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-766A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-776A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-777A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-777A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-777A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-778A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-778A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-815A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-815A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-815A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-816A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-816A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-816A1.txt
  • WSB-FM, Atlanta, Georgia, to Channel 253C0. Cox has obtained the consent of William Communications, Inc., the licensee of stations WASZ(FM) and WTRB-FM, for the proposed facilities modifications of these stations and Cox pledges to reimburse Williams Communications, Inc. for its reasonable costs in implementing the requested modifications. 2. The seven foregoing change of community proposals are filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. We observe that none of the proposed changes in community of license would result in the loss of the sole local aural transmission service to any community. 3.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-821A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-821A1.txt
  • was filed after HCB's rulemaking petition but prior to the deadline for filing counterproposals in this proceeding and is in conflict with the proposed allotment of Channel 286A at Thorndale, Texas. Discussion. Elgin FM filed comments on November 19, 2002, withdrawing its pending counterproposal requesting allotment of Channel 286A at Thrall, Texas. Elgin FM filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, and included a statement that neither it nor any of its principals have received nor have been promised any payment for this withdrawal. On November 19, 2002, HCB also filed comments withdrawing its pending petition for rulemaking requesting the allotment of Channel 286A at Thorndale, Texas, and reservation of the channel for noncommercial educational use. HCB
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-833A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-967A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-968A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1023A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1023A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1023A1.txt
  • Station WPST, Trenton, New Jersey, proposing the reallotment of Channel 248B from Trenton, New Jersey, to Burlington, New Jersey, and the modification of the authorization for Station WPST to reflect the changes. Nassau stated its intention to file an application for Channel 248B at Burlington, New Jersey. Nassau filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1025A1.txt
  • petition for rule making filed by RTG Radio, LLC (``petitioner''), licensee of FM Station WKAA, Channel 249A, Ocilla, Georgia. The Notice proposes to substitute Channel 250A for Channel 249A, to change the community of license from Ocilla to Ambrose, Georgia, and to modify the license for FM Station WKAA accordingly. Petitioner's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Petitioner filed comments supporting the changes proposed in the Notice. No other comments were received in response to the Notice. 2. Petitioner has established
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1026A1.txt
  • would amend its Counterproposal to specify a new site for the proposed Channel 252C3 upgrade at Scottsboro. At this new site, the upgrade at Scottsboro would no longer be in conflict with the Channel 252A reallotment to Ashland. 4. Eight of the proposals in this proceeding request a change in community of license. These requests were filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. In evaluating a proposal, we compare the existing versus the proposed arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1027A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1027A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1027A1.txt
  • it only resubmits or incorporates by reference its former pleadings. It should also restate its present intention to apply for the channel if it is reserved and, if authorized, to build a station promptly. Failure to file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Comments and Reply Comments; Service. Pursuant to applicable procedures set out in Sections 1.415 and 1.420 of the Commission's rules and regulations, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making to which this Appendix is attached. All submissions by parties to this proceeding or by persons acting on behalf of such parties must be made in written comments, reply comments, or other
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1028A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1028A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1028A1.txt
  • challenge the proposed action, as required by Section 73.3573 Note 4 of the Commission's Rules. Infinity filed no response, and therefore, in accordance with the Commission's procedures, Station KEZK-FM is being reclassified to specify operation on Channel 273C0 instead of Channel 273C at St. Louis, Missouri. The proposed reallotment of Station WIBV was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. This
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1030A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1030A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1030A1.txt
  • Green State University, seeking the substitution of DTV channel *20 for DTV channel *56 at Bowling Green, Ohio, (RM-10372), IS DISMISSED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 5. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Pam Blumenthal, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Barbara A. Kreisman Chief, Video Division Media Bureau In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, BGSU states that it has not received or will receive any money or other consideration in exchange for the withdrawal of its expression of interest in this rule making. � F G o p q r s � � � � � � � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1040A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1040A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1040A1.txt
  • **See Charter Petition at Exhibits 4, 5, & 6. 47 U.S.C. � 543(a). 47 C.F.R. � 76.905(b). Charter filed motions to withdraw the petitions with respect to Granite Falls, Lenoir, and Weaverville, North Carolina, which the LFAs opposed. A request for Commission action may be withdrawn as a matter of right unless restricted by regulation. See for example 47 C.F.R. 1.420(j). No such regulation applies to petitions for determination of effective competition filed pursuant to 47 C.F.R. �� 76.7 & 76.907. Additionally, the unopposed Motions for Extension of Time filed by Charter are granted. 47 C.F.R. � 76.906. See 47 U.S.C. � 543(1) and 47 C.F.R. � 76.905. See 47 C.F.R. �� 76.906 & 907. See 47 U.S.C. � 543(l)(1)(A)-(D). See
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1077A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1077A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1077A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1078A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1078A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1078A1.txt
  • Petitioner seeks to amend the FM Table of Allotments by reallotting Channel 272A from Wilmington to Mount Sterling, Ohio, thus providing Mount Sterling with its first local aural transmission service. Petitioner states that if the Commission grants its petition for rule making, Petitioner will file an application to effectuate its proposal. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed use of Channel 272A at Mount Sterling, Ohio, is mutually exclusive with Station WKLN's existing authorization at Wilmington, Ohio. 3. Petitioner asserts that the adoption of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1079A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1079A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1079A1.txt
  • Alpena, Beaverton, Cheboygan and Standish, Michigan, have been added to the caption. Au Gres, Michigan, 16 FCC Rcd 11103 (2001). The license of Station WBNZ(FM) was assigned to Fort Bend Broadcasting Company on August 7, 2001, and consummated on October 10, 2001. The counterproposal was placed on Public Notice on October 23, 2001, Report No. 2506 (RM-10325). Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, petitioner and South Bend filed declarations stating that they have neither received nor been promised money or consideration for withdrawal of their petitions. Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1079 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1079 ! D F [ o p q  � � . 3 V � . x � � � � � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1080A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1080A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1080A1.txt
  • changes proposed in this proceeding are allotted. Pursuant to the agreement, the Joint Petitoners would ``compensate'' AM & FM Broadcasters for the downgrade of Station KICM. 4. In response to that submission, we issued a Request for Supplemental Information. The Request found that the agreement was, in effect, a withdrawal of an expression of interest within the ambit of Section 1.420(j) of the rules which limits reimbursement to actual expenses. Accordingly, the Joint Petitioners were requested to submit the underlying agreement in order to determine compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the rules. The Joint Petitioners did not submit any agreement. Instead, the Joint Petitioners, as well as AM & FM Broadcasters, contended that Section 1.420(j) of the Rules applies only to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1198A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1199A1.txt
  • (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau The communities of O 'Donnell and Roaring Springs, Texas, have been added to the caption. Post, Texas, 16 FCC Rcd 52734 (2001). The counterproposal was placed on Public Notice on February 21, 2002, Report No. 2532 (RM-10380). Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, petitioner filed an affidavit stating that she has not received, directly or indirectly, any money or consideration in connection with the dismissal of her petition. The coordinates for Channel 249A at O'Donnell are 32-55-32 North Latitude and 101-40-59 West Longitude. The coordinates for Channel 249A at Roaring Springs are 33-57-42 North Latitude and 100-42-53 West Longitude.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1200A1.txt
  • KOBT to specify operation at Lumberton as that community's first local service. Tichenor further requests the substitution of Channel 287C2 for Channel 287A at Crystal Beach, Texas, reallotment of Channel 287C2 to Winnie, Texas, and modification of the license for Station KLTO accordingly. The proposed reallotment of Station KLTO and Station KOBT was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of the proposal, Tichenor states that its counterproposal conflicts with the allotment of Channel 287A at Vinton, as proposed in the Notice, offers a first local
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1202A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1236A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1237A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1238A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1238A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1238A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1281A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1281A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1282A1.txt
  • That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 10. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Sharon P. McDonald, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau Milano, Texas, 17 FCC Rcd 12824 (2002). The counterproposal was technically defective and not placed on Public Notice. In compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Henderson submitted a declaration stating that Petitioner was not paid any consideration of any kind in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses incurred. See Woodstock and Broadway, Virginia, 3 FCC Rcd 6398 (1988). See, e.g., Fort Bragg, California, 6 FCC Rcd 5817 (1991); Provincetown, et al., Massachusetts, 8 FCC Rcd 19 (1992); and Sanford and Robbins,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1283A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1283A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1283A1.txt
  • other comments were filed in response to MB Docket No. 04-42. 2. Based upon the information presented in this proceeding, we believe the public interest will be served by reallotting Channel 236C0 to Bowling Green, Kentucky, since it would result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. The proposed reallotment of Station WGGC was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1284A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1285A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1285A1.txt
  • In turn, this substitution requires the reallotment of Channel 257A from Ahoskie to Gatesville, North Carolina, as its first local service, and the modification of the license of FM Station WQDK accordingly. As stated in the Notice, Petitioner received the consent from the licensees of Station WZAX(FM) and FM Station WQDK. 3. Discussion. Petitioner filed its petition pursuant to � 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. As required by Community of License, the proposed reallotment of Channel 260C3 at Chase City, Virginia is mutually exclusive with the license site of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1316A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1317A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1318A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1319A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1346A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1346A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1346A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1348A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1349A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-137A1.txt
  • reallots Channel 221C3 to Irmo. Glory Communications, Inc. (``Glory'') filed comments in opposition to Petitioner's proposal and Petitioner filed reply comments to Glory's comments. For the reasons stated below, we grant Petitioner's requests to upgrade its channel to Channel 221C3 and to change its community of license to Irmo. 2. Petitioner submitted its petition pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment would result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1407A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1415A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1416A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1417A1.txt
  • license for Station KBBN-FM to specify operation on Channel 237C3 at Broken Bow. Petitioner represents that if its requests are granted, it will file applications for Channel 253C1 at Maxwell, Nebraska, and will construct those facilities if its applications are granted. 2. Petitioner proposes to change the community of license for Station KRKU(FM) from McCook to Maxwell pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, under the guidelines set forth in Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License. That decision establishes that, in evaluating a change of community proposal, we compare the existing versus the proposed arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies and Procedures. 3.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1418A1.txt
  • radiated power (``ERP'') of 100 kilowatts (``kW'') at 309 meters height above average terrain (``HAAT''), which is below the minimum Class C antenna height of 451 meters HAAT. Station WYSF(FM) is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the reclassification procedures adopted in the Commission's Second Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-93, Note 2 to Section 1.420(g), and Note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's rules. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 73.3573 Note 4, we issued an Order to Show Cause directed to Citadel Broadcasting Company (``Citadel''), licensee of Station WYSF(FM), Birmingham, Alabama, affording it 30 days to express in writing an intention to seek authority to upgrade its technical facilities to preserve
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1419A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1420A1.txt
  • to effectuate the changes of community if granted. Hall Communications (``Hall'') filed a counterproposal requesting the allotment of Channel 282A at Keeseville in lieu of Joint Petitioners' proposal. Montpelier Broadcasting, Inc. (``MBI'') filed comments in opposition to Joint Petitioners' petition and in support of Hall's proposal. Joint Petitioners filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In making this determination, we compare the existing arrangement of allotments to the proposed arrangement of allotments to determine which would result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-143A1.txt
  • By comparison, retaining the station in Livingston would provide a third local service to Livingston under Priority (4). Following the issuance of the Dos Palos construction permit, the Petitioner petitioned for the reallotment and change the community of license for Station KSKD(FM), Channel 240A, from Dos Palos to Chualar, California. The Petitioner claimed that the proposed reallotment complies with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules because Channel 240A at Dos Palos is mutually exclusive with Channel 240A at Chualar and an actual transmitter site exists at which full city-grade service can be provided to Chualar. Noting that Station KSKD(FM) continues to be operated from Livingston, the Petitioner argued in its rulemaking petition that the proposed reallotment will result in a preferential
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-144A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1539A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1542A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1542A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1542A1.txt
  • Channel 280C1 at Arthur or Channel 277C at Hazelton by the Canadian government, the construction permit will include the following condition: ``Operation with the facilities specified therein is subject to modification, suspension or termination without right to hearing, if found by the Commission to be necessary in order to conform to the USA-Canadian FM Broadcast Agreement.'' In accordance with Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's Rules, we modify Station KVMI(FM)'s license to specify operation on Channel 280C1in lieu of Channel 280C3 at Arthur, North Dakota. 3. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority found in Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.204(b) and 0.283 of the Commission's Rules, IT IS ORDERED,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1607A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1607A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1607A1.txt
  • making filed by Compass Communications of Idaho, Inc., seeking the allotment of DTV channel 38 to Pocatello, Idaho (RM-10699), IS DISMISSED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 5. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Pam Blumenthal, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Barbara A. Kreisman Chief, Video Division Media Bureau In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Compass states that it has not received or will receive any money or other consideration in exchange for filing its withdrawal of its expression of interest in a DTV allotment at Pocatello, Idaho. '' ! 9 J p � � ` `` '' *'' � '' �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1615A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1616A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1616A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1616A1.txt
  • Channel 281A from Clayton, Georgia, to Sylva, North Carolina, and modifying Station WRBN's license accordingly. This reallotment of Channel 281A will provide Sylva with its second local aural transmission service. Petitioner states that if the Commission grants its petition for rule making, Petitioner will file an application to effectuate its proposal. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed use of Channel 281A at Sylva, North Carolina, is mutually exclusive with Station WRBN's existing authorization at Clayton, Georgia. 3. Petitioner asserts that the adoption of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1617A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1617A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1617A1.txt
  • Shalimar, Florida, thus providing Shalimar with its first local aural transmission service. Petitioner states that if the Commission grants its petition for rule making, Petitioner will file an application for a construction permit to effectuate its proposal and if such application is granted, Petitioner will promptly construct the facilities specified in the permit. 2. Petitioner invokes the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed use of Channel 227C2 at Shalimar, Florida, is mutually exclusive with Station WPGG's existing authorization at Evergreen, Alabama. 3. Petitioner asserts that the adoption of its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1623A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1623A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1623A1.txt
  • Las Vegas to Pecos, New Mexico, and allotting Channel 296A to Las Vegas. The current licensee of Station KLVF, Meadows Media, LLC, affirms the instant petition for rule making and states that if the Commission grants the proposals contained therein, the current licensee will file appropriate applications to effectuate those proposals. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed use of Channel 264C3 at Pecos, New Mexico, is mutually exclusive with Station KLVF's existing authorization at Las Vegas, New Mexico. 3. Petitioner asserts that its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1651A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1651A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1651A1.txt
  • of Channel 291C1 to Amargosa Valley, however, it opposes the proposed substitution of Channel 296C1 because of the lack of available transmitter sites for this channel. 5. Sky Media further contends that the counterproposal requests an impermissible nonadjacent community of license channel for Station KJJJ(FM) because the proposed substitution is not mutually exclusive with its licensed site, which violates � 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. In this regard, Sky Media states that the provisions of � 1.420(i) permit a change in community of license in the context of a rulemaking proceeding in situations to which the new allotment would be mutually exclusive with the existing allotments. Sky Media also notes that the counterproposal proposes the substitution of Channel 290C for Channel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1652A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1652A1.txt
  • Arizona, requests the substitution of Channel 272C for Channel 272B at Lake Havasu City, Arizona, the reallotment of Channel 272C from Lake Havasu City to Pahrump, Nevada, as its third local service, and modification of Station KJJJ(FM)'s license accordingly. The petitioners stated their intentions to apply for the requested channels, if allotted. 2. Greeley filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 272C at Pahrump is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station KJJJ(FM), Channel 272C2, Lake Havasu City,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1671A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1671A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1671A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1728A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1728A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1728A1.txt
  • at the proposed site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to Cox Radio (``Cox''), licensee of Station WKQL(FM), Jacksonville, Florida, to show cause why its facilities should not be reclassified. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and note 2 of Section 1.420 (g) of the Commission's Rules, a petitioner may initiate the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM Table of Allotments. In those instances in which a triggering petition proposes an amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1729A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1729A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1729A1.txt
  • Channel 240A from Portage, Wisconsin to Stoughton, Wisconsin, as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station WBKY(FM) to reflect the changes. Petitioner pledges to file an application for the channel and to construct the facilities if the application is granted. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1730A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1730A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1730A1.txt
  • for Channel 225C at Scottsbluff, Nebraska, the reallotment of Channel 225C2 from Scottsbluff to Francis E. Warren Air Force Base (``Warren AFB''), as its first local aural transmission service, and the modification of the license of Station KMOR(FM) accordingly, and grant the underlying proposal as originally filed. 7. Tracy Broadcasting filed the reallotment portion of its counterproposal pursuant to � 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 225C2 at Warren AFB is mutually exclusive with the license site of FM Station KMOR, Channel 225C, Scottsbluff, Nebraska.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1733A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1733A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1733A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1734A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1734A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1734A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1735A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1735A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1735A1.txt
  • Broadcasting, licensee of Station KKYZ, Channel 269A, Sierra Vista, Arizona, the Notice in this proceeding proposed the substitution of Channel 267C3 for Channel 269A at Sierra Vista, reallotment of Channel 267C3 to Corona de Tucson, Arizona, and modification of the Station KKYZ license to specify operation on Channel 267C3 at Corona de Tucson. This proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties to file competing expressions of interest where the existing and proposed allotments are mutually exclusive. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing versus the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1736A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1736A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1736A1.txt
  • filed by Tennessee Valley Radio, Inc. (``Petitioner''), licensee of FM Station WHRP, Tullahoma, Tennessee. The Notice proposes to downgrade Channel 227C1 to Channel 227C2 at Tullahoma, Tennessee, to change the community of license from Tullahoma, Tennessee, to New Market, Alabama, and to modify the license of FM Station WHRP accordingly. Petitioner's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Petitioner filed comments supporting the changes proposed in the Notice. No other comments were received in response to the Notice. 2. In determining whether
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1846A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1846A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1846A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2048A1.txt
  • 226A from Yazoo City, Mississippi to Benton, Mississippi, as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station WYAB(FM) to reflect the changes. Petitioner pledges to file an application for the channel and to construct the facilities if the application is granted. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2049A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2049A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2049A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2050A1.txt
  • Channel 271A at the proposed site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to licensee of Station KTST(FM), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to show cause why its facilities should not be reclassified. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and note 2 of Section 1.420 (g) of the Commission's Rules, a petitioner may initiate the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM Table of Allotments. In those instances in which a triggering petition proposes an amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2051A1.txt
  • Channel 297A at the proposed site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to licensee of Station KRXO(FM), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to show cause why its facilities should not be reclassified. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and note 2 of Section 1.420 (g) of the Commission's Rules, a petitioner may initiate the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM Table of Allotments. In those instances in which a triggering petition proposes an amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2052A1.txt
  • of Channel 232A at the proposed site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to licensee of Station WSTR(FM), Smyrna, Georgia, to show cause why its facilities should not be reclassified. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and note 2 of Section 1.420 (g) of the Commission's Rules, a petitioner may initiate the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM Table of Allotments. In those instances in which a triggering petition proposes an amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2060A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2060A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2060A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2068A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2068A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2068A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2101A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2101A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2101A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2129A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2130A1.txt
  • and various tourist attractions. The population of Maxwell increased 10.5 percent from 1990 to 2000. The community holds an annual festival in September, and has plans to build a new youth center and to undertake major improvements to the Town Hall. 3. MRG proposes to change the community of license for Station KRKU(FM) from McCook to Maxwell pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, under the guidelines set forth in Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License. That decision establishes that, in evaluating a change of community proposal, we compare the existing versus the proposed arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies and Procedures. 4.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2132A1.txt
  • local aural transmission service. Petitioner filed comments affirming the foregoing proposal and stating its intent to implement its proposal if the Commission reallots Channel 280A to Lincoln. No other party has filed comments or a counterproposal in this proceeding. For the reasons stated below, we grant Petitioner's proposal. 2. Petitioner filed the foregoing proposal pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. 3. We believe that the public interest would by served by downgrading Channel 280B1 to Channel 280A and reallotting Channel 280A from Yuba City, California, to Lincoln, California,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2145A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2146A1.txt
  • and a net population gain of 218,450 and area of 17,471 sq. km. able to receive service from the Bunkerville and Logandale reallotments and upgrade. First, we will reallot, change the community of license, and relocate the transmitter site for Station KZHK(FM) from Channel 240C at St. George, UT, to Channel 240C at Bunkerville, NV. This proposal complies with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules because the channels are mutually exclusive and because it creates a preferential arrangement of allotments. The reallotment will create a first local service to Bunkerville (pop. 1,014), triggering Priority 3 of the FM Allotment Priorities, while retention of the station at St. George would be a fifth local service under Priority 4. In addition, as explained
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2252A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2261A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2261A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2261A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2267A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2267A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2298A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2301A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-230A1.txt
  • changing Station WTDR-FM's community of license from Talladega to Munford, Alabama, thus providing Munford with its first local aural transmission service. Petitioner states that if the Commission grants its petition for rule making, Petitioner will file an application to permit operation of the station on Channel 224A as a Munford station. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed use of Channel 224A at Munford, Alabama, is mutually exclusive with Station WTDR-FM's existing authorization at Talladega, Alabama. 3. Petitioner asserts that the adoption of its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-231A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-231A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-231A1.txt
  • CWA Broadcasting, Inc. (``Petitioner''), licensee of Station WINX-FM, Channel 232A, St. Michaels, Maryland. Petitioner seeks to amend the FM Table of Allotments by upgrading Station WINX-FM from Channel 232A to 232B1 and reallotting Channel 232B1 from St. Michaels to Cambridge, Maryland, thus providing Cambridge with its third local aural transmission service. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. 3. Petitioner's current proposal to have its community of license changed from St. Michaels to Cambridge is the result of a rather long history involving its attempts to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-235A1.txt
  • Hart, Michigan, to Coopersville, Michigan, and modification of the license for Station WCXT accordingly. Petitioners also requested the reallotment of Channel 231C3 from Pentwater, Michigan, to Hart, Michigan, to maintain local aural transmission service at Hart with the license for Station WWKR modified accordingly. The proposed reallotments of Stations WCXT and WWKR were filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of the proposal, Petitioners state that Channel 287B may be allotted to Coopersville consistent with the Commission's spacing requirements providing a first local service for the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2392A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2392A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2392A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2394A1.txt
  • Reconsideration along with two Informal Objections that it had filed against the respective applications to implement the Station WROX-FM and WPYA(FM) license modifications. In return for these withdrawals, Tidewater Communications will receive $28,450 and an agreement from Sinclair Communications that it will not utilize a rock music format at its Poquoson, Virginia station for two years. In accordance with Sections 1.420(j) and 73.3588 of the Commission's rules, Tidewater Communications has filed a declaration under penalty of perjury listing legitimate and prudent expenses in the amount of $28,450 that were incurred in connection with its participation in this rulemaking proceeding and in connection with preparing and prosecuting its Informal Objections. Moreover, Tidewater Communications' pleadings do not raise any matter that amounts to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2396A1.txt
  • channel *2, and paired DTV channel *20, Columbia, North Carolina (collectively ``WUND''). Petitioner requests the reallottment of channel *2 and DTV channel *20 to Edenton, North Carolina, as the community's first local TV service and the modification of station WUND's authorizations to specify Edenton as the community of license. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions set forth in Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. This procedure is limited to situations in which the new allotment would be mutually exclusive with the existing allotment; the reallottment will result in a preferential arrangement of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2460A1.txt
  • of community. They also request that we modify the operating condition for Station KTKY(FM), Taft, Texas, to permit the station to commence program test authority on Channel 293C2 when Station KOUL(FM) commences program test authority at Refugio. Petitioners pledge to effectuate the change of community, if granted. Petitioner filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2461A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2461A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2461A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2462A1.txt
  • the modification of the license for Station WQKC(FM) to reflect the changes. Petitioners filed comments in support of the proposal and reiterating their intentions to effectuate the changes specified in the proposal. Opposing comments were filed by Evangel Schools, Inc., and Eric Heyob. Petitioners filed reply comments. Petitioners filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing arrangement of allotments to the proposed arrangement of allotments in order to determine whether
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2483A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2483A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2483A1.txt
  • 7, 2003 by NBC Telemundo Phoenix, Inc. (Telemundo), licensee of stations KPHZ(TV), Channel 11, Holbrook, Arizona and KDRX-CA, Phoenix, Arizona, and Community Television Educators, Inc. (CTE), licensee of noncommercial educational television station KDTP(TV), Channel *39, Phoenix, Arizona. In their joint petition, Petitioners request that the Commission amend Section 73.606 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.606, pursuant to Section 1.420(h) of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(h), to delete the noncommercial reservation of Channel *39 in Phoenix and reserve Channel 11 in Holbrook. They further request that the Commission modify Telemundo's license to specify Channel 39 and CTE's license to specify Channel *11, without opening the channels to competing applications. We hereby commence a rule making proceeding to determine whether:
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2498A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2498A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2498A1.txt
  • RULE MAKING Adopted: August 10, 2004 Released: August 12, 2004 Comment Date: October 4, 2004 Reply Date: October 19, 2004 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (``Petitioner''), licensee of FM Station WRKK, Channel 288A, Sparta, Tennessee. Pursuant to Sections 1.420(g) and (i) of the Commission's rules, Petitioner proposes to change the community of license for WRKK-FM from Sparta to Morrison, Tennessee, and to change the corresponding channel allotment from Channel 288A to Channel 287A. Petitioner represents that if its request is granted, it will file an application to modify the facilities of WRKK-FM to specify operation on Channel 287A and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2499A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2499A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2499A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2500A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2500A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2500A1.txt
  • Technical Summary 5. An engineering analysis has determined that Channel 291A can be allotted at Culebra in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 2.2 kilometers (1.4 miles) northwest at petitioner's presently authorized STA site. The coordinates for Channel 291A at Culebra are 18-19-19 North Latitude and 65-17-59 West Longitude. In accordance with Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules, we will not accept competing expressions of interest for the use of Channel 291A at Culebra, Puerto Rico. The Commission's Rules do not contemplate the filing of expressions of interest in proceedings which seek to make equivalent channel substitutions. 6. Accordingly, we seek comments on the proposed amendment of the FM Table of Allotments, Section 73.202(b)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2501A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2501A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2501A1.txt
  • Petitioner states that the proposal is an ``incompatible channel swap'' since the channel swap between Stations WPKE-FM and WDIC-FM is the only way to effectuate the upgrade at Coal Run, Kentucky. As an ``incompatible channel swap,'' Petitioner asserts that the proposed channel substitutions should be protected from competing expressions of interest consistent with the adjacent channel upgrade provisions of Section 1.420(g)(3) the Commission's Rules. Specifically, Section 1.420(g)(3) allows the modification of a station's license to a higher class channel if the channel is a co-channel or adjacent channel mutually exclusive with the existing license. However, the Commission has acknowledged that it will consider analogous proposals involving channel substitutions at other communities which would be necessary to create a mutually exclusive relationship
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2502A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2502A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2502A1.txt
  • Georgia 30305 8. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420(g), n. 2, and Section 73.3573, n. 4. 47 U.S.C. � 316(a). See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n.2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15 FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2503A1.txt
  • A Tulsa, OK 74129 8. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and Section 1.420(g), n. 2, and Section 73.3573, n. 4, of the Commission's Rules. 47 U.S.C. � 316(a). See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n.2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2504A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2504A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2504A1.txt
  • A Tulsa, OK 74129 8. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and Section 1.420(g), n. 2, and Section 73.3573, n. 4, of the Commission's Rules. 47 U.S.C. � 316(a). See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n.2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2505A1.txt
  • CA 91505 8. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420(g), n. 2, and 73.3573, n. 4. 47 U.S.C. � 316(a). See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n.2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2506A1.txt
  • Petitioner also proposes the substitution of Channel 263A for vacant Channel 241A at Clayton, OK, which requires the reclassification of Station KATT-FM, Channel 263A, Oklahoma City, OK as a C0 facility. See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and Section 1.420(g), n. 2, and Section 73.3573, n. 4, of the Commission's Rules. 47 U.S.C. � 316(a). See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n.2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2507A1.txt
  • request. Petitioner filed comments reaffirming its original proposal and reiterating its intent to implement its proposal if the Commission reallots Channel 272A to Smithfield. For the reasons stated below, we grant Petitioner's request to change its community of license to Smithfield. 2. Petitioner filed its request to reallot Channel 272A to Smithfield, North Carolina, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. 3. We believe that the public interest would be served by reallotting Channel 272A from Goldsboro, North Carolina, to Smithfield, North Carolina (2000 U.S. Census population of 11,510),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2669A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2669A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2669A1.txt
  • of Channel 247C3 at the proposed site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to licensee of Station KMOD-FM, Tulsa, Oklahoma, to show cause why its facilities should not be reclassified. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and note 2 of Section 1.420 (g) of the Commission's Rules, a petitioner may initiate the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM Table of Allotments. In those instances in which a triggering petition proposes an amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2671A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2671A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2671A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2672A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2672A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2672A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2673A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2673A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2673A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2674A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2675A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2675A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2675A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2676A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2676A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2676A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2677A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2677A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2677A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2678A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2678A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2678A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-283A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-283A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-283A1.txt
  • Table of Allotments by downgrading Channel 280B1 to Channel 280A and reallotting Channel 280A from Yuba City to Lincoln, California, thus providing Lincoln with its first local aural transmission service. Petitioner states that if the Commission grants its petition for rule making, Petitioner will file an application to effectuate its proposal. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed use of Channel 280A at Lincoln, California, is mutually exclusive with Station KXCL's existing authorization at Yuba City, California. 3. Petitioner asserts that the adoption of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2857A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2857A1.txt
  • issuing this Request for Supplemental Information. Background 2. At the request of Saga Communications, licensee of Station WMHX, Channel 230B1, Lincoln, Illinois, the Report and Order in this proceeding reallotted Channel 230B1 from Lincoln to Sherman, Illinois, and modified the Station WMHX license to specify Sherman as the community of license. The Report and Order was adopted pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2858A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2858A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2858A1.txt
  • kilowatts at 300 meters height above average terrain (``HAAT''). Station WHYI-FM currently operates on Channel 264C with an effective radiated power (``ERP'') of 100 kilowatts at 307 meters HAAT. See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420(g), n. 2, and 73.3573, n. 4. 47 U.S.C. � 316(a). See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n.2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2859A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2859A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2859A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-285A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-285A1.txt
  • 2004 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division: 1. In response to a petition filed by Chaparral Broadcasting, Inc. (``Petitioner''), licensee of FM Station KLZY, Channel 223C, Powell, Wyoming, the Audio Division has before it for consideration the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing several changes in the FM Table of Allotments. Petitioner's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The Notice proposes to substitute Channel 223C0 for Channel 223C and to change the community of license from Powell, Wyoming, to Park City, Montana.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2860A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2860A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2860A1.txt
  • Rule Making filed by Crain Media Group, LLC (``Petitioner''), licensee of FM Station KKSY, Bald Knob, Arkansas. The Notice proposes the reallotment of Channel 296C3 from Bald Knob, Arkansas, to Greenbrier, Arkansas, and the modification of the license of FM Station KKSY to specify Greenbrier as the community of license. Petitioner's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Petitioner filed comments supporting the changes proposed in the Notice. No other comments were received in response to the Notice. 3. Greenbrier is an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-287A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-287A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-287A1.txt
  • on Channel 253C with an effective radiated power of 100 kilowatts at 392 meters height above average terrain (``HAAT''), which is below the minimum Class C antenna height of 450 meters HAAT. Crawford asserts that as Station KURB(FM) currently operates below minimum Class C standards, it is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility and as set forth in 1.420(g), note 2, and Section 73.3573, note 4 of the Commission's Rules. For the reasons discussed below we are issuing this Order to Show Cause to Citadel Broadcasting Company (``Citadel''), licensee of Station KURB(FM), Little Rock, Arkansas. 2. The reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station may be initiated through the filing of a petition for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-288A1.txt
  • of Channel 300C from Laughlin to Meadview, Arizona, as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station KVGS(FM) to reflect the changes. Petitioner pledges to file an application for the channel and will construct the facilities if the application is granted. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2913A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2913A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2913A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2914A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2914A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2914A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3008A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3008A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3008A1.txt
  • DC 20004-1109 8. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420(g), n. 2, and 73.3573, n. 4. 47 U.S.C. � 316(a). See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n.2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3009A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3009A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3009A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3010A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3010A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3010A1.txt
  • of the community at coordinates 38-37-30 NL and 104-49-00 WL. Additionally, the engineering analysis indicates that Channel 291C3 can be substituted for vacant Channel 288C3 at Genoa consistent with minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's rules with a site restriction 18.4 kilometers (11.4 miles) east of the community at coordinates 39-15-35 NL and 103-17-15 WL. In accordance with Section 1.420(g), we will not accept competing expressions of interest for the use of Channel 288C2 at Security, Colorado or require Petitioner to demonstrate the availability of an additional equivalent class channel for use by such parties. 3. Accordingly, we seek comment on the proposed amendment to the FM Table of Allotments, Section 73.202(b), as follows: Channel No. Community Present Proposed Security,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3011A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3011A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3054A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3054A1.txt
  • that MBI be paid $950,000 for agreeing to modify its application to specify Channel 268C1 at Corvallis rather than Channel 268C. The parties proposed to allot Channel *268C3 at The Dalles at a location near the site proposed in the Dalles NPRM. In Consolidated R&O, the Mass Media Bureau denied the settlement. The Bureau held that the settlement violated Section 1.420(j) of the rules because MBI would receive payment in excess of its legitimate and prudent expenses incurred in preparing and prosecuting its application. The Bureau rejected Petitioners' argument that Section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, required the approval of the settlement. The Bureau then did a comparative analysis and held that the public interest was better
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3055A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3055A1.txt
  • of Station WGZB-FM, Corydon, Indiana, proposing the reallotment of Channel 243A from Corydon, Indiana to Lanesville, Indiana, as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station WGZB-FM to reflect the changes. Petitioner pledges to file the application to implement this reallotment. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i), which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3056A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3056A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3056A1.txt
  • of community of license. Each petitioner states that it will file an application for construction permit to effectuate the change of community if granted. We believe that each proposal warrants consideration because it complies with our technical requirements and would serve the public interest. Each of the petitioners filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In each case, the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3057A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3057A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3057A1.txt
  • community of license. Background 2. At the request of Cox Radio, Inc. and CXR Holdings, Inc., licensee of Station WBTS, Channel 238C1, Athens, Georgia, the Notice in this proceeding proposed the reallotment of Channel 238C1 to Doraville, Georgia, and modification of the Station WTBS license to specify Doraville as the community of license. The proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-30A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-30A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-30A1.txt
  • to implement its proposal if the Commission reallots Channel 227A to Marmet. No other party filed comments or any other pleading in this proceeding. For the reasons stated below, we grant Petitioner's request to change its community of license to Marmet. 2. Petitioner filed its request to reallot Channel 227A to Marmet, West Virginia, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. 3. We believe that the public interest would by served by reallotting Channel 227A from Montgomery, West Virginia, to Marmet, West Virginia, because Marmet would receive its first
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3169A1.txt
  • Indiana 46204 10. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420(g), n. 2, and 73.3573, n. 4. 47 U.S.C. � 316(a). See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n.2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3170A1.txt
  • DC 20004 8. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420(g), n. 2, and 73.3573, n. 4. 47 U.S.C. � 316(a). See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n.2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3171A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3172A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3172A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3172A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3174A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3228A1.txt
  • PA 15220 10. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420(g), n. 2, and 73.3573, n. 4. 47 U.S.C. � 316(a). See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n.2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3229A1.txt
  • Texas 78701 8. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420(g), n. 2, and 73.3573, n. 4. 47 U.S.C. � 316(a). See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n.2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3231A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3231A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3231A1.txt
  • of Channel 255C3 from Windsor to Bethel, North Carolina, and modification of the license of Station WIAM to specify operation on Channel 255C3 at Bethel. Eure Communications, Inc. filed Comments. For the reasons discussed below, we are granting the proposed channel reallotment and modification of license. 2. Lifeline Ministries, Inc. and Eure Communications, Inc. filed this proposal pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3232A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3232A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3232A1.txt
  • at the proposed site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to KMMY Inc., licensee of Station KMMY(FM), Muskogee, Oklahoma, to show cause why its facilities should not be reclassified . Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and note 2 of Section 1.420 (g) of the Commission's Rules, a petitioner may initiate the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM Table of Allotments. In those instances in which a triggering petition proposes an amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3233A1.txt
  • the proposed site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to Citadel Broadcasting Company, licensee of Station KURB(FM), Little Rock, Arkansas, to show cause why its facilities should not be reclassified. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and note 2 of Section 1.420 (g) of the Commission's Rules, a petitioner may initiate the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM Table of Allotments. In those instances in which a triggering petition proposes an amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3234A1.txt
  • the proposed site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to Malkan FM Associates, licensee of Station KZFM(FM), Corpus Christi, Texas, to show cause why its facilities should not be reclassified. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and note 2 of Section 1.420 (g) of the Commission's Rules, a petitioner may initiate the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM Table of Allotments. In those instances in which a triggering petition proposes an amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3331A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3332A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3333A1.txt
  • NM Licensing, LLC (``Petitioner''), licensee of Station KLAK(FM), Durant, Oklahoma, proposing the reallotment of Channel 248C2 from Durant, Oklahoma to Tom Bean, Texas, as that community's first local service, and the modification of Station KLAK(FM)'s license accordingly. Petitioner pledges to file an application to implement this reallotment. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i), which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3334A1.txt
  • comments supporting the proposed Teague allotment and withdrawing its Valley Mills proposal. Petitioner filed a sworn declaration certifying that it has not received, nor is entitled to receive, any money or other consideration, directly or indirectly, in exchange for the request to withdraw its expression of interest in the allocation of Channel 237C2 to Valley Mills, Texas pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules. Elgin FM Limited filed a sworn affidavit in compliance with Section 1.420(j) withdrawing its expression of interest in the proposed Valley Mills allotment. The affidavit certified that Elgin FM Limited has received and will not receive, either directly or indirectly, any money or other consideration in connection with the withdrawal of its expression of interest. The
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3336A1.txt
  • (``WMRZ''), Dawson, Georgia, and licensee of Station WQXZ(FM) (``WQXZ''), Cordele, Georgia. Clyde Scott Jr., dba EME Communications, filed a Counterproposal. Petitioner filed comments. For the reasons stated below, we grant Petitioner's rulemaking petition. 2. At the request of Petitioner, the Notice proposed that Channel 251A, Station WMRZ, be upgraded to Channel 251C3. Petitioner requested this channel upgrade pursuant to Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's rules. Since this upgrade would be short spaced to Channel 252A, Station WQXZ at Cordele, Georgia, the Notice proposed to reallot Channel 252A from Cordele to Pinehurst, Georgia, which would provide Pinehurst with its first local aural transmission service. Petitioner made the foregoing reallotment request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3337A1.txt
  • Burlington, New Jersey, and modification of the license of Station WPST specify operation on Channel 248B at Burlington. Nassau Broadcasting ll, L.L.C. (``Nassau Broadcasting'') filed Comments. For the reasons discussed below, we are granting the proposed channel reallotment and modification of license. 2. Nassau Broadcasting, licensee of Station WPST, Channel 248B, Trenton, New Jersey, filed this proposal pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3338A1.txt
  • to Channel 222C3 and move Station KNRG to Schulenburg, Texas. To accommodate that request, New Ulm also proposes nine channel substitutions, one new allotment, and one change in the location of another station's transmitter. 3. New Ulm has filed a Motion To Dismiss Counterproposal and Withdraw From the Proceeding, in which it requests dismissal of its Counterproposal. Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules, Roy E. Henderson, a principal of New Ulm, has filed a declaration under penalty of perjury certifying that neither New Ulm nor any principal of New Ulm has received or will receive any money or other consideration in exchange for dismissing its counterproposal and withdrawing from this proceeding. In this light, we dismiss New Ulm's Counterproposal.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3512A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3512A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3512A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3513A1.txt
  • reallotment of Channel 276A from West Union to Georgetown, Ohio and modification of the Station WRAC license. The Joint Petitioners state their intentions to file the necessary applications and construct the facilities for proposed Channel 249A at Mason, proposed Channel 249A at Salt Lick, and proposed Channel 276A at Georgetown. 2. The Joint Petitioners filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. When considering a reallotment proposal, a comparison is made between the existing allotment and the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment would result
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3613A1.txt
  • (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Calhoun, Georgia, 19 FCC Rcd 9250 (MB 2004). AM Stations WJTH and WEBS are licensed to Calhoun. See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21649 (2000); see also note 2 to Section 1.420(g) and note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's Rules. Station WYSF(FM) operates on Channel 233C with an effective radiated power (``ERP'') of 100 kilowatts (``kW'') at 309 meters height above average terrain (``HAAT''), which is below the minimum Class C facilities of 451 meters HAAT an 100 kilowatts ERP. The distance between the required site for proposed Channel 233A
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3615A1.txt
  • of Channel 237C3 from Morganfield to Corydon, Kentucky, as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station WMSK-FM to reflect the changes. Petitioner pledges to file an application for the channel and will construct the facilities if the application is granted. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3616A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3616A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3616A1.txt
  • license. In order to replace the loss of the sole local service at Winnie, Tichenor License also proposed the reallotment of Channel 287C2 from Crystal Beach to Winnie, and modification of its Station KLTO license to specify Winnie as the community of license. The Report and Order granted the Tichenor License Counterproposal. The Report and Order was pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-361A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-361A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-361A1.txt
  • of community. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its interest in the reallotment and stating that it will file an application for construction permit to effectuate the change of community if the channel is reallotted. Franklin Communications, Inc. ("Franklin"), filed comments opposing the reallotment and Petitioner filed reply comments. Petitioner filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-362A1.txt
  • spaced to Channel 252A, Station WQXZ, Cordele, Petitioners propose to reallot Channel 252A, Station WQXZ, from Cordele to Pinehurst, Georgia. Petitioners explain that if the Commission grants their petition for rule making, they will file applications for authority to construct the proposed facilities and, if those applications are granted, they will construct the facilities proposed therein. 2. Pursuant to Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's rules, the Petitioners request the upgrade of Channel 251A, Station WMRZ, to Channel 251C3. The proposed upgraded channel is mutually exclusive with Station WMRZ's existing authorization at Dawson, Georgia. With respect to the reallotment of Station WQXZ's Channel 252A, Cordele, Georgia, to Pinehurst, Georgia, Petitioners seek to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-364A1.txt
  • the Petition for Partial Reconsideration. Fort Bend has not alleged either factual or legal error in the earlier Memorandum Opinion and Order. Rather, Fort Bend has impermissibly used its Petition for Partial Reconsideration as an attempt to advance a new counterproposal into this proceeding. The proposed Channel 291A substitution at Bear Lake is an untimely counterproposal in contravention of Section 1.420(d) of the Rules which requires a counterproposal to be filed by the comment date. Throughout this proceeding, Fort Bend proposed only the substitution of Channel 260C1 for Channel 260A at Bear Lake and reallotment of Channel 260C1 to Bellaire and modification of its Station WCUZ license to specify operation on Channel 260C1 at Bellaire. We have never afforded the public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-366A1.txt
  • petition for rule making filed by HBC License Corporation (``Petitioner''), licensee of Station WVIX(FM), Channel 228A, Joliet, Illinois, proposing the reallotment of Channel of 228A from Joliet to Lemont, Illinois, and the modification of Station WVIX(FM)'s presently authorized construction permit accordingly. Petitioner states its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted. 2. The proposal is filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, petitioner states that Station WVIX(FM operates on Channel 228A at Joliet, Illinois. There are two AM stations (WJOL and WWHN), four FM stations
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3702A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3702A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3702A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3703A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3703A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3703A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-375A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-376A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-376A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3806A1.txt
  • 248C from Beaumont to Mont Belvieu, Texas, as the community's first local aural transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station KRWP(FM) to reflect the changes. Petitioner pledges to file an application for the channel and will construct the facilities if the application is granted. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3807A1.txt
  • 8, 2004 Released: December 10, 2004 Comment Date: January 31, 2005 Reply Comment Date: February 15, 2005 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by Capstar TX Limited Partnership (``Petitioner''), licensee of Station WRSN-FM, Channel 230C, Burlington, North Carolina, pursuant to Sections 1.401 and 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. Petitioner requests the reallotment of Channel 230C to Cary, North Carolina, and the modification of the license of Station WRSN-FM accordingly. Petitioner states that it will apply for Channel 230C when allotted to Cary and further states that it will construct the facilities as authorized. 2. Petitioner states that it desires to change the community of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3808A1.txt
  • the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition for Reconsideration. Background 2. At the request of Saga Communications, licensee of Station WMHX, Channel 230B1, Lincoln, Illinois, the Report and Order reallotted Channel 230B1 from Lincoln to Sherman, Illinois, and modified the Station WMHK license to specify operation on Channel 230B1 at Sherman. The Sherman allotment was adopted pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3809A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3809A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3809A1.txt
  • LLC, licensee of Station WBEC-FM, Pittsfield, Massachusetts (collectively, ``Petitioners''). Petitioners filed joint comments. No other comments or counterproposals were filed. For the reasons stated below, we grant Petitioners' rulemaking petition. 2. At the request of Petitioners, the Notice proposed that Channel 289A, Station WNYQ, Malta, New York, be upgraded to Channel 289B1. Petitioners requested this channel upgrade pursuant to Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's rules. Since this upgrade would be short spaced to Channel 288A, Station WBEC-FM, Pittsfield, Massachusetts, the Notice proposed to reallot Channel 288A from Pittsfield to Easthampton, Massachusetts and to modify Station WBEC-FM's license to reflect the change of community, thus eliminating any potential short spacing between Stations WNYQ and WBEC-FM. This reallotment of Channel 288A to Easthampton
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3811A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3811A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3811A1.txt
  • II, Ltd. (Ramar), the license of station KTEL-TV, channel 25, Carlsbad, New Mexico. Ramar requests that the Commission amend the Television Table of Allotments, 47 C.F.R. � 606(b), to reallocate channel 25 from Carlsbad to the community of Moriarty, New Mexico, and further requests that the Commission modify the license of station KTEL-TV accordingly. In 1989, the Commission adopted Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which provides that: In the course of a rule making proceeding to amend [the FM or Television Tables of Allotments], the Commission may modify the license or permit of an FM or television broadcast station to specify a new community of license where the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the licensee's or permittee's present
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3812A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3813A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3813A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3813A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3877A1.txt
  • and modifying the license of Station WLME accordingly. Since this proposal would remove the sole local aural transmission service from Cannelton, Indiana, Petitioner proposes the reallotment of Channel 289A from Tell City to Cannelton and the modification of Station WTCJ-FM's license accordingly. Petitioner observes that the proposed reallotments are mutually exclusive with the existing licensed facilities, as required by Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Further, Petitioner states that if Channels 275C3 and 289A are reallotted as proposed, Petitioner will file applications for the reallotted channels, will modify the facilities of the stations
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-503A1.txt
  • licensee of Station WGGC, Glasgow, Kentucky, proposing the reallotment of Channel 236C0 from Glasgow, Kentucky, to Bowling Green, Kentucky, and the modification of the authorization for Station WGGC to reflect the changes. Heritage stated its intention to file an application for Channel 236C0 at Bowling Green, Kentucky. Heritage filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-608A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-608A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-608A1.txt
  • Station WBEC-FM's license to reflect the change of community, thus eliminating any potential short spacing between Stations WNYQ and WBEC-FM. Petitioners explain that if the Commission grants their petition for rule making, they will file applications for authority to construct the proposed facilities and, if those applications are granted, they will construct the facilities proposed therein. 2. Pursuant to Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's rules, Petitioners seek to upgrade Channel 289A, Station WNYQ, to Channel 289B1. The proposed upgraded channel is mutually exclusive with Station WNYQ's existing authorization at Malta, New York. Pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, Petitioners seek to reallot Station WBEC-FM's Channel 288A, Pittsfield, Massachusetts, to Easthampton, Massachusetts. Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules permits the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-675A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-675A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-675A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-717A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-717A1.txt
  • persons. La Nueva Radio asserts that the public interest would be better served by the proposed reallotment of Channel 269C2 to Orange Grove, which would provide this community with its first local service. Thus, La Nueva Radio states that its counterproposal provides a more equitable distribution of aural services. Discussion 5. La Nueva Radio filed its counterproposal pursuant to � 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 269C2 at Orange Grove is mutually exclusive with the license site of Station KEKO(FM), Channel 269A, Hebbronville, Texas. 6.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-72A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-72A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-72A1.txt
  • Station WMXV, Russellville, Alabama. Clear Channel requests the reallotment of Channel 278A from Russellville, Alabama, to Littleville, Alabama, and the modification of the authorization for Station WMXV to reflect the change. Clear Channel stated its intention to file an application for Channel 278A at Littleville, Alabama. Clear Channel filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-733A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-733A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-733A1.txt
  • substitution of Channel 255C3 for Channel 255A at Windsor, reallotment of Channel 255C3 from Windsor to Bethel, North Carolina, and the modification of the authorization for Station WIAM to reflect the change. Eure stated its intention to file an application for Channel 255C3 at Bethel, North Carolina. Eure filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-735A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-735A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-735A1.txt
  • to dismiss the instant proposal. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the Petition for Rule Making filed by NM Licensing LLC IS DISMISSED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau Durant, Oklahoma and Whitewright, Texas, 18 FCC Rcd 25622 (MB 2003). In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules (47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j)), Petitioner states that it has not been promised or paid, either directly or indirectly, any consideration in connection with the dismissal of its petition. Federal Communications Commission DA 04- Federal Communications Commission DA 04-735 V b � � � � � � � ! % & V a b c d ~
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-738A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-738A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-738A1.txt
  • for Channel 227C, reallotment of Channel 227C0 from Fort Collins, Colorado, to Wheat Ridge, Colorado, and modification of the license for Station KTCL accordingly. To accommodate the allotment at Wheat Ridge, TCI also requested the substitution of Channel 249A for vacant Channel 227A at Westcliffe, Colorado. The proposed reallotment of Station KTCL was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of the proposal, TCI states that Channel 227C0 may be allotted to Wheat Ridge consistent with the Commission's spacing requirements and would provide a first local
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-765A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-765A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-765A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-780A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-780A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-780A1.txt
  • it only resubmits or incorporates by reference its former pleadings. It should also restate its present intention to apply for the channel if it is reserved and, if authorized, to build a station promptly. Failure to file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Comments and Reply Comments; Service. Pursuant to applicable procedures set out in Sections 1.415 and 1.420 of the Commission's rules and regulations, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making to which this Appendix is attached. All submissions by parties to this proceeding or by persons acting on behalf of such parties must be made in written comments, reply comments, or other
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-782A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-782A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-782A1.txt
  • of the required channel changes, the downgrade and reallotment of Station KJMZ(FM) from Channel 251C1 at Lawton, Oklahoma, to Channel 250A at Cache, OK, is short-spaced to Channel 250C3 at Crowell. On the deadline for filing reply comments, the Petitioner submitted a request to withdraw her expression of interest in the allotment of Channel 250C3 at Crowell pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, stating that she has entered into a settlement agreement with North Texas. Under the terms of the agreement, the Petitioner agrees to withdraw in return for the reimbursement of her legitimate and prudent expenses incurred in preparing and prosecuting her rulemaking petition. She states that she has decided not to pursue her interest in operating a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-87A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-87A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-87A1.txt
  • response to a Petition for Rule Making filed by Cumulus Licensing Corporation (``Cumulus''), licensee of FM Station KMAJ, Topeka, Kansas. The Notice proposes to downgrade the license for FM Station KMAJ from Channel 299C to Channel 299C1, and to change the community of license from Topeka to Shawnee, Kansas. The Cumulus request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Petitioner timely filed comments supporting the changes proposed in the Notice. DISCUSSION 3. In determining whether to approve a change of community, we compare
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-88A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-88A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-88A1.txt
  • allotments. In response to the Notice, Petitioner filed comments restating its intention to effectuate the changes requested in the petition. In addition, Independence Television Company (``Independence''), licensee of Stations WDRB-TV, Louisville, Kentucky, and WFTE(TV), Salem, Indiana, filed comments opposing the change of community. Petitioner and Independence each filed reply comments. Petitioner filed its petition pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Because this reallotment involves a determination of which of two communities should retain or receive its only local television service, this proposal falls within the second of the Television
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-910A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-910A1.txt
  • it only resubmits or incorporates by reference its former pleadings. It should also restate its present intention to apply for the channel if it is reserved and, if authorized, to build a station promptly. Failure to file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Comments and Reply Comments; Service. Pursuant to applicable procedures set out in Sections 1.415 and 1.420 of the Commission's rules and regulations, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making to which this Appendix is attached. All submissions by parties to this proceeding or by persons acting on behalf of such parties must be made in written comments, reply comments, or other
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.txt
  • procedure, or rule.'' Formulation of Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applications, Competing Applicants, and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process and to the Prevention of Abuse of the Renewal Process, First Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 4780, 4793 n.3 (1989); see Silver Star Communications-Albany, Inc., Order, 3 FCC Rcd 6342,6352 � 41 (1988); Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 1 FCC Rcd 421 (1986), appeal dismissed mem. sub nom National Assoc. for Better Broadcasting v. FCC, No. 86-1179 (D.C. Cir. June 11, 1987) (strike pleadings, harassment of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-94A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-94A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-94A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-963A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-963A1.txt
  • it only resubmits or incorporates by reference its former pleadings. It should also restate its present intention to apply for the channel if it is reserved and, if authorized, to build a station promptly. Failure to file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Comments and Reply Comments; Service. Pursuant to applicable procedures set out in Sections 1.415 and 1.420 of the Commission's rules and regulations, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making to which this Appendix is attached. All submissions by parties to this proceeding or by persons acting on behalf of such parties must be made in written comments, reply comments, or other
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-964A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-964A1.txt
  • Channel 280C3 from Ozark, Alabama, to Fort Rucker, Alabama, and modification of the license for Station WJRL to specify Fort Rucker as the community of license. Styles states that applications will be filed for Channel 263C3 at Slocomb and Channel 280C3 at Fort Rucker if the reallotments are granted. Styles filed the petition in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-965A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-965A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-965A1.txt
  • Making proposing the reallotment of Channel 275C2 from Linden to Marion, Alabama. Petitioner filed comments in support of the proposal reaffirming its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Marion. After the record closed, John Sisty Enterprises, Inc. filed a Reaffirmation of Statement of Interest and Intent to Apply. 2. The proposed reallotment was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. This determination
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-966A1.txt
  • by Auburn Network, Inc. IS DENIED. 7 . For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21649 (2000), 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(g), n.2, and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3573, n.4 . In the event the Petitioner continues to believe that FM Station WJDC is not operating at its licensed site, the appropriate forum to resolve this issue would be the Enforcement Bureau, Spectrum Enforcement Division, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 04-966 Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-972A1.txt
  • Littleville. Late-file comments were received from Mike Self. No other comments were filed. Based upon the information presented in this proceeding, we believe the public interest will be served by reallotting Channel 278A to Littleville, Alabama, since it would result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. The proposed reallotment of Station WMXV was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1019A1.txt
  • filing as untimely. 14. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Deborah A. Dupont. Media Bureau, at (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and Section 1.420(g), n. 2, and Section 73.3573, n. 4, of the Commission's Rules. See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n. 2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1020A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1020A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1020A1.txt
  • the Petitioners propose to reallot and change the community of license for Station KMCO(FM) from Channel 267C1 at McAlester, Oklahoma, to Channel 267C1 at Wilburton, Oklahoma. The Petitioners state their intentions to apply for the allotments and to construct the facilities if the applications are granted. The Petitioners filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In reviewing a proposal under Section 1.420(i), the Commission compares the existing and proposed arrangement of allotments to determine whether the reallotment would
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1021A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1021A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1021A1.txt
  • proposes (4) to reallot Channel 231A from Keeseville, New York, to Morrisonville, New York, as Morrisonville's first local aural transmission service. If the petition before us is granted, Petitioner will file appropriate applications to effectuate its proposals. 2. With respect to the proposals to move Station WWOD to Keeseville and Station WXLF to Hartford, Petitioner invokes the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed channel reallotments are mutually exclusive with the existing licensed facilities, as required by Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. Because the foregoing reallotment proposals are consistent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1023A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1023A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1023A1.txt
  • a petition filed by Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), licensee of Station WRKK-FM, Channel 288A, Sparta, Tennessee, the Notice proposes to change the community of license for Station WRKK-FM from Sparta to Morrison, Tennessee, and to change the corresponding channel allotment from Channel 288A to Channel 287A. Clear Channel's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Clear Channel represents that if its request is granted, it will file an application to modify the facilities of Station WRKK-FM to specify operation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1024A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1024A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1024A1.txt
  • Channel 281C2 at the proposed site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to licensee of Station KMGL(FM), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to show cause why its facilities should not be reclassified. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and note 2 of Section 1.420 (g) of the Commission's Rules, a petitioner may initiate the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM Table of Allotments. In those instances in which a triggering petition proposes an amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1026A1.txt
  • petition. 2. At the request of Petitioner, the Notice proposed that Channel 266C at Lahaina, Hawaii, be reallotted to Waianae, Hawaii, and that Station KLHI-FM's license be modified to reflect the change of community. This reallotment of Channel 266C to Waianae would provide Waianae with its first local aural transmission service. Petitioner made the foregoing reallotment request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. This
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1145A1.txt
  • concerning this proceeding, contact Sharon P. McDonald, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau The community of Logansport, Louisiana, has been added to the caption. Center, Texas, 19 FCC Rcd 15384 (MB 2004). The counterproposal was put on Public Notice on November 24, 2004, Report No. 2683 (RM-11118). Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Team Broadcasting, Noalmark, Crawford and LB have provided the required affidavits stating that neither Cumulus nor its principals have paid or will pay any money or other consideration in excess of the legitimate and prudent expenses. In addition, all parties have provided the required itemizations of expenses incurred. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1145 Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1148A1.txt
  • this proceeding, contact Sharon P. McDonald, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau The community of Iona, Idaho, has been added to the caption. Idaho Falls, Idaho, 17 FCC Rcd 18118 (MB 2002). The counterproposal was put on Public Notice on August 26, 2003, Report No. 2624 (RM-10771). Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Parker filed the required declaration stating that he neither received, nor will receive, any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in exchange for his withdrawal of interest in the Idaho Falls proposal. In addition, Parker submitted the requirement itemization of expenses incurred. Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Sand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1149A1.txt
  • Supplemental Information. 2. At the request of Petitioner, the Notice proposed that Channel 224A, Station WTDR be reallotted to Munford, Alabama, and that Station WTDR's license be modified to reflect the change of community. This reallotment of Channel 224A to Munford would provide Munford with its first local aural transmission service. Petitioner made the foregoing reallotment request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The Notice did not require Petitioner to submit a showing pursuant to Faye and Richard Tuck to demonstrate that Munford is independent of the Anniston Urbanized Area and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1151A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1152A1.txt
  • on considerations normally addressed under priority (4) of the FM Allotment Priorities, ``other public interest matters.'' We must evaluate the Joint Parties' counterproposal against the Notice's proposal to allot Channel 300A at Shorter because of the mutually exclusivity. When comparing a ``drop- in'' proposal for a new allotment and a reallotment and change of community of license proposal under Section 1.420(i), we take into account the ``totality of the service improvements'' resulting from the proposed new and modified allotments under priority (4) of the FM Allotment Priorities. In making this comparison, the public interest would be better served by granting the Notice's proposal to allot Channel 300A to Shorter rather than reallotting Channel 300C3 to Shorter because it would provide an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1299A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1301A1.txt
  • Cannelton to Tell City, Indiana, and that Station WLME's license be modified to reflect the change of community. Since this proposal would remove the sole local aural transmission service from Cannelton, Petitioner proposed the reallotment of Channel 289A from Tell City to Cannelton and the modification of Station WTCJ-FM's license accordingly. Petitioner made the foregoing reallotment requests pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. This
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1302A1.txt
  • concerning this proceeding, contact Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau See Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Madisonville and College Station, Texas, Giddings, Texas, and Bay City, Columbus, Edna, Garwood, Palacios, and Sheridan, Texas), 18 FCC Rcd (MB 2003). In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, (47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j)), Petitioner states that he has not nor will not receive, either directly or indirectly, any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in connection with the dismissal of his petition. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1302 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1302 � � � � � � @&
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1307A1.txt
  • test authority on Channel 293C2 when Station KOUL(FM) commences program test authority at Refugio. Petitioners filed Joint Comments reiterating their interest in the proposed reallotment and pledging to file the necessary applications for construction permit and construct the facilities for each station. No other comments were filed. Petitioners filed their proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1308A1.txt
  • rule making petition filed by Charles Crawford for the allotment of Channel 288A at Halls Summit, Louisiana. See Reclassification of Station KYKX(FM), Longview, Texas, RM-11158, DA 05-413 (released February 18, 2005). See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and Section 1.420(g), n. 2, and Section 73.3573, n. 4, of the Commission's Rules. See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n. 2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1310A1.txt
  • filing as untimely. 14. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-7072. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and Section 1.420(g), n. 2, and Section 73.3573, n. 4, of the Commission's Rules. See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n. 2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1311A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1311A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1311A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1341A1.txt
  • Channel 292A, Ocean City, New Jersey. Petitioner proposes to substitute Channel 293A for Channel 292A, Station WKOE, to reallot Channel 293A from Ocean City to Bass River Township, New Jersey, and to modify the license of Station WKOE accordingly. This reallotment will provide the first local aural transmission service to Bass River Township. 2. Petitioner invokes the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed use of Channel 293A at Bass River Township, New Jersey, is mutually exclusive with Station WKOE's existing authorization at Ocean City, New Jersey. 3. Petitioner asserts
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1365A1.txt
  • Point, Georgia, and to have its Station KYKZ license modified to specify Union Point as its community of license. This change in community of license will provide the first local aural transmission service to Union Point, Georgia. If the petition before us is granted, Petitioner will file an application to effectuate its proposal. 2. Petitioner invokes the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed use of Channel 286C2 at Union Point, Georgia, is mutually exclusive with Station WEHR's existing authorization at Elberton, Georgia. 3. Petitioner asserts that the allotment of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1461A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1461A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1461A1.txt
  • be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to Pacific Empire Radio of Washington, Inc. (``Pacific Empire''), licensee of Station KCLK-FM, Clarkston, Washington, to show cause why its facilities should not be reclassified. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and note 2 of Section 1.420 (g) of the Commission's Rules, a petitioner may initiate the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM Table of Allotments. In those instances in which a triggering petition proposes an amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1478A1.txt
  • Michigan (File No. BMJP-20050114ADQ). Favorable action on both of these proposals would result in the removal of local radio service from Charlotte. The instant proposal will ensure the continuation of local service at Charlotte. If the petition before us is granted, Petitioner will file an application to effectuate its proposal. 3. Petitioner made the foregoing reallotment request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed use of Channel 291B at Charlotte, Michigan, is mutually exclusive with Station WJXQ's existing authorization at Jackson, Michigan. In this regard, Station WJXQ does not propose
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1479A1.txt
  • KRKU(FM), Channel 253C1, McCook, Nebraska, and an Amendment to Petition filed jointly by MRG and Custer County Broadcasting, Inc., licensee of Station KBBN-FM, Broken Bow, Nebraska (``Custer,'' collectively ``Joint Petitioners''), the Further Notice proposes to change the community of license for Station KRKU(FM), Channel 253C1, from McCook to Maxwell, Nebraska. The request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In addition, the Further Notice proposes a channel substitution and upgrade for Station KBBN-FM at Broken Bow, Nebraska, specifically the substitution of Channel 237C2
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1614A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1614A1.txt
  • Channel 258A, in FM Market FM357, Saratoga, Wyoming, in FM Auction 37. Dday argues that an allotment of FM Channel 285C2 at Encampment would lessen the value and commercial viability of Channel 258A, at Saratoga, Wyoming. The Commission does not rule on such matters. Rather, auction bidders are free to consider these matters if they so choose. Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Petitioner provided a declaration stating that neither Petitioner nor any of its principals has received or will receive any consideration in connection with the withdrawal of its expression of interest in this proceeding. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1614 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1614 '' � � � � h�W � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1615A1.txt
  • site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to Texas Infinity Radio, L.P. (``Texas Infinity''), licensee of Station KAMX(FM), Luling, Texas to show cause why its facilities should not be reclassified. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and note 2 of Section 1.420 (g) of the Commission's Rules, a petitioner may initiate the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM Table of Allotments. In those instances in which a triggering petition proposes an amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1628A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1628A1.txt
  • Channel 223C3 for Channel 237C3 or Channel 238A at Wellington, Utah (different sites); Channel 237C2 for Channel 296C2 at Huntington, Utah; Channel 223A for Channel 223C2 at South Jordan, Utah; Channel 257C1for Channel 295C1 at Rangely, Colorado. See Broken Arrow and Bixby, Oklahoma, and Coffeyville, Kansas, 3 FCC Rcd 6507 (MMB 1988). Each withdrawal complies with the provisions of Section 1.420(j) of the rules. 6 The coordinates for Channel 286A at Dubois are 44-10-34 NL and 112-13-48 WL. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA-05-1628 Federal Communications Commission DA-05-1628 h� h� h� � 5 6 x � � � � � � � � � h� h� h� � F � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1715A1.txt
  • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau Letter from John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, to A. Wray Fitch, III (August 1, 2003). File No. BPH-20030401ABZ. 47 U.S.C. �312(c) and �316(a)(1). See Fostering the Expanded Use of UHF Television Channels (Stockton and Modesto, California), 4 FCC 2d 839 (1966). See Note 2 to Section 1.420(g) of the rules; see also Second Report and Order in 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Part 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21649 (2000). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1715 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1715 �@��� �@��� �@��� �@��� �@��� �@��� g h v � �@��� h� h� � �@��� @& �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1716A1.txt
  • license for Station WMSK-FM to reflect the changes. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for the channel and construct the facilities if the application is granted. A number of duplicate comments in opposition were filed by residents of Union County, location of Morganfield. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1733A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1733A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1733A1.txt
  • first local service, and modify the license for Station WBVV to reflect those changes. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for a construction permit to effectuate the change of channel and community if Channel 257C3 is allotted. No other comments were filed. 2. Petitioner filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1734A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1734A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1734A1.txt
  • MB Docket No. 02-238 IS TERMINATED. 9. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Oglethorpe has been added to the caption. Americus, Georgia, et al., 19 FCC Rcd 16631 (MB 2004). This submission complies with the requirements of 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1734 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1734 + , � � � S T � � � � � � 3- � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1735A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1735A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1735A1.txt
  • foregoing changes for Station WLFE-FM, Petitioner proposed that Station WRGR(FM) (``WRGR'') substitute Channel 271C3 for Channel 272A and move its transmitter to a new site. The licensee of Station WRGR has agreed to effectuate the foregoing accommodating changes to its station if Petitioner's rulemaking proposal is granted. Petitioner made its requests to reallot Channel 272C3, Station WLFE-FM, pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. This
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1736A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1736A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1736A1.txt
  • changes in the FM Table of Allotments, 47 C.F.R. � 73.202(b). In response to a petition filed by Capstar TX Limited Partnership (``Capstar''), licensee of Station WRSN-FM, Channel 230C, Burlington, North Carolina, the Notice proposes to change the community of license for Station WRSN-FM from Burlington to Cary, North Carolina. Capstar's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Capstar represents that if its request is granted, it will file an application to modify the facilities of Station WRSN-FM to specify operation on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1779A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1779A1.txt
  • CCR-Brawley IV, LLC (``Petitioner''), licensee of Station KSIQ(FM), Brawley, California, proposing the downgrade from Channel 241B to Channel 241B1 at Brawley, the reallotment of Channel 241B1 from Brawley to Campo, California, and the modification of Station KSIQ(FM)'s license accordingly. Petitioner states its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Campo. Petitioner filed its reallotment request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. When considering a reallotment proposal, a comparison is made between the existing allotment and the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment would result
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1859A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1859A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1859A1.txt
  • Channel 251A at Maysville, Oklahoma. Pyeatt filed a Request for Approval of Withdrawal requesting approval to withdraw her counterproposal. Discussion. A showing of continuing interest is required before a channel will be allotted to a community. It is the Commission's policy to refrain from making an allotment to a community absent a bona fide expression of interest. Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules, we will grant the Petitioner, Okie Broadcasting and Pyeatt request to withdrawal their respective expression of interest. As such, we are dismissing the Petition for Rule Making requesting Channel 251A at Maysville, Oklahoma, as its first local service. The counterproposal requesting the allotment of Channel 251A at Crowell, Oklahoma, as its first local service is also
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1985A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1985A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1985A1.txt
  • as its second local service and modify the Station WWWK license accordingly. Channel 288C2 can be reallotted to Islamorada, consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of Section 73.207(b) of the Commission's rules, provided there is a site restriction of 15.5 kilometers (9.6 miles) northeast at coordinates 25-01-23 NL and 80-30-06 WL. Petitioner filed its reallotment proposal pursuant to � 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. As required by Community of License, the proposed reallotment of Channel 288C2 at Islamorada is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1987A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1987A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1987A1.txt
  • Channel 292A at the proposed site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to licensee of Station KYQQ(FM), Arkansas City, Kansas, to show cause why its facilities should not be reclassified. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and note 2 of Section 1.420 (g) of the Commission's Rules, a petitioner may initiate the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM Table of Allotments. In those instances in which a triggering petition proposes an amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1999A1.txt
  • Station WUSJ(FM), Jackson, Mississippi proposing the reallotment of Channel 242C0 from Jackson to Madison, Mississippi as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station WUSJ (FM) to reflect the new community. Petitioner filed comments. No other comments or counterproposals were filed. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2005A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2005A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2005A1.txt
  • party expressing an interest in the allotment of Channel 245A at Maricopa, California, as its second local service. It is the Commission's policy to refrain from making an allotment to a community absent a bona fide expression of interest. Therefore, we will not consider the allotment of Channel 245A at Maricopa. GTM San Luis filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 245B1 at Lost Hills, California is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station KLRM(FM), Channel 246B1, San
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2006A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2006A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2006A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d)). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2009A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2009A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2009A1.txt
  • Petitioner also proposes the substitution of Channel 272A for vacant Channel 226A at Wheatland, MO, which requires the reclassification of Station KSRC(FM), Channel 271C, Kansas City, MO as a C0 facility. See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and Section 1.420(g), n. 2, and Section 73.3573, n. 4, of the Commission's Rules. 47 U.S.C. � 316(a). See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n.2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2017A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2017A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2017A1.txt
  • changes in the FM Table of Allotments, 47 C.F.R. � 73.202(b). In response to a petition filed by Farmworker Educational Radio Network, Inc. (``FERNI''), licensee of Station KRIT(FM), Channel 230C3, Parker, Arizona, the Notice proposes to change the channel of license for Station KRIT(FM) from Channel 230C3 to Channel 252B1. FERNI's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify another class of channel at the same community. FERNI represents that if its request is granted, it will file an application to modify the facilities of Station KRIT(FM) to specify operation on Channel 252B1 at Parker, Arizona. FERNI filed comments supporting the changes proposed in the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2018A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2018A1.txt
  • 100 kilowatts (``kW'') at 327 meters height above average terrain (``HAAT''), which is below the minimum Class C antenna height of 451 meters HAAT. As a result, FM Station KNUE is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the reclassification procedures adopted in the Commission's Second Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-93, Note 2 to Section 1.420(g), and Note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's rules. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 73.3573, Note 4, we issued an Order to Show Cause directed to Capstar Royalty II Corporation (``Capstar Royalty''), licensee of FM Station KNUE, Tyler, Texas, affording it 30 days to express in writing an intention to seek authority to upgrade its technical
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2019A1.txt
  • (``ERP'') of 100 kilowatts (``kW'') at 313 meters height above average terrain (``HAAT''), which is below the minimum Class C antenna height of 451 meters HAAT. As such, Station KSHE(FM) is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the reclassification procedures adopted in the Commission's Second Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-93, Note 2 to Section 1.420(g), and Note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's rules. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 73.3573, Note 4, we issued an Order to Show Cause directed to Emmis Radio License, LLC (``Emmis Radio''), licensee of Station KSHE(FM), Crestwood, Missouri, affording it 30 days to express in writing an intention to seek authority to upgrade its technical facilities
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2051A1.txt
  • Edenton, North Carolina. UNC filed comments and reply comments. A number of parties representing local municipalities filed comments supporting UNC's proposal. Hampton Roads Educational Telecommunications Association, Inc. (``Hampton Roads''), licensee of noncommercial television station WHRO-TV, Hampton-Norfolk, Virginia, filed comments opposing the UNC proposal, to which UNC filed supplemental comments. 2. UNC filed its petition pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. UNC claims that the adoption of its proposal is necessary so that WUND may be retransmitted by satellite to thousands of citizens residing in nine counties in northeastern
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2199A1.txt
  • is below the minimum Class C antenna height of greater than 450 meters HAAT with 100 kW ERP. The distance between the required site for requested Channel 251C3 at Altheimer and the license site of Station KURB(FM) is 88.6 kilometers, which is less than the required minimum distance separation of 96 kilometers. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 21,662, � 26. See In Re Reclassification of License of Station KURB(FM), Little Rock, Arkansas, FCC Rcd (MB 2004). Coordinates for Channel 251C3 at Altheimer are 34-09-00 NL and 91-56-00 WL. As indicated above, the minimum distance separation requirements are met based on the reclassification of Station KURB(FM) to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2201A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2202A1.txt
  • system, is located in Yulee. In addition, Yulee has a substantial number of businesses that identify themselves with Yulee, such as Yulee Appliance Service, Yulee Auto Parts, Yulee Car Wash, Yulee Villas, and Vision Center of Yulee. Based on the foregoing, we tentatively conclude that Yulee is a community for allotment proposes. Petitioner filed its reallotment request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 287A at Yulee is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station WJSJ(FM), Channel 287A, Fernandina Beach, Florida.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2205A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2206A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2207A1.txt
  • counterproposal and reply comments. South Central Communications Corporation (``South Central''), licensee of Station WJXB-FM, Knoxville, Tennessee, filed reply comments in response to the Gateway Radio counterproposal. The Joint Petitioners filed Reply Comments and Motion to Dismiss Counterproposal and Motion to Dismiss Reply Comments. Gateway Radio filed Request for Approval of Withdrawal. The Joint Petitioners filed a ``Certification Pursuant to Section 1.420(j).'' No other comments or counterproposals were received in this proceeding. Background. The Notice proposed the reallotment of Channel 249A from Oxford to Mason, Ohio, as its first local service and modification of the Station WOXY license accordingly. In addition, the Notice proposed the reallotment of Channel 249A from Georgetown, Ohio to Salt Lick, Kentucky, as its first local service and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2208A1.txt
  • allotment purposes. Community status may be proven by the testimony of local residents or by objective or subjective evidence indicating the existence of a community. Some examples of objective indications of community status include the existence of political, social, economic, commercial, cultural, public service, or religious organizations and services in the community. Petitioner filed its reallotment request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 265A at Tanque Verde is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of FM Station KZMK, Channel 265A, Sierra
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2209A1.txt
  • proposes to reallot Channel 231C3 from St. Augustine to Fruit Cove, Florida, and modify the license of Station WSOS-FM to reflect the change of community. Petitioner pledges to file an application to implement this reallotment and asserts that it would provide first local service to Fruit Cove. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i), which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2211A1.txt
  • to Channel 261A at Price, Utah, and the modification of Station KWSA(FM)'s license accordingly; and (c) the modification of the reference coordinates for vacant Channel 260A at Fountain Green, Utah. Simmons filed a supplement and reply comments. On May 20, 2005, Petitioner filed a request to withdraw its proposal. 2. Simmons submitted its counterproposal pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Simmons states that Woodruff is a rural community located in Rich County. Woodruff is listed in the 2000 U.S. Census with a population
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2215A1.txt
  • effective radiated power (``ERP'') of 100 kilowatts and less than the minimum Class C antenna height above average terrain (``HAAT'') of 451 meters HAAT. As a result, FM Station KCYY is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the reclassification procedures adopted in the Commission's Second Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-93, Note 2 to Section 1.420(g), and Note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's rules. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 73.3573, Note 4, we issued an Order to Show Cause directed to CXR Holdings, Inc. (``CXR''), licensee of FM Station KCYY, San Antonio, Texas, affording it 30 days to express in writing an intention to seek authority to upgrade its technical facilities
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2217A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2217A1.txt
  • rulemaking petition. 2. At the request of Petitioner, the Notice proposed that Channel 224A, Station WTDR be reallotted to Munford, Alabama, and that Station WTDR's license be modified to reflect the change of community. This reallotment of Channel 224A to Munford would provide Munford with its first local aural transmission service. Petitioner made the foregoing reallotment request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. This
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2219A1.txt
  • to file may lead to denial of the request. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2300A1.txt
  • of Lafayette License Corp.; and (4) a Withdrawal of Expression of Interest and Request for Dismissal of Rule Making, filed by Liberman Broadcasting of Houston License Corp. (``Liberman''), successor in interest to KXTJ. The NPRM proposed the reallotment and change of community of license for Station KQQK (FM) (formerly KXTJ(FM)), Channel 300C, from Beaumont to Dayton, Texas, pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. After the pleading cycle ended, Liberman acquired Station KQQK(FM) Liberman withdraws the rulemaking petition submitted by its predecessor in interest, KXTJ, seeking reallotment of Station KQQK(FM) from Beaumont to Dayton and the expression of interest in applying for the Dayton allotment. Liberman requests that the Commission dismiss the underlying petition for rulemaking and terminate the proceeding.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2301A1.txt
  • Channel 291C3 at the proposed site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to the licensee of Station KOVE-FM, Galveston, Texas, to show cause why its facilities should not be reclassified. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and note 2 of Section 1.420 (g) of the Commission's rules, a petitioner may initiate the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM Table of Allotments. In those instances in which a triggering petition proposes an amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2303A1.txt
  • Census population 11,315 persons) with its first local service Favorable action on both of these proposals would have resulted in the removal of local radio service from Charlotte. Our actions in MB Docket No. 05-35, and in this docket will ensure the continuation of local service at Charlotte. 3. Petitioner made the reallotment request in this docket pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In this instance, the reallotment will allow the establishment of a first local transmission service by Petitioner at Grand Ledge, Michigan (2000 U.S. Census population of 7,813 persons).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2339A1.txt
  • New Mexico, and to have its station license modified to specify Church Rock as its community of license. This change in community of license will provide the first local aural transmission service to Church Rock, New Mexico. If the petition before us is granted, Petitioner will file an application to effectuate its proposal. 2. Petitioner invokes the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed use of Channel 279C at Church Rock, New Mexico, is mutually exclusive with Station KYVA-FM's existing authorization at Grants, New Mexico. 3. Petitioner asserts that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2368A1.txt
  • Muddy's Petition for Reconsideration, the Report and Order in this case would now be final. Therefore, they claim, this is a universal settlement since there are no issues left unresolved and no remaining proposals which are mutually exclusive. Consistent with the Public Noticeannouncing a 90-day settlement window for certain pending FM allotment proceedings, we will waive the provisions of Section 1.420(j) and grant Muddy and Madras' Request for Approval of Settlement and Muddy's Request for Approval of Withdrawal by dismissing the Petition for Reconsideration. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED That the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Muddy Broadcasting Company IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Victoria M. McCauley, Audio Division,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2495A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2495A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2495A1.txt
  • Inc. (``BEA'') has filed a petition for rule making to allot Channel 229C3 at Wickenburg, Arizona, as that community's fifth local service. BEA's petition is mutually exclusive with Petitioner's proposal to substitute Channel 229C3 for vacant Channel 297C3 at Aquila, Arizona. Therefore, we will consider BEA's proposal in the context of this proceeding. 2. Petitioner invokes the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed new communities of license for Stations KVVA-FM, KDVA, and KLNZ are mutually exclusive with those stations' existing authorizations, as required by Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2497A1.txt
  • Capstar TX Limited Partnership, licensee of Station WUSW(FM), Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and Clear Channel Radio Licenses, Inc., licensee of Station KSTE-FM (now Station KHEV(FM)), Channel 281C, Houma, Louisiana. Both licensees were wholly owned subsidiaries of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. At the time Comments were filed, the licensee of both stations was Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (``Clear Channel''). Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules, Clear Channel provided a declaration under penalty of perjury stating that neither Clear Channel nor any of its principals has received or will receive any consideration in connection with the withdrawal of its Petition for Rule Making in this proceeding. Since Guaranty's Petition for Rule Making has not been dismissed, we shall set forth Guaranty's request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2499A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2499A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2499A1.txt
  • (``Crawford'') on August 11, 2005. Previously, Crawford had filed an application for review of our return of his petition for allotment of Channel 256A at Harper, Texas. Crawford now states his intention to withdraw the pending application for review. Crawford further states that no consideration has been paid or promised, directly or indirectly, for such withdrawal. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). 2. It is the Commission's policy to refrain from making an allotment to a community absent an adequate expression of interest. By filing his ``Withdrawal of Application for Review,'' Crawford has demonstrated that he has no continuing interest in the requested allotment. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the application for review and the petition for rule making filed by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2500A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2500A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2500A1.txt
  • serves the residents of Mattawan. Petitioner states that the proposed Mattawan reallotment for Station WZUU could provide primary service to a population of 259,371 persons. Petitioner asserts that the entire loss area, consisting of 72,333 persons is considered well-served because it would continue to receive service from at least seven aural services. Petitioner filed its reallotment request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Petitioner states that the proposed reallotment of Channel 223A at Mattawan, Michigan is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of FM Station WZUU,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2504A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2504A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2504A1.txt
  • Mayfield, Kentucky, that Channel 271C3 be upgraded to Channel 271C2, and that Station WLLE's license be modified accordingly. Since this proposal would remove the sole local aural transmission service from Clinton, the Notice proposed the reallotment of Channel 234C2 from Mayfield to Clinton, Kentucky and the modification of Station WQQR's license accordingly. Petitioner made the foregoing requests pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. This
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2516A1.txt
  • effective radiated power (``ERP'') of 100 kilowatts and less than the minimum Class C antenna height above average terrain (``HAAT'') of 451 meters HAAT. As a result, FM Station WOGK is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the reclassification procedures adopted in the Commission's Second Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-93, Note 2 to Section 1.420(g), and Note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's rules. 3. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 73.3573, Note 4, we issued an Order to Show Cause directed to Ocala Broadcasting, L.L.C. (``Ocala Broadcasting''), licensee of FM Station WOGK, Ocala, Florida, affording it 30 days to express in writing an intention to seek authority to upgrade its technical
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2517A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2635A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2635A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2635A1.txt
  • filed Comments in which it reiterates its intent to effectuate its proposal. No other comments or counterproposals have been filed. For the reasons stated below, we grant Petitioner's request to reallot Channel 262C1 from Thief River Falls, Minnesota to Fisher, Minnesota, and to modify the Station KSNR license. 2. Petitioner made the reallotment request in this docket pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In this instance, the reallotment will allow the establishment of a first local transmission service by Petitioner at Fisher, Minnesota (2000 U.S. Census population of 435 persons). Petitioner
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2636A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2636A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2636A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2659A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2659A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2659A1.txt
  • Station KSKU(FM), Channel 246C2, Hutchinson, Kansas, proposing the reallotment of Channel 246C2 to Haven, Kansas, and the modification of Station KSKU(FM)'s license accordingly. Petitioner filed comments and a supplement in support of the proposal, reaffirming its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Haven. No other pleadings were received. 2. Petitioner filed its reallotment request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Because Station KSKU(FM)'s proposed 70 dBu contour covers 86.1 percent of the Wichita, Kansas Urbanized Area, Petitioner has provided the required Tuck analysis. In support of its proposal,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2692A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2692A1.txt
  • FM Station KLVF, Las Vegas, New Mexico, be reallotted to Pecos, New Mexico, and that FM Station KLVF license be modified to reflect the change of community. This reallotment of Channel 264C3 to Pecos (2000 U.S. Census population of 1,441 persons) would provide Pecos with its third local aural transmission service. Petitioner made the foregoing reallotment request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. This
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2693A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2693A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2693A1.txt
  • RULE MAKING Adopted: October 12, 2005 Released: October 14, 2005 Comment Date: December 5, 2005 Reply Date: December 20, 2005 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by Woman's World Broadcasting, Inc. (``WWB''), licensee of Station WTSH-FM, Channel 296C2, Rockmart, Georgia. Pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, WWB proposes to change the community of license for Station WTSH-FM from Rockmart to Aragon, Georgia, providing a first local service to Aragon. WWB further proposes to upgrade the channel to Channel 296C1, and to modify the license of WTSH-FM to operate on Channel 296C1 at Aragon. WWB represents that the proposed allotment of Channel 296C1
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2694A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2694A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2694A1.txt
  • Appeals for the District of Columbia recently issued its opinion in that appeal. 2. Based on the court's holding in Crawford v. F.C.C., Crawford now states his intention to withdraw his petition for allotment of Channel 243A at Evant. Crawford further states that no consideration has been paid or promised, directly or indirectly, for such withdrawal. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). 3. It is the Commission's policy to refrain from making an allotment to a community absent an adequate expression of interest. By filing his ``Withdrawal of Petition,'' Crawford has demonstrated that he has no continuing interest in the requested allotment. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the petition for rule making filed by Charles Crawford, proposing the allotment of Channel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2696A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2696A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2696A1.txt
  • been released and the comment date fell on or before June 14, 2005. Therefore, they claim, this is a universal settlement because there are no issues left unresolved and no remaining proposals that are mutually exclusive. 3. Consistent with the Public Notice announcing a 90-day settlement window for certain pending FM allotment proceedings, we will waive the provisions of Section 1.420(j) and grant the Joint Parties' Request for Approval of Universal Settlement. 4. We further find that the proposed upgrade, reallotment, and change of community of license for Station WCTU(FM) from Channel 290A at Tazewell, Tennessee, to Channel 290C2 at Weaverville, North Carolina, meet the requirements of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules and our policies on change of community of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2705A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2705A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2705A1.txt
  • so we need not issue such an order in response to the proposal for Iowa, Louisiana. See Reclassification of License of Station KOVE-FM, Galveston, Texas, RM-11084, DA 05-2301 (August 19, 2005). See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and Section 1.420(g), n. 2, and Section 73.3573, n. 4, of the Commission's Rules. See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n. 2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2716A1.txt
  • Proposed Rulemaking proposing changes in the FM Table of Allotments, 47 C.F.R. � 73.202(b). In response to a petition filed by Vernal Enterprises, Inc. (``Vernal''), licensee of Station WHPA(FM), Channel 228A, Barnsboro, Pennsylvania, the Notice proposes to change the community of license for Station WHPA(FM) from Barnsboro to Gallitzin, Pennsylvania. Vernal's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Vernal represents that if its request is granted, it will file an application to modify the facilities of Station WHPA(FM) to specify operation on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2717A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2717A1.txt
  • RULE MAKING Adopted: October 12, 2005 Released: October 17, 2005 Comment Date: December 8, 2005 Reply Date: December 23, 2005 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by Radio and Investments, Inc. (``R&I''), licensee of Station KDDK(FM), Channel 288A, Franklin, Louisiana. Pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, R&I proposes to change the community of license for Station KDDK(FM) from Franklin to Addis, Louisiana, providing a first local service to Addis. R&I represents that the proposed allotment of Channel 288A at Addis is mutually exclusive with the current allotment of Channel 288A at Franklin. In order to accommodate the proposed allotment, R&I further requests
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2718A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2718A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2718A1.txt
  • have its station license modified accordingly. This change in community of license will provide the first local aural transmission service to Keswick, Virginia. If the petition before us is granted, Petitioner will file an application to effectuate its change of community proposal and will also file an application for Channel 292A at Marlinton. 2. Petitioner invokes the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed use of Channel 291A at Keswick is mutually exclusive with Station WBOP's existing authorization at Churchville, Virginia. Assignment Policies and Procedures would be served because Petitioner
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-27A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-27A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-27A1.txt
  • effectuate the foregoing accommodating changes to its station if Petitioner's rulemaking proposal is granted. Petitioner states that if the Commission grants its petition for rule making, Petitioner will file applications for construction permits to effectuate its proposal and if such applications are granted, Petitioner will construct the facilities authorized pursuant to those applications. 2. Petitioner invokes the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed use of Channel 272C3 at Grand Isle, Vermont, is mutually exclusive with Station WLFE-FM's existing authorization at St. Albans, Vermont. 3. Petitioner asserts that the adoption
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-289A1.txt
  • Charlotte to Holt, Michigan (File No. BMJP-20040123AJX). Favorable action on both of these proposals would result in the removal of local radio service from Charlotte. The instant proposal will ensure the continuation of local service at Charlotte. If the petition before us is granted, Petitioner will file an application to effectuate its proposal. 2. Petitioner invokes the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed use of Channel 291B at Charlotte, Michigan, is mutually exclusive with Station WJXQ's existing authorization at Jackson, Michigan. 3. Petitioner asserts that the allotment of Channel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-28A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-28A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-28A1.txt
  • Channel 295B from Hagerstown to Myersville, Maryland, as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station WARX(FM) to reflect the new community. Petitioner pledges to file an application for the channel and to construct the facilities if the application is granted. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2901A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2901A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2901A1.txt
  • of Parties filed by NM Licensing, LLC (``NML''). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition for Reconsideration. BACKGROUND At the request of Wilks, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding proposed the reallotment and change of community of license for Station WCEN-FM, Channel 233C1, from Mount Pleasant to Hemlock, Michigan, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. The NPRM also acknowledged the existence of ``grandfathered'' short-spacings between WCEN-FM and several other stations but set forth Wilks' argument that the grandfathered short-spacings should survive the requested change of community because no transmitter site or other technical changes are proposed. Comments in response to the NPRM were filed by MacDonald, licensee of Stations WSAM-AM and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2906A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2906A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2906A1.txt
  • of an unconstructed permit for Channel 223A, Old Forge, New York. Petitioner proposes to reallot Channel 223A from Old Forge to Black River, New York, and to modify the construction permit authorization to specify the new community. Petitioner pledges to file an application to implement this reallotment. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i), which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-290A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2911A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2911A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2911A1.txt
  • because this proposed rule is dismissed herein.) 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 5. For further information concerning the above, contact R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Lake Charles, Louisiana, and Sour Lake, Texas, 20 FCC Rcd 5243 (MB 2002). Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules, Cumulus provided a declaration under penalty of perjury stating that there are no agreements relating to the withdrawal of its Petition for Rule Making in this proceeding and that neither Cumulus nor any of its principals has received or will receive any consideration in exchange for the withdrawal of its Petition for Rule Making in this
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2913A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2913A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2913A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2914A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2914A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2914A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2915A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2915A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2915A1.txt
  • be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (``Clear Channel'') licensee of Station WUSW, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, to show cause why its facilities should not be reclassified. 3. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and note 2 of Section 1.420 (g) of the Commission's Rules, a petitioner may initiate the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM Table of Allotments. In those instances in which a triggering petition proposes an amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2916A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2916A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2916A1.txt
  • With respect to the instant proceeding, Czelada proposed the allotment of Channel 297C3 at Ubly, Michigan, rather than the allotment of Channel 297A at Deckerville, as proposed in the Notice. Czelada did not, however, state that he would apply for Channel 297C3 at Ubly. His filing thus does not constitute a valid counterproposal in this proceeding. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). The termination of this proceeding will have no effect on consideration of the remaining components of the counterproposal in other proceedings. See Bad Axe, Michigan, 18 FCC Rcd 2396 (MB 2003) (order terminating MM Docket No. 01-257). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2916 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2916 � � ? ] � `` � � � � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-291A1.txt
  • power (``ERP'') of 100 kilowatts (``kW'') at 325 meters height above average terrain (``HAAT''), which is below the minimum Class C antenna height of 451 meters HAAT. Therefore, Station KYKS is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the reclassification procedures adopted in the Commission's Second Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-93, Note 2 to Section 1.420(g), and Note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's rules. To this end, we issued an Order to Show Cause directed to Capstar TX Limited Partnership (``Capstar TX''), licensee of Station KYKS, Lufkin, Texas, affording it 30 days to express in writing an intention to seek authority to upgrade its technical facilities to preserve Class C status, or to otherwise
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2932A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2932A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2932A1.txt
  • There are no errors of fact or law in this instance. As such, we find no reason to set aside the Report and Order in this proceeding. SSR Communications filed reply comments in a separate proceeding in MB Docket No. 05-106, stating its belief that a Channel 295A allotment at Plains would better serve the public interest. However, pursuant to 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules, SSR Communications did not file any documentation withdrawing its expression of interest in the Americus allotment in this proceeding. Furthermore, the SSR Communications reply comments in MB Docket No. 05-106 were filed nearly seven months after the October 18, 2004, comment deadline in this proceeding. In view of the above and the fact that a Channel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2934A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2934A1.txt
  • (MM 2001) (``Notice''). Czelada's counterproposal was filed in numerous, purportedly interrelated dockets (i.e., MM Docket Nos. 01-220, 01-230, 01-231, 01-232, and 01-257). With respect to the instant proceeding, however, Czelada did not propose an allotment in conflict with the allotment proposal of the Notice; thus, his filing does not constitute a valid counterproposal in this proceeding. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). The termination of this proceeding will have no effect on consideration of the remaining components of the counterproposal in other proceedings. See Bad Axe, Michigan, 18 FCC Rcd 2396 (MB 2003) (order terminating MM Docket No. 01-257). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2934 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2934 � � : X � - � � � � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-293A1.txt
  • proposing the reallotment of Channel 300C from Laughlin to Meadview, Arizona, as the community's first local service, and the modification of the license for Station KVGS(FM) to reflect the new community of license. Petitioner filed comments and reply comments. Hodson Broadcasting (``Hodson'') filed comments in opposition. At the time the petition was filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, Petitioner stated that its proposal was in the public interest because it would provide the community of Meadview with its first local service without depriving Laughlin of its only local service. However, the other remaining station licensed to Laughlin, Station KLSQ(AM), was granted a change of community of license from Meadview to Whitney, Nevada on January
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2941A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2941A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2941A1.txt
  • be capable of being effectuated when it is filed. We note that, although, SSR Communications filed reply comments in this proceeding stating that it prefers the proposed allotment of Channel 295A at Plains over Channel 295A at Americus, the entity never filed documentation withdrawing its expression of interest in the allotment of Channel 295A at Americus, Georgia pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules. As such, we concluded that SSR Communication's expression of interest in the proposed Plains allotment is without merit because of the existence of the valid expression of interest filed for the Americus, Georgia allotment in MB Docket No. 04-328 We further find that the public interest would be served by allotting Channel 290A at Milner, Georgia,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2942A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2942A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2942A1.txt
  • City to Bass River Township, New Jersey, and to modify Station WKOE's license accordingly. Petitioner filed comments amd reply comments in which it reiterates its intent to effectuate its proposal. No other comments or counterproposals have been filed. For the reasons stated below, we grant Petitioner's rulemaking requests. 2. Petitioner made the reallotment request in this docket pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In this instance, the reallotment will allow the establishment of a first local transmission service by Petitioner at Bass River Township, New Jersey (2000 U.S. Census population of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2943A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2943A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2943A1.txt
  • changes. Petitioner pledges to file an application to implement the channel upgrade and reallotment at Valley Falls. In addition, Petitioner proposes to allot Channel 256A at Pawnee City, Nebraska and states its intention to file an application to construct the station if the channel is allotted. 2. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i), which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2944A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2944A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2944A1.txt
  • with the Public Notice, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this docket has been released and the comment date fell on or before June 14, 2005. The reallotment of Channel 273B1 to Baltimore (2000 U.S. Census population of 2,881 persons) would provide Baltimore with its first local aural transmission service. Southeastern made the foregoing reallotment request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. This
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2949A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2949A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2949A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-294A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-294A1.txt
  • conflict. To this end, the proposals will be evaluated under priority (4), other public interest matters. However, before making this comparison, we must determine if the reallotment proposal by itself results in a preferential arrangement of allotments based on the FM Allotment priorities by comparing Station KJJJ(FM)'s existing allotment against the proposed reallotment. Greeley filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The reallotment of Channel 272C at Pahrump is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station KJJJ(FM), Channel 272B, Lake Havasu City, Arizona.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2952A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2952A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2952A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-295A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-295A1.txt
  • (File No. BNPH-20050103AFD). In the Petition for Rule Making, you propose to reallot Channel 233C1 from Caliente to Moapa, Nevada, in order that once authorized, the station be licensed at Moapa. You filed this Petition for Rule Making pursuant to the Commission action in Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License which adopted Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. Section 1.420(i) of the rules provides for the modification of a station license or construction permit to specify a new community of license without entertaining competing expressions of interest for the station at the new community of license. Aurora Media, LLC is not a licensee or permittee and, at this time, would be ineligible to seek
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2965A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2965A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2965A1.txt
  • reallotment, Petitioner also proposed (a) the substitution of Channel 263A for vacant Channel 274A at Glade Spring, Virginia; and (b) the substitution of Channel 273A for Channel 263A at Marion, Virginia, and the modification of Station WOLD-FM's license accordingly. Petitioner states its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Weber City. 2. Petitioner invokes the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. This
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-296A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-296A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-297A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-298A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-299A1.txt
  • proposal reaffirming its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Burbank. No other comments were received in this proceeding. In the interest of time and resources, we will consolidate the two requests, granting the reallotment and change of community proposal and dismissing the upgrade requested at Walla Walla as moot. 2. The proposal is filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License. In support of its proposal, petitioner states that the reallotment of Channel 256C1 to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-29A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-29A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-29A1.txt
  • 231A from Morro Bay to Oceano, California, as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station KLMM(FM) to reflect the new community. Petitioner pledges to file an application for the channel and to construct the facilities if the application is granted. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3010A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3010A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3010A1.txt
  • from Arnold to City of Angels, California, and to have its station license modified accordingly. This change in community of license will provide the first local aural transmission service to City of Angels, California. If the petition before us is granted, Petitioner will file an application to effectuate its change of community proposal. 2. Petitioner invokes the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed use of Channel 240A at City of Angels is mutually exclusive with Station KBYN's existing authorization at Arnold, California. Assignment Policies and Procedures would be served
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3011A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3011A1.txt
  • at Rolla, Missouri, are 37-57-50 and 91-45-54. This agreement, along with separate agreements between Four Him and Jeraldine Anderson and Ozark Broadcasting were timely filed pursuant to the Public Notice, Window Announced for Universal Settlements of Pending Rulemaking Proceedings to Amend FM Table of Allotments, 20 FCC Rcd 10801 (MB 2005), which waived the reimbursement limitation set forth in Section 1.420(j) of the rules. The reference coordinates for the Channel 281A allotment at Eminence, Missouri, are 37-14-30 and 91-26-00. The reference coordinates for the Channel 248A allotment at Linn, Missouri, are 38-29-06 and 91-51-06. The reference coordinates for the Channel 279C0 allotment at Lebanon, Missouri, are 37-41-06 and 92-41-40. Letter from John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, to A. Wray
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3027A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3027A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3027A1.txt
  • and must be dismissed. It also claims that it is Commission policy not to accept any rule making proposal that is contingent on the outcome of another rulemaking proceeding, unless a final Order has been issued in that proceeding. Additionally, Rodgers Broadcasting states that both proposals violate the spacing requirements of Sections 73.207 of the Commission's rules and violate Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's rules because the proposals seek a change in community of license on a non-mutually exclusive channel. Rodgers Broadcasting also objects to Indiana Community's attempt to reserve nonreserved channels without the required technical showings. Amended Proposal. The Joint Parties filed an Amended Proposal requesting the substitution of Channel 294C3 for Channel 294A at Belle Meade, Tennessee, reallotment of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3059A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3059A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3059A1.txt
  • station on Channel 244A at Lake City. In response to the NPRM, JBD, licensee of Station WXJB(FM), Harrogate, Tennessee, timely filed a counterproposal to substitute Channel 244A for Channel 243A at Harrogate, to reallot Channel 244A to Halls Crossroads, Tennessee, and to modify the license for Station WXJB(FM) to specify operation on Channel 244A pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. JBD contends that its counterproposal meets the requirements for a station to change its community of license because (1) the proposed use of Channel 244A at Halls Crossroads is mutually exclusive with the current use of Channel 243A at Harrogate; (2) Harrogate (pop. 2,865) will not be deprived of its only local service as Stations WLMU(FM),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-308A1.txt
  • 6. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Sharon P. McDonald, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Lost Cabin and Arapahoe, Wyoming, 16 FCC Rcd 7809 (MM 2001). On October 9, 2001, Station KWYW(FM) was granted a license to cover its construction permit. See File No. BLH-20010730AAA. Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, petitioner states that it did not receive consideration for the dismissal of its petition for rule making. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 05-308 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-308 � � tm � � � � � @& 0 $j� $j� �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-309A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d)). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-30A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-30A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-30A1.txt
  • At the request of MainQuad, licensee of Station WSMY-FM, Channel 276A, Alberta, Virginia, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposed the substitution of Channel 276C3 for Channel 276A at Alberta, reallotment of Channel 276C3 from Alberta to Whitakers, North Carolina, and modification of the Station WSMY-FM license specify operation on Channel 276C3 at Whitakers. This proposal was pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Under Community of License a reallotment proposal must result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3101A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3101A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3101A1.txt
  • this proceeding, we will allot Channel 235A to Newark, Maryland and Channel 233A to Chincoteague, Virginia. 2. Petitioner's request to reallot Channel 232B1 from St. Michaels (2000 U.S. Census of 1,193 persons) to Cambridge (2000 U.S. Census population of 10,911 persons) would provide Cambridge with its third local aural transmission service. Petitioner made the foregoing reallotment request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. This
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-310A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-31A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-31A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-31A1.txt
  • the modification of the license for Station WYAB(FM) to reflect the changes. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for the channel and to construct the facilities if the application is granted. No counterproposals or additional comments were received in response to this proceeding. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3208A1.txt
  • provide all material information necessary to insure that factual statements made to the Commission are not incorrect or misleading. 3. We are substituting Channel 239A for Channel 239C3 at Greenville, Georgia, reallotting Channel 239A to Waverly Hall, Georgia, and modifying the Station WKZJ license to specify operation on Channel 239A at Waverly Hall. This action is taken pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3210A1.txt
  • counterproposal was filed by M.C. Vargas (``Vargas'') proposing to allot Channel 265A at Three Rivers, Texas but Vargas subsequently filed a ``Withdrawal of Counterproposal.'' 2. We dismiss Vargas's counterproposal pursuant to his withdrawal request. It is the Commission's policy to refrain from making an allotment to a community absent an adequate expression of interest. Vargas's withdrawal request complies with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules. 3. We grant Petitioner's request to substitute Channel 265C3 for Channel 265A at Victoria. We believe that the channel upgrade will serve the public interest because it will enable Station KEPG, to expand its coverage area of Victoria, Texas. Channel 265C3 can be allotted to Victoria, Texas in compliance with the minimum distance separation requirements of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3213A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d)). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3214A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3214A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3214A1.txt
  • 16 FCC Rcd 16,341 (MM 2001). See Bad Axe, Michigan, 18 FCC Rcd 2396 (MB 2003) (order terminating MM Docket No. 01-257); Deckerville, Michigan, DA 05-2916 (MB 2005) (rel. Nov. 4, 2005) (order terminating MM Docket No. 01-230); and Port Sanilac, Michigan, DA 05-2934 (MB 2005) (rel. Nov. 7, 2005) (order terminating MM Docket No. 01-232). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-3214 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-3214 hk* hk* / 0 E I M k | } ` � � � � � gd/ h/ h/ h/ h/ h/ h/ q x � � �' k* W � / 1 �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3215A1.txt
  • Fruit Cove, Florida, and modify the license of Station WSOS-FM to reflect the change of community. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for a construction permit to effectuate the change of community if Channel 231C3 is allotted. No other comments were filed. 2. Petitioner filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-34A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-34A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-34A1.txt
  • to Lanesville, Indiana as the community's first local service, and to modify the license for Station WGZB-FM accordingly. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for construction permit to effectuate the change of community if the channel is reallotted. No other comments were filed. Petitioner filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-359A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-359A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-359A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-36A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-36A1.txt
  • 73.202(b). In response to a petition filed by Wright Broadcasting Systems, Inc. (``Wright''), licensee of Station KWEY-FM, Channel 247C1, Weatherford, Oklahoma, the Notice proposes to change the community of license for KWEY-FM from Weatherford to Blanchard, Oklahoma, and to change the corresponding channel allotment from Channel 247C1 to Channel 247A. Wright's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Wright represents that if its request is granted, it will file an application to modify the facilities of KWEY-FM to specify operation on Channel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-413A1.txt
  • at the proposed site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to Waller Media, LLC, licensee of Station KYKX, Longview, Texas, to show cause why its facilities should not be reclassified. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and note 2 of Section 1.420 (g) of the Commission's Rules, a petitioner may initiate the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM Table of Allotments. In those instances in which a triggering petition proposes an amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-416A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-417A1.txt
  • Channel 235A at the proposed site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to the licensee of Station WAEZ(FM), Greenville, Tennessee, to show cause why its facilities should not be reclassified. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and note 2 of Section 1.420 (g) of the Commission's rules, a petitioner may initiate the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM Table of Allotments. In those instances in which a triggering petition proposes an amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-44A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-44A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-44A1.txt
  • Mount Union to Centre Hall, Pennsylvania, and to change the FM Table of Allotments accordingly. In order to facilitate those changes, the Notice further proposes to change the community of license for WWLY(FM) from Huntingdon to Mount Union, Pennsylvania, and to make corresponding changes in the FM Table of Allotments. Megahertz's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Megahertz represents that if its requests are granted, it will file applications for the new facilities and will implement those applications expeditiously. Megahertz filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-551A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-551A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-551A1.txt
  • (b) the reallotment of Channel 238B from Indianapolis to Fishers, Indiana, and the modification of Station WFMS(FM)'s license accordingly; and (c) the substitution of Channel 229A for Channel 230A at Clinton, Indiana, and the modification of Station WPFR-FM's license accordingly. Petitioners state their intention to apply for the respective channels, if reallotted. 2. The proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Petitioners state that Lawrence is located in Marion County and has a 2000 U.S. Census population of 38,915 persons. Lawrence has an elected
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-561A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-561A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-561A1.txt
  • Tom Bean, Texas as that community's first local service, and to modify the license for Station KLAK(FM) accordingly. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for construction permit to effectuate the change of community if the channel is reallotted. No other comments were filed. Petitioner filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-573A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-573A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-573A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-574A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-575A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-575A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-575A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-576A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-577A1.txt
  • its second local service, and modification of the Station KLRM(FM) license accordingly. The second proposal, filed by 105 Mountain Air, Inc. (``Mountain Air'') requests the allotment of Channel 245A at Maricopa, California, as its second local service. Both petitioners stated their intentions to apply for the requested channels, if allotted. 2. GTM San Luis filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 245B1 at Lost Hills, California is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station KLRM(FM), Channel 246B1, San
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-578A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-578A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-579A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-579A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-579A1.txt
  • to substitute Channel 257C3 for Channel 257A at Booneville, reallot Channel 257C3 to Guntown, Mississippi, and modify the license of Station WBIP-FM to reflect those changes. Petitioner pledges to file an application to implement this reallotment and asserts that it would provide first local service to Guntown. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i), which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-580A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-580A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-581A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-581A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-581A1.txt
  • proposed site would be eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to Renda Broadcasting Corporation of Nevada, licensee of Station KHTT, Muskogee, Oklahoma, to show cause why its facilities should not be reclassified. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and note 2 of Section 1.420 (g) of the Commission's Rules, a petitioner may initiate the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM Table of Allotments. In those instances in which a triggering petition proposes an amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-649A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-649A1.txt
  • PROPOSED RULE MAKING Adopted: March 16, 2005 Released: March 18, 2005 Comment Date: May 9, 2005 Reply Date: May 24, 2005 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by Vernal Enterprises, Inc. (``Vernal''), licensee of Station WHPA(FM), Channel 228A, Barnsboro, Pennsylvania. Pursuant to Sections 1.420(g) and (i) of the Commission's rules, Vernal proposes to change the community of license for Station WHPA(FM) from Barnsboro to Gallitzin, Pennsylvania. Vernal represents that the proposed allotment of Channel 228A at Gallitzin is mutually exclusive with the current allotment of Channel 228A at Barnsboro. Vernal states that the proposal would not remove the sole local service from Barnsboro, which
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-650A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-650A1.txt
  • Charles, Louisiana, to Sour Lake, Texas, and modification of its Station KYKZ license to specify Sour Lake, Texas, as the community of license. This reallotment will provide the first local aural transmission service to Sour Lake, Texas. If the petition before us is granted, Petitioner will file an application to effectuate its proposal. 2. Petitioner invokes the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed use of Channel 241C1 at Sour Lake, Texas, is mutually exclusive with Station KYKZ's existing authorization at Lake Charles, Louisiana. 3. Petitioner asserts that the allotment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-651A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-651A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-651A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-652A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-652A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-653A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-654A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-654A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-662A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-662A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-662A1.txt
  • second petition was filed by Charles Crawford (``Crawford'') proposing the allotment of Channel 254A at Cave City, Arkansas, as the community's first local commercial FM transmission service. To accommodate the allotment, Crawford also proposes the reclassification of Station KURB(FM) at Little Rock, Arkansas from 253C to 253C0 (RM-10838). 2. The proposed reallotments were filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Joint Petitioners state that Black Rock is incorporated with a 2000 U.S. Census population of 717 persons. Black Rock has its own locally
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-686A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-686A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-686A1.txt
  • reimburse the affected licensees of Stations KSMT-FM, KTRR-FM, KTUN, and KARS-FM for their respective reasonable costs in modifying their facilities as necessary to permit the reallotment of Channel 272A at Greenwood Village, Colorado and the reallotment of Channel 268C at Strasburg, Colorado. We modify the Station KAGM license to specify Greenwood Village as the community of license pursuant to � 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 272A at Greenwood Village is mutually exclusive with the licensed site of Station KAGM(FM), Channel 272A, Strasburg, Colorado. When
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-704A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-704A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-704A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-705A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-705A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-705A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-706A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-706A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-706A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-707A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-707A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-707A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-708A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-708A1.txt
  • PROPOSED RULE MAKING Adopted: March 16, 2005 Released: March 18, 2005 Comment Date: May 9, 2005 Reply Date: May 24, 2005 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by Beanpot Broadcasting Corp. (``Beanpot''), licensee of Station WXRV(FM), Channel 223B, Haverhill, Massachusetts. Pursuant to Sections 1.420(g) and (i) of the Commission's rules, Beanpot proposes to change the community of license for Station WXRV(FM) from Haverhill to Andover, Massachusetts. Beanpot represents that the proposed allotment of Channel 223B at Andover is mutually exclusive with the current allotment of Channel 223B at Haverhill. Beanpot states that the proposal would not remove the sole local service from Haverhill, which
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-709A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-709A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-709A1.txt
  • the reallotment, downgrade, and modification of its license for Station WVBZ(FM) from Channel 262C at High Point, North Carolina, to Channel 262C0 at Liberty, North Carolina. The Petitioner states its intention to apply for the allotment and to construct the facilities if the application is granted. The Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In reviewing a proposal under Section 1.420(i), the Commission compares the existing and proposed arrangement of allotments to determine whether the reallotment would
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-710A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-710A1.txt
  • licensee of FM Station KSNR, Channel 262C1, Thief River Falls, Minnesota. Petitioner proposes the reallotment of Channel 262C1 from Thief River Falls to Fisher, Minnesota, and modification of its Station KSNR license to specify Fisher, Minnesota, as the community of license. This reallotment will provide the first local aural transmission service to Fisher. 2. Petitioner invokes the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed use of Channel 262C1 at Fisher, Minnesota, is mutually exclusive with Station KSNR's existing authorization at Thief River Falls, Minnesota. 3. Petitioner asserts that the allotment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-711A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-711A1.txt
  • 269C1 from Ely to Spring Creek, Nevada, as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station KCLS(FM) to reflect the new community. Petitioner pledges to file an application for the channel and to construct the facilities if the application is granted. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-712A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-712A1.txt
  • Resort-KOA and Sugarloaf Marina. Based on the foregoing, we tentatively conclude that Sugarloaf Key is a community for allotment proposes. To accommodate the proposed Sugarloaf Key allotment, Petitioner also requests the reallotment of Channel 288C2 from Marathon to Islamorada, as its second local service and modification of the Station WWWK(FM) license accordingly. Petitioner filed its reallotment request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 288C2 at Islamorada is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station WWWK(FM), Channel 288C2, Marathon, Florida. When
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-713A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-713A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-713A1.txt
  • Adopted: March 16, 2005 Released: March 18, 2005 Comment Date: May 9, 2005 Reply Date: May 24, 2005 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), licensee of Station WZKF(FM), Channel 255B, Salem, Indiana. Pursuant to Sections 1.420(g) and (i) of the Commission's rules, Clear Channel proposes to change the community of license for Station WZKF(FM) from Salem, Indiana, to Prospect, Kentucky, and to allot Channel 255B at Prospect as that community's first local service. Clear Channel represents that the proposed allotment of Channel 255B at Prospect is mutually exclusive with the current allotment of Channel 255B at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-714A1.txt
  • community of license. Each petitioner states that it will file an application for construction permit to effectuate the change of community if granted. We believe that each proposal warrants consideration because it complies with our technical requirements and would serve the public interest. 2. Each of the petitioners filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In each case, the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-715A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-716A1.txt
  • Bureau: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by Pulaski Broadcasting, Inc. (``Pulaski''), licensee of Station WKSR-FM, Channel 252C3, Killen, Alabama. In a recent Report and Order, we granted Pulaski's request for an upgrade to Channel 252C3 and a change of its community of license from Pulaski, Tennessee. Now, pursuant to Sections 1.420(g) and (i) of the Commission's rules, Pulaski proposes to change the community of license for Station WKSR-FM from Killen, Alabama, to Loretto, Tennessee. Pulaski represents that if its request is granted, it will file an application to modify the facilities of Station WKSR-FM to specify operation on Channel 252C3 at Loretto, Tennessee. 2. Pulaski proposes to change the community of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-718A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-718A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-718A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-727A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-727A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-727A1.txt
  • RULE MAKING Adopted: March 16, 2005 Released: March 18, 2005 Comment Date: May 9, 2005 Reply Date: May 24, 2005 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by George S. Flinn, Jr. (``Flinn''), licensee of Station KWCA(FM), Channel 266A, Weaverville, California. Pursuant to Sections 1.420(g) and (i) of the Commission's rules, Flinn proposes to upgrade and change the community of license for Station KWCA(FM) to Channel 266C3 at Palo Cedro, California. Flinn further proposes two allotment changes at Alturas, California. First, in order to accommodate the allotment of Channel 266C3 at Palo Cedro, Flinn proposes to downgrade vacant Channel 267C and substitute Channel 268C1. In
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-72A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-72A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-72A1.txt
  • eliminated. For the reasons discussed below, we are issuing this Order to Show Cause directed to Encore Broadcasting of San Angelo, LLC (``Encore Broadcasting''), licensee of Station KELI(FM), San Angelo, Texas to show cause why its facilities should not be reclassified. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and note 2 of Section 1.420 (g) of the Commission's Rules, a petitioner may initiate the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM Table of Allotments. In those instances in which a triggering petition proposes an amendment or amendments to the FM Table of Allotments in addition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-73A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-73A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-73A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d)). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-742A1.txt
  • FM Table of Allotments, Section 73.202(b) of the Commission's Rules, for the communities listed below, to read as follows: Communities Present Proposed Dalhart, Texas 242C1, 261C 241C1, 261C Perryton, Texas 241C3 248C We also propose to modify the Petitioner's license for Station KXIT-FM to specify operation on Channel 241C1 without entertaining competing expressions of interest because the procedures of Section 1.420(g) do not apply to equivalent class channels. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Section 1.87, Perryton Radio, Inc, may, no later than May 10, 2005, file a written statement showing with particularity why its respective license should not be modified as proposed in this Order to Show Cause. The Commission may call on Perryton Radio, Inc. to furnish additional information. If the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-743A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-744A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-744A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-744A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-746A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-746A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-746A1.txt
  • requesting the substitution of Channel 229C2 for Channel 229C3 at Naples, Florida, reallotment of Channel 229C2 from Naples to Sanibel, Florida, as its first local service, and modification of the Station WTLT(FM) license to reflect the change. Petitioner stated its intentions to file an application implementing Channel 229C2 at Sanibel, if allotted. Petitioner filed its reallotment request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 229C2 at Sanibel is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station WTLT(FM), Channel 229C3, Naples, Florida. When
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-747A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-747A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-747A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-748A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-748A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-748A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-749A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-749A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-749A1.txt
  • Adopted: March 21, 2005 Released: March 23, 2005 Comment Date: May 10, 2005 Reply Date: May 25, 2005 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), licensee of Station WEGR, Channel 274C1, Memphis, Tennessee. Pursuant to Sections 1.420(g) and (i) of the Commission's rules, Clear Channel proposes to change the community of license for Station WEGR from Memphis to Arlington, Tennessee, where Channel 274C1 would provide a first local service. Clear Channel represents that the proposed allotment of Channel 274C1 at Arlington is mutually exclusive with the current allotment of Channel 274C1 at Memphis. The proposal would not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-74A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-74A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-74A1.txt
  • two proposals because Rogers Broadcasting proposes the substitution of Channel 265A for Channel 265C3 at Lebanon, Kentucky, while the Joint Petitioners request the reallotment of Channel 265A from Lebanon to Springfield, Kentucky. Each licensee has stated their intentions to apply for the requested channels, if allotted. Rogers Broadcasting and the Joint Petitioners each filed their respective petitions pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. When considering a reallotment proposal, a comparison is made between the existing allotment and the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment would result in a preferential
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-750A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-750A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-750A1.txt
  • 242C0 from Jackson to Madison, Mississippi as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station WUSJ (FM) to reflect the new community. Petitioner pledges to file an application for the channel and to construct the facilities if the application is granted. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-751A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-751A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-751A1.txt
  • by MCC Radio, LLC (``Petitioner''), licensee of Station KSAJ(FM), Channel 253C1, Abilene, Kansas, proposing the reallotment of Channel 253C1 from Abilene to Burlingame, Kansas, as its first local service and modification of the Station KSAJ(FM) license accordingly. Petitioner stated its intentions to file an application implementing Channel 253C1 at Burlingame, if allotted. Petitioner filed its reallotment request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 253C1 at Burlingame is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station KSAJ(FM), Channel 253C1, Abilene, Kansas. When
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-752A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-752A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-752A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-753A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-753A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-753A1.txt
  • Park, Florida, as its first local aural broadcast service. This proposal requires the reclassification of Station WHYI-FM, Channel 264C, Fort Lauderdale, Florida to specify operation on Channel 264C0. Station WHYI-FM is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the reclassification procedures adopted in the Commission's Second Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-93, Note 2 to Section 1.420(g), and Note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's rules. Station WHYI-FM operates on Channel 264C with an effective radiated power (``ERP'') of 100 kilowatts (``kW'') at 307 meters height above average terrain (``HAAT''), which is below the minimum Class C antenna height of 451 meters HAAT. The distance between the requested site for proposed Channel 262A at Lake Park,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-754A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-754A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-754A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-755A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-755A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-755A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-756A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-756A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-756A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-757A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-757A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-757A1.txt
  • community of license. Each Petitioner states that it will file an application for construction permit to effectuate the change of community if granted. We believe that each proposal warrants consideration because it complies with our technical requirements and would serve the public interest. 2. Each of the Petitioners filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In each case, the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-763A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-763A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-763A1.txt
  • at Shalimar, Florida. Background 2. At the request of Gulf Coast, licensee of Station WPGG, Channel 227C1, Evergreen, Alabama, the Notice proposed the substitution of Channel 227C2 for Channel 227C1 at Evergreen, reallotment of Channel 227C2 to Shalimar, Florida, and modification of the Station WPGG license to specify operation on Channel 227C2 at Shalimar. The Notice was pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-764A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-764A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-764A1.txt
  • (``Sandyworld''); (4) reply comments filed by Citicasters, the Committee, and Infinity; and (5) other related pleadings. No counterproposals were filed. BACKGROUND At the request of Citicasters, the NPRM proposed the reallotment, downgrade, and change of community of license for its Station WMRN-FM, from Channel 295B at Marion, Ohio, to Channel 294B1 at Dublin, Ohio, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. The NPRM stated that this proposal could result in a preferential arrangement of allotments consistent with the FM allotment priorities because Dublin (population 31,392) would have its first local aural transmission service while Marion (population 35,318) would retain three local services. Further, the NPRM noted that Citicasters had submitted a Tuck showing, seeking to demonstrate that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-765A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-765A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-765A1.txt
  • Channel 234C2 from Mayfield to Clinton, Kentucky and to modify Station WQQR's license accordingly. Petitioner will also relocate the transmitter site of Station WLIE-FM, Channel 232A, to avoid short spacing to proposed Channel 234C2 at Clinton, Kentucky. If the petition before us is granted, Petitioner will file appropriate applications to effectuate its proposal. 2. Petitioner invokes the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. The proposed channel reallotments are mutually exclusive with the existing licensed facilities, as required by Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. 3. Petitioner notes that the Commission's FM
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-766A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-766A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-766A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-767A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-767A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-767A1.txt
  • license for Station WKUS(FM) to reflect Windsor as its community of license and the modification of the license of Station WJCD(FM) to reflect Norfolk as its community of license. Petitioner pledges to file applications for each channel and to construct the facilities if the applications are granted. Petitioner filed these proposals for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-768A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-768A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-768A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-769A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-76A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-76A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-76A1.txt
  • to upgrade Station WBNE from Channel 229A to Channel 229C3 and reallot Channel 229C3 from Wrightsville Beach to Topsail Beach, and to modify the license of Station WBNE accordingly. Petitioner observes that the proposed re-arrangements of the allotments presently occupied by Stations WBNU, WWTB, and WBNU are mutually exclusive with the current allotment of those stations, as required by Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Further, Petitioner states that if the Table of Allotments is amended in the manner requested by its Petition, Petitioner will promptly apply to the Commission for modified authorizations
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-77A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-77A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-77A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1004A1.txt
  • objections filed by the Petitioners For the reasons discussed below, we grant the Petitioner's rulemaking petition and dismiss the objections. BACKGROUND At the request of the Petitioners, the NPRM proposed the reallotment and change of community of license for Station KESC(FM) from Channel 279C1 at Wilburton, Oklahoma (pop. 2,972) to Channel 279C1 at Okemah, Oklahoma (pop. 3,038), pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. To prevent the removal of the sole local aural service at Wilburton, the NPRM also proposed the reallotment and change of community of license for Station KMCO(FM) from Channel 267C1 at McAlester, Oklahoma (pop. 17,783) to Channel 267C1 at Wilburton, Oklahoma. The Petitioners filed comments, reiterating their expressions of interest in the reallotments of Stations KESC(FM)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1005A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1005A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1005A1.txt
  • of Allotments, 47 C.F.R. � 73.202(b). In response to a petition filed by George S. Flinn, Jr. (``Flinn''), licensee of Station KWCA(FM), Channel 266A, Weaverville, California, the Notice proposes to change the community of license for Station KWCA(FM) from Weaverville to Palo Cedro, California, and to upgrade to Channel 266C3. Flinn's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In order to accommodate that change of community, Flinn further proposes to downgrade vacant Channel 267C to Channel 268C1 at Alturas, California. Flinn represents
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1007A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1007A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1007A1.txt
  • from Hartford, Petitioner proposes to reallot Channel 237A from White River Junction, Vermont, to Hartford, and to modify Station WXLF's license accordingly. Petitioner also proposes to reallot Channel 231A from Keeseville, New York, to Morrisonville, New York, thus providing Morrisonville with its first local aural transmission service. Petitioner made the reallotment requests for Stations WWOD and WXLF pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering such a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1049A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1049A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1049A1.txt
  • proposed the reallotment of Channel 222C2 from Thayer, Missouri, to Cherokee Village and the modification of the Station KSAR license to specify Cherokee Village as the community of license. The second Petition was filed by Crawford proposing the allotment of Channel 254A to Cave City, Arkansas. 3. In his Comments, Crawford requested dismissal of its proposal. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Rules, Crawford has filed an affidavit stating that he has not and will not receive any consideration for the dismissal of his proposal. We will dismiss the Crawford proposal. 4. As requested, we are substituting Channel 252C2 for Channel 252C3 at Cherokee Village, reallotting Channel 252C2 to Black Rock, and are modifying the Station KFCM license to specify
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1050A1.txt
  • (``Petitioner''), licensee of Station WVBZ(FM), High Point, North Carolina; (2) various related pleadings; and (3) a request for approval of withdrawal of interest filed by the Petitioner. The NPRM proposed the reallotment, downgrade, and change of community of license for Station WVBZ(FM) from Channel 262C at High Point, North Carolina, to Channel 262C0 at Liberty, North Carolina, pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. In its comments, Capitol had no objection to the reallotment of Station WVBZ(FM) to Channel 262C0 at Liberty; however, Capitol urged the Commission to adopt modified reference coordinates for Station WVBZ(FM) at Liberty in order to accommodate the modification of construction permit application filed by Capitol for its Station WCMC-FM, Creedmoor, North Carolina. Without such a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1051A1.txt
  • Proposed Rulemaking proposing changes in the FM Table of Allotments, 47 C.F.R. � 73.202(b). In response to a petition filed by Beanpot Broadcasting Corp. (``Beanpot''), licensee of Station WXRV(FM), Channel 223B, Haverhill, Massachusetts, the Notice proposes to change the community of license for Station WXRV(FM) from Haverhill to Andover, Massachusetts. Beanpot's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Beanpot represents that if its request is granted, it will file an application to modify the facilities of Station WXRV(FM) to specify operation on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1052A1.txt
  • Media Bureau, (202) 418-2738. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Mercer and Hermitage, Pennsylvania, et al., Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 20 FCC Rcd 6271 (MB 2005) (``Notice'') (This was a multiple docket Notice setting forth separate proposals while the instant Report and Order pertains only to the docket specified above.). 47 C.F.R. � 1.420 (j). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1052 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1052 � - $ - � � � � � � F �@ �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1053A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1053A1.txt
  • FM Station WUSW, Channel 279C, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, from Channel 279C to Channel 279C0, as requested by Petitioner. Petitioner filed comments in which it reiterates its intent to effectuate its proposal. No other comments or counterproposals have been filed. For the reasons stated below, we grant Petitioner's rulemaking requests. 2. Petitioner made the reallotment request in this docket pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. This
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1054A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1054A1.txt
  • to Oceano, California, as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station KLMM(FM) to reflect the new community. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for the channel and to construct the facilities if the application is granted. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1072A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1072A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1072A1.txt
  • to specify the new community. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for the channel and to construct the facilities if the application is granted. Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Washington, DC (``Infinity''), licensee of Station WJFK-FM, filed comments in opposition. Petitioner filed reply comments. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1074A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1074A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1074A1.txt
  • Released: June 2, 2006 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing changes in the FM Table of Allotments, 47 C.F.R. � 73.202(b), in response to a petition filed by Pulaski Broadcasting, Inc. (``PBI''), licensee of Station WKSR-FM, Channel 252C3, Killen, Alabama, pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. PBI and KEA Radio, Inc. (together, ``Joint Commenters'') filed comments (``Joint Comments'') supporting the changes proposed in the Notice. No other comments were received. 2. In an earlier proceeding, we granted PBI's request for an upgrade to Channel 252C3 and a change of the community of license for Station WKSR-FM from Pulaski, Tennessee, to Killen, Alabama.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1075A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1075A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1075A1.txt
  • modify the construction permit authorization to specify the new community at its current coordinates. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for a construction permit to effectuate the change of community if Channel 233C is reallotted. No counterproposals or other comments were received. 2. Petitioner filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1076A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1076A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1076A1.txt
  • comments were received in response to this proceeding. Background. The Notice proposed the reallotment of Channel 291C0 from Wilson to Knightdale, North Carolina, as its first local service, and modification of the Station WRDU(FM) license accordingly. Petitioner filed comments, reiterating its expression of interest in the reallotment of Station WRDU(FM) to Knightdale. Discussion. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 291C0 at Knightdale is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station WRDU(FM), Channel 291C0, Wilson, North Carolina.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-109A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-10A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-10A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-10A1.txt
  • the reference coordinates for the vacant Channel 281C2 allotment at Mason, Texas. The Channel 280A substitution at Burnet is also short-spaced to Station KBPA (formerly KEYI), Channel 278C, San Marcos, Texas. 3. As requested by Robert Fabian in a Motion to Dismiss Petition, we are dismissing the underlying proposal for a Channel 280A allotment at Grapeland. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the rules, Robert Fabian has included an affidavit stating that he has not and will not receive any consideration for the withdrawal of his proposal. 4. We are also denying the Elgin FM Counterproposal. The proposed Station KKLB transmitter site increases a short-spacing with Station KYKM, Channel 223A, Yoakum, Texas. While not discussed by Elgin FM, LBR Enterprises, Inc.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-111A1.txt
  • COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Lovelady, Texas, Oil City, Louisiana and Reclassification of License of FM Station KYKS, Lufkin, Texas, 20 FCC Rcd 2197 (MB 2005). See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21649 (2000); see also note 2 to Section 1.420(g) and note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's Rules. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 06-111 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-111 h� h� h� h 1 2 � � ! ' / 1 ? Y f g h i j m u w z | }  � � � � � tm � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-113A1.txt
  • this proceeding proposed the allotment of Channel 300A to Shorter, Alabama, as a first local service. In response to the NPRM, the Joint Parties filed a counterproposal, requesting the upgrade, reallotment, and change of community of license for Scott Communications' Station WJAM(FM) from Channel 300A at Orrville, Alabama, to Channel 300C3 at Shorter, Alabama, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. To prevent the removal of Orrville's sole local service, the Joint Parties proposed to reallot and change the community of license of Alexander Broadcasting's Station WALX(FM) from Channel 265C2 at Selma, Alabama, to Channel 265C2 at Orrville, Alabama. Further, to accommodate the allotment of Channel 300C3 at Shorter, the Joint Parties proposed to downgrade Station WRAX(FM)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1187A1.txt
  • changes in the FM Table of Allotments, 47 C.F.R. � 73.202(b). In response to a petition filed by KERM, Inc. (``KERM''), licensee of Station KURM-FM, Channel 262A, Southwest City, Missouri, the Notice proposes to change the community of license for Station KURM-FM from Southwest City, Missouri, to Gravette, Arkansas. 2. KERM's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. KERM, which does not propose any change in the transmitter site for Station KURM-FM, represents that if its request is granted, it will file
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-11A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-11A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-11A1.txt
  • the necessary applications to effectuate the proposed changes. Dick Broadcasting Company of Tennessee (``Dick''), licensee of Stations WKZL(FM), Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and WKRR(FM), Asheboro, North Carolina, filed Comments and Counterproposal. Petitioner filed Reply Comments in response to Dick's Comments and Counterproposal. No other comments were filed. Background. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1227A1.txt
  • non-final rulemaking proceedings. Previously, a rulemaking proposal could not be contingent upon a decision in an earlier, cut-off proceeding unless that decision had become final. We subsequently modified that policy so that a rulemaking proposal could be contingent upon an effective but not yet final decision in another rulemaking proceeding. The Petitioner filed its rulemaking petition in accordance with Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's rules. This section permits upgrades of FM stations on mutually exclusive co-channels or adjacent channels without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the upgraded channel. In support of its proposal, the Petitioner contends that the upgrade would enable it to continue to provide a 70 dBu service to all of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1230A1.txt
  • the Petitioner. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petitioner's rulemaking petition. BACKGROUND At the request of the Petitioner, the NPRM/OSC proposed the reallotment, upgrade, and change of community of license for Station WVEK-FM from Channel 274A at Cumberland, Kentucky (pop. 2,611) to Channel 274C3 at Weber City, Virginia (pop. 1,333) as a first local service, pursuant to Sections 1.420(g)(3) and (i) of the Commission's rules. To accommodate this reallotment, the NPRM/OSC also proposed: (1) the substitution of Channel 263A for vacant Channel 274A at Glade Spring, Virginia; and (2) the substitution of Channel 273A for Channel 263A at Marion, Virginia, and the modification of Station WOLD(FM)'s license accordingly. The NPRM/OSC also requested that the Petitioner submit a Tuck showing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1303A1.txt
  • allot Channel 256A at Pawnee City. Viking Enterprises, LLC (``Viking'') filed a counterproposal proposing to allot Channel 245C2 at Holton, Kansas which requires the substitution of Channel 272A for Channel 244A at Humboldt. 2. Upon further engineering review, we have determined that the initiating petition for a change of community was technically defective because it failed to comply with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which requires the new allotment to be mutually exclusive with the existing allotment. The Channel 245C2 at Valley Falls is not mutually exclusive with the then-authorized Channel 244A construction permit at Humboldt as specifically required by Section 1.240(i), the request to change the community of license is not acceptable. Because the Notice was defective and erroneously
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1309A1.txt
  • of the license of Station WJCD(FM) to reflect Norfolk as its community of license. Petitioner filed a motion for acceptance and late-filed comments reiterating its intention to file applications for each channel and to construct the facilities if the applications are granted. We received no other comments. Petitioner filed these proposals for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1406A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1406A1.txt
  • Ava, Branson, and Mountain Grove. 5. We also reject C&C's contention that Puopolo's commitment to reimburse C&C for its reasonable costs of changing channels is inadequate. C&C cites several cases in support of its argument, but none of them is on point with the circumstances of this proceeding. Three of those cases involved requests for channel upgrades pursuant to Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's rules, and we held that the wording of Section 1.420(g) conveys the Commission's intent to restrict the rule's applicability to licensees and permittees. The fourth case turned on the Commission's holding that upgrades requested while applications are pending should not be allowed. None of those cases involved circumstances such as those presented here, where a new allotment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1407A1.txt
  • For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Committee's Petition for Reconsideration. BACKGROUND At the request of Clear Channel , the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding proposed the reallotment, downgrade, and change of community of license for Station WMRN-FM from Channel 295B at Marion, Ohio to Channel 294B1 at Dublin, Ohio, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules To accommodate the relocation of Station WMRN-FM to Dublin, the NPRM also proposed the reallotment, downgrade, and change of community of license for Station WSRW-FM from Channel 294B at Hillsboro, Ohio, to Channel 293A at Chillicothe, Ohio. Three parties filed objections to these proposals, questioning, inter alia, whether the reallotments would result in a preferential arrangement
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1429A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1429A1.txt
  • parties consummated the transaction, and the call letters were changed to WPZS(FM) on November 16, 2004. For administrative convenience, we will use the call letters WABZ-FM throughout this letter. 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587. Albemarle and Indian Trial, North Carolina, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 10524 (MMB 1999). Petitioner filed its request pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1451A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1451A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1451A1.txt
  • Proposed Rule Making issued at the request of Charles Crawford (``Petitioner''), proposing to allot Channel 267A at Rosebud, Texas as a first local service; (2) a ``Request for Approval of Withdrawal'' filed by Petitioner; (3) and ``Comments and Expression of Interest'' filed by Gerald Proctor (``Proctor''). Petitioner filed its request for withdrawal on February 1, 2006, in compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, stating that no consideration was received in connection with the withdrawal of the petition. Three months later on May 8, 2006, and more than 20 months after the Reply Comment Deadline, Proctor filed its Comments and Expression of Interest, stating his interest in applying for Channel 267A at Rosebud. We will grant Petitioner's request for withdrawal.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1486A1.txt
  • COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau See Steamboat Springs, Colorado, et al., Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 20 FCC Rcd 6327 (MB 2005) (``Notice'') (The instant Report and Order disposes of one docket in this multiple docket Notice.). The counterproposal was placed on Public Notice on June 24, 2005, Report No. 2717, (RM-11250). 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). Austwell is listed as a city with a population of 192 persons according to the 2000 U.S. Census. Voz states that Austwell is incorporated, has a city hall, post office, municipally provided water service, and administers the Austwell-Tivoli Independent School District. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1486 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1486 h� h� h� �@���
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1487A1.txt
  • (HAAT), which is below the minimum Class C antenna height 451 meters HAAT. Station KAMX(FM), Luling, Texas, currently operates on Channel 234C with an effective radiated power (``ERP'') of 100 kilowatts (``kW'') at 398 meters height above average terrain (HAAT), which is below the minimum Class C antenna height 451 meters HAAT. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 21,662, � 26. Pursuant to an assignment of license (File No. BALH-20051206AAY) granted on January 19, 2006, the licensee of Station KELI(FM) is now Double O Texas Corp. We will serve this party a copy of this Report and Order. See Various Locations, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-14A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-14A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-14A1.txt
  • 291A for vacant Channel 229A at Dilley, Texas, with modified reference coordinates; and (b) the modification of the reference coordinates for vacant Channel 289A at Cotulla, Texas. Petitioner filed comments in support of the proposal reaffirming its intention to apply for the respective channels, if allotted. Petitioner also filed reply comments. 2. Petitioner filed its reallotment proposal pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of the reallotment, petitioner states that the reallotment of Channel 237A from Pearsall to Dilley would allow for full utilization of that channel, which is now
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1532A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1532A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1532A1.txt
  • specify operation on Channel 241B1 at Campo, California. Background 2. At the request of CCR-Brawley, licensee of Station KSIQ, the Notice proposed the substitution of Channel 241B1 for Channel 241B at Brawley, reallotment of Channel 241B1 to Campo, California, and modification of the Station KSIQ license to specify operation on Channel 241B1 at Campo. The Notice was pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1585A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1585A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1585A1.txt
  • signed by Clyde Scott, Jr., President, but not verified. In response to the Notice, Petitioner's comments included his signed sworn statement as required by Section 1.52 of the rules. See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000). See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 21,662, � 26. See In Re Reclassification of License of Station WKQL(FM), Jacksonville, Florida, 19 FCC Rcd 10970 (MB 2004). Coordinates for Channel 246A at Homerville are 31-07-16 NL and 82-48-51 WL. The license coordinates for Station WKQL(FM) on Channel 245C0are 30-16-34 NL and 81-33-53 WL. (...continued from previous
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1758A1.txt
  • Reconsideration filed by the Petitioner. For the reasons discussed below, we will grant reconsideration. BACKGROUND At the request of the Petitioner, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding proposed the reallotment and change of community of license for Station WTLX(FM) from Channel 263A at Columbus, Wisconsin, to Channel 263A at Monona, Wisconsin, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. The NPRM stated that the reallotment would provide a first local aural service at Monona (pop. 8,018) without depriving Columbus (pop. 4,479) of its sole local service. In order to prevent the removal of the sole local transmission service in Columbus, the Petitioner relied upon a simultaneously filed ``back-fill'' application to change the community of license
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1759A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1759A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1759A1.txt
  • the need for Station KWPK-FM to change its frequency to Channel 282C2 at Sisters, Oregon. The Settlement Agreement provides, as consideration for the settlement, that SSR Communications will be compensated in the amount five thousand dollars for its legitimate and prudent expenses incurred in connection with the preparation, filing and advocacy of its counterproposal, consistent with the requirements of Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules. In response to the Order to Show Cause issued in MB Docket No. 05-9, Westend Radio and KSRV, Inc. separately filed comments requesting that Two Hearts submit financial documentation, showing that it has the ability to pay the total anticipated costs along with a written commitment, stating that it would reimburse the stations in a timely
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1761A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1761A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1761A1.txt
  • (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Lake Park, Florida, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 20 FCC Rcd 19396 (MB 2005). See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 21649 (2000); see also 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420(g), n.2; 73.3573, n. 4. See Reclassification of License of Station WHYI-FM, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Order to Show Cause, 19 FCC Rcd 17449 (MB 2004). As stated in the Notice, Lake Park is an incorporated town listed in the 2000 U.S. Census with a population of 8,721 persons. Petitioner states that Lake Park has its own mayor, town manager, elementary school,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1764A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1764A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1764A1.txt
  • reaffirming its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted. Georgia-Carolina Radiocasting, LLC (``Georgia-Carolina'') also filed comments. Reply comments were filed by Petitioner and Georgia-Carolina. After the record closed, Petitioner filed a response to Georgia-Carolina's reply comments, accompanied by a motion for leave to accept, and a statement for the record. 2. Background. The petition was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Petitioner states that Lexington is an incorporated community with a 2000 U. S. Census population of 239 persons. It is the county seat
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1885A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1885A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1885A1.txt
  • Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Auxvasse, Missouri, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC Rcd (MB 2005). See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 21649 (2000); see also 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420(g), n.2; 73.3573, n. 4. See File No. BLH-19870504KB. In this regard, we issued an Order to Show Cause directed to Emmis Radio License, LLC, (``Emmis Radio''), licensee of Station KSHE(FM), Crestwood, Missouri, affording it 30 days to express in writing an intention to seek authority to upgrade Station KSHE(FM)'s technical facilities to preserve Class C status, or to otherwise challenge
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1886A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1886A1.txt
  • Ashland. No other party has expressed an interest for this proposed allotment. It is the Commission's policy to refrain from making an allotment to a community absent an adequate expression of interest. Therefore, we dismiss Petitioner's petition to allot Channel 288C3 at Ashland, Kansas. We also dismiss Chisholm's Greensburg Petition pursuant to its request for withdrawal. In compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Chisholm states that no consideration was received in connection with the withdrawal of the petition. Next we consider Chisholm's counterproposal. Chisholm states that its counterproposal to allot Channel 288C3 at Kinsley conflicts with the Notice's proposal to allot Channel 288C3 at Ashland, Kansas. Our staff engineering analysis confirms that the requisite mutual exclusivity exits between Channel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-18A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-18A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-18A1.txt
  • response to the Notice, Petitioner submitted an engineering statement demonstrating that the proposed Station WCSY-FM reallotment to Hartford results in a net gain of service to 54,617 persons, an 82.9 percent increase, while the loss area contains 5,563 persons that will continue to receive reception service from five or more aural services. Discussion. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 252A at Hartford is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station WCSY-FM, Channel 252A, South Haven, Michigan.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1901A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1901A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1901A1.txt
  • Station KRZB, Channel 248C2, Archer City, Texas, BPH-19990217IB, are 33-51-40 NL and 98-38-52 WL. The Joint Parties propose to change those coordinates to 33-32-30 NL and 98-46-30 WL. See ``Request for Approval of Withdrawal'' filed by Linda Crawford on June 21, 2006. See ``Request for Approval of Withdrawal'' filed by Jeraldine Anderson on June 22, 2006. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.207 and 73.208. Archer City, Texas, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 15,532 (MB 2003) (``Archer City R&O''). The construction permit (BPH-19990217IB) for FM Station KRZB, Channel 248C2, Archer City, Texas, was reinstated on January 12, 2006. See Broadcast Applications, Report No. 26152, Public Notice (Media Bur., rel. Jan. 17, 2006). See Claremont, Locust Grove and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1906A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1906A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1906A1.txt
  • this docket to move from St. Michaels to Cambridge, Maryland, the Commission should consider allotting Channel 232B1 to Oxford, Maryland and changing Petitioner's community of license from St. Michaels to Oxford, Maryland, because Oxford would meet applicable Commission technical requirements and would provide Oxford with its first local aural transmission service. This is an untimely counterproposal in contravention of Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules. A counterproposal must be filed by the comment date. Therefore, this proposal will not be considered in this proceeding. 6. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 7. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2022A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2022A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2022A1.txt
  • D'Allesandro argue that we should deny the CXR proposal because it fails to protect LPFM Stations WLOU-LP, Williamsburg, Virginia, and WRBG-LP, Millsboro, Delaware. This argument is without merit. Proposed allotments for full power FM stations are not required to protect low power stations. We modify the Station WDYL(FM) license to specify Lakeside as the community of license pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In this instance, the reallotment of Channel 265B1 at Lakeside, Virginia, is mutually exclusive with the licensed site of Station WDYL(FM), Channel 265A, Chester,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2027A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2027A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2027A1.txt
  • communities. 2. Background. At the request of the Joint Parties, the Notice in this proceeding proposed nine city of license modifications. Included among those proposals was a request to reallot Channel 274A from Springfield, Kentucky, to New Haven, Kentucky, and modify the Station WLSK to specify New Haven as the community of license. These requests were filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. In evaluating a proposal, we compare the existing versus the proposed arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2028A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2028A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2028A1.txt
  • (3) comments filed by World Radio Link, Inc. (``WRL''); and (4) reply comments filed by the Petitioner. For the reasons discussed below, we will grant the rulemaking petition. Background. In response to the Petitioner's rulemaking petition (the ``Boonville Petition''), the NPRM proposed the upgrade of its Station KWJK-FM, Boonville, Missouri, from Channel 226A to Channel 226C3 in accordance with Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's rules. To accommodate this upgrade, the NPRM proposed the substitution of Channel 272A for vacant but applied for Channel 226A at Wheatland, Missouri, at the reference site proposed by the Petitioner, which is located 5.4 kilometers northwest of Wheatland. The Channel 272A site proposed by the Petitioner is fully spaced and meets the Commission's technical requirements. The
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-21A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-21A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-21A1.txt
  • Petitioner to induce its concurrence with Conner's Counterproposal. The downgrade of Channel 280C3, Station WWTB to Channel 281A and the reallotment of Channel 281A to Swansboro, North Carolina, would provide Swansboro with its first local aural transmission service. In their Joint Resolution, Petitioner and Conner made the three foregoing reallotment requests for Stations WBNU, WWTB, and WBNE pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. This
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2276A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2276A1.txt
  • for Approval of Withdrawal of Petition for Reconsideration filed by Self and Urban. For the reasons discussed below, we will grant the Request for Withdrawal and dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration. The R&O reallotted and changed the community of license for Station WLAY-FM from Channel 278A at Russellville to Channel 278A at Littleville, Alabama, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. Self filed a Petition for Reconsideration, contending that the R&O improperly concluded that Self's Comments were late filed and did not further address his Comments. Thereafter, Self withdrew his Comments and Petition for Reconsideration. Both Self and Urban contend that approval of the withdrawal of the Comments and Petition for Reconsideration is consistent with Section 1.420(j)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2561A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2561A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2561A1.txt
  • Vernon Center, Minnesota; and (2) supporting comments filed by the Petitioner. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the Petitioner's rulemaking petition. Background. At the request of the Petitioner, the NPRM proposed the reallotment and modification of its construction permit from Channel 231A at Vernon Center (pop. 359) to Channel 231A at Eagle Lake, Minnesota (pop. 1,787), pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. Because the principal community (70 dBu) contour of the reallotted station appeared to encompass a majority of the Mankato, Minnesota, Urbanized Area, the NPRM requested that the Petitioner submit a Tuck showing to demonstrate that Eagle Lake is sufficiently independent of the Mankato, Minnesota, Urbanized Area to warrant a first local service. In its comments, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2563A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2563A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2563A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2564A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2564A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2564A1.txt
  • of Stations WNND(FM), WLUP-FM, and WDRV(FM), Chicago, Illinois; WTMX(FM), Skokie, Illinois, and WWDV(FM), Zion, Illinois (collectively referred to as ``Joint Parties'') filed an Application for Review of the Report and Order. Subsequently, the Joint Parties requested that their Application for Review in this docket be dismissed. After having reviewed the Joint Parties' request, we find that it complies with Section 1.420(j) of our Rules and that there are no impediments to granting that request. Therefore, we dismiss the Joint Parties' Application for Review in this docket and terminate the proceeding. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED That the above-referenced Application for Review filed by the Joint Parties IS DISMISSED as requested and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 3. For further information concerning
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2566A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2566A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2566A1.txt
  • PROPOSED RULE MAKING Adopted: December 20, 2006 Released: December 22, 2006 Comment Date: February 12, 2007 Reply Date: February 27, 2007 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by Cox Radio, Inc. (``Cox''), licensee of Station WKHL(FM), Channel 244A, Stamford, Connecticut. Pursuant to Sections 1.420(g) and (i) of the Commission's rules, Cox proposes to change the community of license for Station WKHL(FM) from Stamford, Connecticut, to Port Chester, New York. Cox represents that the proposed allotment of Channel 244A at Port Chester is mutually exclusive with the current allotment of Channel 244A at Stamford. Cox states that the proposal would not remove the sole local
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-263A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-263A1.txt
  • addressed to the Audio Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau St. Simons Island, Georgia, 20 FCC Rcd 15244 (MB 2005). See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21649 (2000); see also note 2 to Section 1.420(g) and note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's Rules. Station WOGK operates on Channel 229C with the minimum effective radiated power of 100 kilowatts and less than the minimum Class C antenna height above average terrain (``HAAT'') of 451 meters. See Reclassification of License of Station WOGK(FM), Ocala, Florida, 17 FCC Rcd 1657 (MMB 2002). See Public Notice, DA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-264A1.txt
  • the substitution of Channel 229C2 for Channel 229C3 at Naples, Florida, reallotment of Channel 229C2 from Naples to Sanibel, Florida, as its first local service, and modification of the Station WTLT(FM) license accordingly. Petitioner filed comments, reiterating its expression of interest in the reallotment of Station WTLT(FM) to Channel 229C2 at Sanibel, Florida. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 229C2 at Sanibel is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station WTLT(FM), Channel 229C3, Naples, Florida. Discussion.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-265A1.txt
  • community's first local aural transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station KRWP(FM) to reflect the changes. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for the channel and to construct the facilities if the application is granted. No other comments were received. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-266A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-266A1.txt
  • the FM Table of Allotments, 47 C.F.R. � 73.202(b). In response to a petition filed by Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), licensee of Station WZKF(FM), Channel 255B, Salem, Indiana, the Notice proposes to change the community of license for Station WZKF(FM) from Salem, Indiana, to Prospect, Kentucky. Clear Channel's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Clear Channel represents that if its request is granted, it will file an application to modify the facilities of Station WZKF(FM) to specify operation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-267A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-267A1.txt
  • in the FM Table of Allotments, 47 C.F.R. � 73.202(b). In response to a petition filed by Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), licensee of Station WEGR(FM), Channel 274C1, Memphis, Tennessee, the Notice proposes to change the community of license for Station WEGR(FM) from Memphis to Arlington, Tennessee. Clear Channel's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In order to accommodate the reallotment of Channel 274C1 at Arlington, Tennessee, Clear Channel proposes to modify the site of vacant Channel 274A at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-268A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-268A1.txt
  • Channel 269C1 from Ely to Spring Creek, Nevada, as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station KCLS(FM) to reflect the new community. Subsequently, Petitioner requested to withdraw its petition for rulemaking. No other comments or counterproposals were filed. We accept Petitioner's request to withdraw. Petitioner has submitted the required affidavit pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED That the petition for rule making filed by Ruby Radio Corporation, licensee of Station KCLS(FM), Ely, Nevada, proposing the substitution of Channel 269C1 for Channel 269C3 at Ely, the reallotment of Channel 269C1 from Ely to Spring Creek, Nevada, IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. For further information
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-271A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-271A1.txt
  • his petition for rulemaking. On December 15, 2004, Katherine Pyeatt filed a timely counterproposal to this petition, proposing to allot Channel 248A at three communities, Woodson, Chillicothe and Henrietta, Texas, with a channel substitution at Archer City, Texas. Subsequently, Katherine Pyeatt also withdrew her counterproposal. We accept these withdrawals. Each withdrawal was accompanied by the requisite affidavit pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of our rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED That the proposal filed by Charles Crawford proposing to allot Channel 298A at Woodson, Texas, and the counterproposal filed by Katherine Pyeatt proposing to allot Channel 248A at Woodson, Chillicothe and Hennrietta, Texas, with a channel substitution at Archer City, Texas ARE DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. For
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-272A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-272A1.txt
  • FM Station WUSW operates on Channel 279C with less than the minimum Class C antenna height above average terrain (``HAAT'') of 451 meters HAAT. As a result, FM Station WUSW is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the reclassification procedures adopted in the Commission's Second Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-93, Note 2 to Section 1.420(g), and Note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's rules. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 73.3573, Note 4, we issued an Order to Show Cause directed to Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), licensee of FM Station WUSW, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, affording it 30 days to express in writing an intention to seek authority to upgrade its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-303A1.txt
  • Viacom's proposal. BACKGOUND 2. The Report and Order in MM Docket No. 97-96, (Johnstown and Jeannette, Pennsylvania), 12 FCC Rcd 10300 (1997) changed the community of license for station WNPA-TV from Johnstown to Jeannette, Pennsylvania and re-allotted Channel 19+ from Johnstown to Jeannette as the community's first local television broadcast service. The Report and Order was adopted pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. However, in that action the paired digital channel that was assigned as a part of the WNPA-TV's license was inadvertently omitted from the Order. As a result, station
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-337A1.txt
  • application for construction permit for a minor change in the licensed facilities for Station WTDA(FM). According to Commission policy, this application is considered a counterproposal in this matter. Petitioner filed comments, reply comments, and other responsive pleadings. NABC filed reply comments, and two sets of further comments. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-343A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-343A1.txt
  • we deny the Petition for Reconsideration. 2. The Report and Order granted Cleveland Radio's request to reallot Channel 252A, Station WKSI-FM, Charles Town, West Virginia, to Stephens City Virginia, as that community's first local aural transmission service, and modified Station WKSI-FM's license to specify Stephens City as its community of license. Cleveland Radio made the reallotment request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. 3. Mid Atlantic's Petition for Reconsideration of the Report and Order, asserts that Cleveland Radio should have submitted a Tuck showing because Stephens City, Virginia, is located within
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-344A1.txt
  • service and modification of the Station WJSJ(FM) license accordingly. To accommodate the proposed Yulee reallotment, the Notice also proposed the relocation of the transmitter site of co-owned Station WSJF(FM), Channel 288C3, St. Augustine Beach, Florida. Petitioner filed comments, reiterating its expression of interest in the reallotment of Station WJSJ(FM) to Yulee, Florida. Discussion. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 287A at Yulee is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station WJSJ(FM), Channel 287A, Fernandina Beach, Florida.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-345A1.txt
  • ROL. 2. Petitioner and Salsa subsequently filed motions seeking dismissal of their respective expressions of interest. Each filing included the required affidavit stating that he did not receive, either directly or indirectly, any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in exchange for the dismissal of his expression of interest. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules, we will grant both motions. 3. At the time Entravision filed its counterproposal to upgrade Station to Channel 285C0 at Pilot Point, Texas, it was short-spaced to the existing Channel 285A allotment for Meridian, Texas. In this regard, a timely counterproposal in MM Docket No. 01-47 proposed the reallotment of Channel 285A from Meridian to Hico,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-382A1.txt
  • 2. At the request of Gulf Coast Broadcasting Company, Inc., former licensee of Station WPGG, Channel 227C1, Evergreen, Alabama, the Report and Order substituted Channel 227C2 for Channel 227C1 at Evergreen, reallotted Channel 227C2 to Shalimar, Florida, and modified of the Station WPGG license to specify operation on Channel 227C2 at Shalimar. The Report and Order was pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-384A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-425A1.txt
  • his expression of interest. Most recently, on October 26, 2005, Crawford submitted a ``Request for Approval of Withdrawal,'' which he describes as a ``final withdrawal of interest.'' Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations, Mojave and Trona, California, Stringtown and Haileyville, Oklahoma, and Cumberland Head, New York, 20 FCC Rcd 5999 (MB 2005). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 06-425 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-425 h� ^ _ `��gd� Z [ ] _ ` � h� h� �@��� � h� @& � � � � � � 7 8 9 : C D E P Q R S T � � � � � � � � � � 0 0 0 0 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-433A1.txt
  • C0 station. Station KYQQ(FM) operates on Channel 293C with less than the minimum Class C antenna height above average terrain (``HAAT'') of 451 meters HAAT. As a result, Station KYQQ(FM) is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the reclassification procedures adopted in the Commission's Second Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-93, Note 2 to Section 1.420(g), and Note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's rules. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 73.3573, Note 4, we issued an Order to Show Cause directed to Journal Broadcast Corporation (``Journal''), licensee of Station KYQQ(FM), Arkansas City, Kansas, affording it 30 days to express in writing an intention to seek authority to upgrade its technical facilities to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-514A1.txt
  • Station KTED(FM) license accordingly. To accommodate this upgrade and reallotment, the Joint Parties proposed the substitution of Channel 265C1 for Channel 252A at Glenrock, Wyoming and modification of the Station KGRK(FM) license accordingly; and the substitution of Channel 253C2 for vacant Channel 265A at Bairoil, Wyoming. Discussion. The Joint Parties filed the change of community license request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license where the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the licensee's or permittee's present assignment. The reallotment of Station KTED(FM), Channel 251C at Bar Nunn, Wyoming is not mutually exclusive with the current use of Channel 265C2 at Douglas, Wyoming. As
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-516A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-517A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-518A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-518A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-518A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-523A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-523A1.txt
  • Louisiana (pop. 1,148) as a first local service. In response to NPRM I and NPRM II, Ruston Broadcasting Company (``RBC''), the predecessor in interest to CCC, simultaneously and timely filed an identical counterproposal in both proceedings. In its counterproposal, CCC proposed to upgrade its Station KNBB(FM), Ruston, Louisiana, from Channel 257C3 to Channel 257C2, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's rules. To accommodate this co-channel upgrade, CCC proposed to (1) substitute Channel 266A for vacant Channel 257A at Clayton, Louisiana; (2) allot Channel 300C3 at Saint Joseph, Louisiana, rather than Channel 257C3 as proposed by SJBC in MM Docket No. 01-19; and (3) allot Channel 279A at Wisner, Louisiana, rather than Channel 300C3 as proposed by WBC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-609A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-609A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-609A1.txt
  • comments reiterating its intention to file an application for a construction permit to effectuate the change of community if Channel 223A is reallotted. Clancy-Mance Communications, Inc. (``CMC'') filed comments opposing the proposed change of community. Petitioner filed reply comments. No counterproposals or other comments were received. 2. Petitioner filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-610A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-610A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-610A1.txt
  • did not file the necessary application to implement minimum Class C facilities for FM Station KCYY. Therefore, in accordance with the Commission's reclassification procedures noted above, the license for FM Station KCYY is hereby reclassified to specify operation on Channel 262C0 instead of Channel 262C at San Antonio. 3. LaGrange made the reallotment request in this docket pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. This
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-611A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-611A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-611A1.txt
  • PROPOSED RULE MAKING Adopted: March 15, 2006 Released: March 17, 2006 Comment Date: May 8, 2006 Reply Date: May 23, 2006 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by KERM, Inc. (``KERM''), licensee of Station KURM-FM, Channel 262A, Southwest City, Missouri. Pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, KERM proposes to change the community of license for Station KURM-FM from Southwest City to Gravette, Arkansas, providing a first local service to Gravette. KERM represents that the proposed allotment of Channel 262A at Gravette is mutually exclusive with the current allotment of Channel 262A at Southwest City. If its petition is granted, KERM states that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-622A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-622A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-622A1.txt
  • changes in the FM Table of Allotments, Section 73.202(b) of the Commission's Rules. In response to a petition filed by Radio and Investments, Inc. (``R&I''), licensee of Station KDDK(FM), Channel 288A, Franklin, Louisiana, the Notice proposes to change the community of license for Station KDDK(FM) from Franklin to Addis, Louisiana. R&I's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In order to accommodate the proposed allotment, R&I further requested a change in reference coordinates for Station KEUN-FM, Channel 288A, Eunice, Louisiana. Tri-Parish Broadcasting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-725A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-725A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-725A1.txt
  • Making filed by Sutton Broadcasting Corporation IS DISMISSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 6. For further information concerning the above, contact R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Clayton, Georgia and Sylva, North Carolina, 19 FCC Rcd 10202 (MB 2002). Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules, Petitioner provided a declaration under penalty of perjury stating that neither Petitioner nor any of its principals has received or will receive any consideration in exchange for the withdrawal of its Petition for Rule Making in this proceeding. Federal Communications Commission DA 06-725 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-725 ' � � � � � Z �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-726A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-726A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-726A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-727A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-727A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-727A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-729A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-729A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-729A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-793A1.txt
  • of its license to Class C0. In this regard, a Channel 259C0 reallotment to Hendersonville would not be short-spaced to the pending application at Eva. As requested by the Joint Parties, we are going forward with the Amended Proposal in this Notice. 3. The Joint Parties' proposal includes nine city of license modifications. These requests are filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. In evaluating a proposal, we compare the existing versus the proposed arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-796A1.txt
  • support of the proposal, reaffirming her intention to apply for Channel 241A, if allotted. 3. In response to the NPRM, BK filed a counterproposal proposing to reallot and change the community of license for Station KOTY(FM) from Channel 239C2 at Mason, Texas, to Channel 240C2 at Mertzon, Texas (RM-10770). BK Radio submitted its counterproposal pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. BK's counterproposal is mutually exclusive with the Petitioner's proposal because Channel 240C2 at Mertzon, Texas, is short-spaced to Channel 241A at Eldorado. Discussion 4. Generally, conflicting proposals are
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-797A1.txt
  • the modification of the license for Station WBKY(FM) to reflect the changes. Petitioner pledges to file an application for the channel and to construct the facilities if the application is granted. Opposing comments were filed by Mid-West Management, Inc. (``Mid-West''). Petitioner filed comments and reply comments. Background Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-843A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-843A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-843A1.txt
  • comments were received in response to this proceeding. Background. The Notice proposed the reallotment of Channel 253C1 from Abilene to Burlingame, Kansas, as its first local service and modification of the Station KSAJ(FM) license accordingly. Petitioner filed comments, reiterating its expression of interest in the reallotment of Station KSAJ(FM) to Burlingame, Kansas. Discussion. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed reallotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 253C1 at Burlingame is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station KSAJ(FM), Channel 253C1, Abilene, Kansas. When
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-844A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-844A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-844A1.txt
  • Auction No. 37, of a construction permit for an unbuilt FM station on Channel 231A, Vernon Center, Minnesota. The Petitioner requests the reallotment and modification of its construction permit from Channel 231A at Vernon Center (pop. 359) to Channel 231A at Eagle Lake, Minnesota (pop. 1,787). The Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In reviewing a proposal under Section 1.420(i), the Commission compares the existing and proposed arrangement of allotments to determine whether the reallotment would
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-845A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-845A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-845A1.txt
  • the change of community. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for a construction permit to effectuate the change of community if Channel 269A is reallotted. Edward J. Cox II (``Cox'') filed a letter objecting to the proposed reallotment. No counterproposals were filed. 2. Petitioner filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-849A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-849A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-849A1.txt
  • dismissals of Crawford petitions for new allotments at Mason and Benjamin, Texas. In that decision, the Court rejected Crawford's identical argument that he was not given adequate notice regarding his Mason and Benjamin proposals. In view of that Court decision, Crawford now requests that his Goldthwaite proposal be withdrawn and his Application for Review be dismissed. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Rules, Crawford also attached a declaration stating that no consideration has been paid or promised, directly or indirectly, for this withdrawal. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the aforementioned Application for Review filed by Charles Crawford IS DISMISSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 6. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Robert Hayne,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-954A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-954A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-954A1.txt
  • reallot Channel 240A from Arnold to City of Angels, California, and to modify Station KBYN's license accordingly. Petitioner filed comments in which it reiterates its intent to effectuate its proposal. No other comments or counterproposals have been filed. For the reasons stated below, we grant Petitioner's rulemaking requests. 2. Petitioner made the reallotment request in this docket pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In this instance, the reallotment will allow the establishment of a first local aural transmission service by Petitioner at City of Angels, California (2000 U.S. Census population of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-955A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-955A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-955A1.txt
  • third such service to 1,001 persons, and a fourth such service to 4,200 persons. Accordingly, we allot Channel 292A to Marlinton, West Virginia. 3. In order to accommodate the Marlinton allotment, Petitioner proposes to substitute Channel 291A for Channel 292B1, Station WBOP, and reallot Channel 291A from Churchville to Keswick, Virginia. Petitioner makes the foregoing reallotment request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In this instance, the reallotment will allow the establishment of a first local transmission service by Petitioner at Keswick, Virginia. Provision of first local service falls under priority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-986A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-986A1.txt
  • Carolina, and modify the license of Station WKXU to reflect the change of community. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for a construction permit to effectuate the change of community if Channel 273A is reallotted. No counterproposals or other comments were received. 2. Petitioner filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-987A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-987A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-987A1.txt
  • Media Bureau (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Petitioner also proposes the substitution of Channel 263A for vacant Channel 241A at Clayton, OK. See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000), and Section 1.420(g), n. 2, and Section 73.3573, n. 4, of the Commission's Rules. 47 U.S.C. � 316(a). See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, Order, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n.2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-988A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-988A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-988A1.txt
  • Bureau: The Audio Division has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by Finger Lakes Radio Group, Inc. (``Petitioner''), requesting the reallotment and change of community of license for its Station WFLR-FM from Channel 240A at Dundee, New York, to Channel 238A at Odessa, New York. The Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In reviewing a proposal under Section 1.420(i), the Commission compares the existing and proposed arrangement of allotments to determine whether the reallotment would
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-992A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-992A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-992A1.txt
  • service, the Notice also proposed the reallotment of co-owned Station WQXC-FM, Channel 265A from Otsego to Allegan, Michigan and modification of the Station WQXC-FM license to reflect this change. Petitioner filed comments, reiterating its expression of interest in the reallotment of Station WZUU(FM) to Mattawan, Michigan and Station WQXC-FM to Allegan, Michigan. Discussion. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. To this end, the proposed reallotment of Channel 223A at Mattawan, Michigan is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of FM Station WZUU,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-9A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-9A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-9A1.txt
  • AFB. Lastly, Channel 283A can be allotted to Murdo at the New Station current authorized site in compliance with the Commission's rules at coordinates 43-53-24 NL and 100-43-06 WL, which requires a site restriction of 0.5 kilometers (0.3 miles) west of Murdo. We modify the Station KAWK(FM) license to specify Ellsworth AFB as the community of license pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In this instance, the reallotment of Channel 285C at Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota is mutually exclusive with the licensed site of Station KAWK(FM), Channel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1128A1.txt
  • 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Glenmora and Marksville, Louisiana, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 20 FCC Rcd 12971 (MB 2005). See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 21649 (2000); see also 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420(g), n.2; 73.3573, n. 4. See Reclassification of License of Station KIOC, Orange, Texas, Order to Show Cause, 19 FCC Rcd 19486 (MB 2004). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1128 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1128 �@��� �@��� �@��� �@��� gd~ gd~ gd~ gd~ gd~ gd~ � gd~ gd~ " 4 O /O Q k l � � � � / 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1132A1.txt
  • March 9, 2007 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: 1. The Audio Division has before it a Request for Withdrawal filed by Chisholm Trail Broadcasting Company (``Chisholm''). Chisholm requests withdrawal of its counterproposal (RM-11335) and its Petition for Reconsideration of a Report and Order in the above captioned proceeding. 2. Chisholm provides a sworn declaration pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules, stating that it has not received nor will it receive any money or other consideration in exchange for its withdrawal request. After reviewing the withdrawal request, we find that it complies with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules and that there are no impediments to granting the request. Therefore, we dismiss Chisholm's counterproposal, including the allotment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1349A1.txt
  • David P. Garland (``Garland''), a Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposed the allotment of Channel 274A at Milano, Texas, as a first local aural service. In response to the NPRM, Henderson filed a counterproposal, proposing the upgrade and reallotment of his Station KLTR(FM) from Channel 297A, Caldwell, Texas, to Channel 297C3 at Bedias, Texas, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. To accommodate the upgrade and reallotment, Henderson also proposed (1) the allotment of Channel 274A at Caldwell, Texas as a replacement service; and (2) the modification of the reference coordinates for vacant Channel 274A at Centerville, Texas. After the pleading cycle ended, Garland and Henderson filed a Joint Motion for Dismissal of the Garland Petition, Adoption
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1713A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1713A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1713A1.txt
  • the request of the Joint Parties, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding proposed nine cities of license modifications. Included among those proposals was a request to reallot Channel 274A from Springfield, Kentucky, to New Haven, Kentucky, and modify the Station WLSK to specify New Haven as the community of license. These requests were filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. In response to the Notice, CXR Holdings, licensee of Station WRKA, Channel 276A, St. Matthews, Kentucky, filed a Counterproposal. In that Counterproposal, CXR Holdings proposed the substitution
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1715A1.txt
  • subsequently file a Request for Approval of Withdrawal. Katherine Pyeatt (``Pyeatt'') filed a counterproposal to allot Channel 265C3 at Millerton, Oklahoma and Channel 262A at Broken Bow, Oklahoma but subsequently filed a Request for Approval of Withdrawal. Charles Crawford (``Crawford'') filed a counterproposal to allot Channel 265C2 at Millerton. Petitioner and Pyeatt each provides a sworn declaration pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules, stating that she has not received nor will receive any money or other consideration in exchange for the withdrawal request. After reviewing the withdrawal requests, we find that each complies with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules and that there are no impediments to granting the requests. Therefore, we dismiss Petitioner's proposal and Pyeatt's counterproposal because
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1849A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1849A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1849A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1854A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2091A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2091A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2091A1.txt
  • as a first local aural service. In response to the NPRM, JBD Incorporated (``JBD'') filed a counterproposal, proposing a change in the allotment from Channel 243A to 244A at Harrogate, Tennessee, its reallotment from Harrogate to Halls Crossroads, Tennessee, and the modification of the Station WMYL(FM) (formerly WXJB(FM)) license, accordingly. JBD submitted this request pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. The R&O compared these mutually exclusive proposals for first local services, granted JBD's counterproposal, and denied Meredith's rulemaking petition based on our policy of preferring a first local service to the community with the larger population. RTA filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the R&O and subsequently submitted a request for dismissal of its petition for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2092A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2092A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2092A1.txt
  • filed a request for withdrawal. A counterproposal was filed by Citadel Broadcasting Company (``Citadel'') proposing to substitute Channel 251C1 for Channel 250A at Edmond, Oklahoma, reallot Channel 251C1 to The Village, Oklahoma, and to modify the license for Station WWLS-FM, accordingly. No other comments or counterproposals were filed. We grant Petitioner's request for withdrawal which was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules. Petitioner states that he has not been paid or promised any consideration in exchange for withdrawing his petition. It is the Commission's policy to refrain from making an allotment to a community absent an expression of interest. Therefore, since there has been no continued expression of interest for an allotment of Channel 251C3 at Arapaho, Oklahoma,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2194A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2195A1.txt
  • response to a Petition for Rule Making filed by Cox Radio, Inc. (``Cox''), licensee of Station WCTZ(FM), Channel 244A, Stamford, Connecticut, the Notice proposes to change the community of license for Station WCTZ(FM) from Stamford, Connecticut, to Port Chester, New York. and to reallot Channel 244A at Port Chester. 2. Cox's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Cox, which does not propose any change in the transmitter site for Station WCTZ(FM), represents that if its request is granted, it will timely
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2196A1.txt
  • the licensee of Station KYVA-FM, Channel 279C0, at Grants, New Mexico. Petitioner seeks to reallot Channel 279C0 from Grants to Church Rock, New Mexico, and to modify its license for Station KYVA-FM accordingly. Petitioner filed comments and reply comments in which it reiterates its intent to effectuate its proposal. Petitioner made the reallotment request in this docket pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. In
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2389A1.txt
  • Inc., Jacor Broadcasting of Clorado, Inc., and Citicasters Licenses, L.P. filed a Joint Request for Approval of Agreement and Other Relief. As part of an overall settlement resolving this proceeding and related application proceedings, Coloradio, Inc. has withdrawn its interest in pursuing its allotment proposal in this proceeding and requested dismissal of its Application for Review. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the rules, Coloradio, Inc. has provided a declaration stating that it has not received or been promised any money or other consideration in exchange for this dismissal. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the aforementioned Application for Review filed by Meadowlark Group, Inc. IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. For further information concerning a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2393A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2393A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2393A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2544A1.txt
  • Counterproposal was filed, is fatal to that Joint Parties' Counterproposal. The condition on the Station KHLB construction permit relates only to the possibility that the Commission could grant review and reverse the outcome in MM Docket No. 00-148. 7. Both Linda Crawford and Katherine Pyeatt filed a Withdrawal of Petition requesting dismissal of their respective proposals. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the rules, both parties filed affidavits stating that no consideration has been paid or promised, directly or indirectly, for these requests for dismissals. As requested, we are dismissing both proposals. 8. We are allotting Channel 297A to Goldthwaite, Texas. This will provide Goldthwaite with its first local service. This allotment conflicts with the proposed substitution of Channel 297A for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2650A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2650A1.txt
  • AND ORDER (Proceeding Terminated) Adopted: June 13, 2007 Released: June 15, 2007 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: 1. The Audio Division has before it a Notice of Proposed Rule Making issued in response to a Petition for Rule Making filed by Woman's World Broadcasting, Inc. (``WWB''), licensee of Station WTSH-FM, Channel 296C2, Rockmart, Georgia. Pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. WWB proposes to upgrade the facilities of WTSH-FM to Channel 296C1, to change the station's community of license from Rockmart to Aragon, Georgia, and to modify the license of WTSH-FM to operate on Channel 296C1 at Aragon. The proposed allotment of Channel 296C1 at Aragon, which would provide a first local service to Aragon, is mutually
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2651A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2651A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2651A1.txt
  • agreement approved by the staff in MB Docket No. 02-352, the Petitioner's request for approval of its withdrawal of its Petition for Rule Making in the instant docket is unrelated to any matters at issue in MB Docket No. 02-352. The staff will address these unrelated pleadings in the context of MB Docket No. 02-352. Petitioner has complied with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules by declaring that no consideration has been offered or received by Petitioner or any of its principals in exchange for the withdrawal of its Petition for Rule Making in this proceeding. Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2651 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2651 - ! " - . 0 2 3 8 Y _ � " 3 �@���
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2747A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2747A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2747A1.txt
  • this proceeding, which was dismissed as defective. The Report and Order granted the allotment of Channel 286A at Dubois, Idaho as the community's first local aural transmission service. Joint Parties now request to withdraw their Petition for Reconsideration, stating that they have filed counterproposals in other proceedings that effectuate most of the same changes. They attach affidavits pursuant to Section 1.420(j). We will grant the Joint Parties' request to withdraw and dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the aforementioned proceeding IS TERMINATED. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Victoria M. McCauley (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Ammon and Dubois, Idaho, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 10626
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2854A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2855A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2855A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2882A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2882A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2882A1.txt
  • for not substituting Channel 229A for Channel 230A at Station WPFR-FM, Clinton, Indiana, as requested in Petitioners' proposal. 5. Since both Counterproposals are subject to dismissal, Petitioners' original proposal is now the only proposal before us. Petitioner made the request to upgrade Channel 230A, Fishers, Indiana, to Channel 230B1 and to reallot Channel 230B1 to Lawrence, Indiana, pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. 6.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3151A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3154A1.txt
  • local service, which conflicted with the proposed allotment of Channel 265C at Prairie City, Oregon, as its first local service, requested by SSR Communications in a timely counterproposal in MB Docket No. 05-10. For this reason, the Report and Order consolidated the two proceedings. To resolve the conflict, the Report and Order approved a Settlement Agreement in compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, which provided a global resolution to this consolidated proceeding. The Report and Order allotted Channel 280C1 at Monument, Oregon, as its first local service and Channel 260C at Prairie City, Oregon, as its first local service as provided in the Settlement Agreement; substituted Channel *247C1 for vacant Channel *280C1 at Weiser, Idaho; and allotted Channel 267C1
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3158A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3195A1.txt
  • and modification of the Station WVIX(FM) license accordingly. Univision Radio filed comments, reiterating its expression of interest in the reallotment of Station WVIX(FM) to Lemont. The Notice stated that Station WVIX(FM) is a pre-1964 ``grandfathered'' station that is short-spaced to two other pre-1964 ``grandfathered'' stations, Stations WXRT-FM and WLIT-FM in Chicago, Illinois. Discussion. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 228A at Lemont is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station WVIX(FM), Channel 228A, Joliet, Illinois. When
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3414A1.txt
  • meters HAAT. As a result, Station KYQQ(FM) is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the reclassification procedures adopted in the Commission's Second Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-93, See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21649 (2000). Note 2 to Section 1.420(g), and Note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's rules. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 73.3573, Note 4, we issued an Order to Show Cause, Reclassification of License of Station KYQQ(FM)) Arkansas City, Kansas, Order to Show Cause, 20 FCC Rcd 12122 (MB 2005), directed to Journal Broadcast Corporation (``Journal''), licensee of Station KYQQ(FM), Arkansas City, Kansas,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3416A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3425A1.txt
  • by the Petitioner. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the Petitioner's rulemaking petition and dismiss BBN's counterproposal. Background. The Petitioner requested the substitution of Channel 238A for Channel 240A at Dundee, New York (population 1,690), the reallotment of Channel 238A to Odessa, New York (population 617), and the modification of its license accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. Subsequent to the filing of the rulemaking petition, a one-step application was granted to substitute Channel 238A for Channel 240A at Dundee. The NPRM proposed the reallotment of Channel 238A to Odessa as the community's first local service and the modification of the license for Station WFLR-FM, accordingly. In its supporting comments, the Petitioner states that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A10.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A10.txt
  • (1) Vertically Integrated 2.733** (0.719) Vertically Integrated x DBS% -0.066* (0.028) DBS% -0.017 (0.015) Fiber Share of Total Plant -0.013 (0.065) Analog System -3.569** (0.378) System Two-Way Capable -0.246 (0.359) Population Density -0.035 (0.023) Population Growth Rate 0.010+ (0.005) Hispanic% 0.017+ (0.009) Age <18 % 0.036 (0.073) Age 65+ % -0.061 (0.038) Black % -0.005 (0.008) Population per HH -2.380+ (1.420) Ln (Income) -0.150 (0.701) Homeowner % 0.007 (0.011) Observations DBS Share for VI Neutrality 1407 41.3% ** Significant at 1% level * Significant at 5% level + Significant at 10% level Notes: These are the results from a probit regression of the carriage decision for the cable systems in the sample as described in the text. Standard errors in parentheses
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3478A1.txt
  • new channels to two communities as first local services. I. BACKGROUND 2. The Notice proposed the reallotment of Channel 265A from Sierra Vista to Tanque Verde, Arizona, and modification of the Station KZMK license to specify Tanque Verde as the community of license. This would provide Tanque Verde with its first local service. This request was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. In making this determination, we compare the existing versus the proposed arrangement of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3558A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3558A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3559A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3559A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3559A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3561A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3561A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3561A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3621A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3622A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3622A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3622A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3623A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3623A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3623A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4122A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4123A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4124A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4125A1.txt
  • Law.' No other comments or counterproposals were received in response to this proceeding. Background. The Notice in MB Docket No. 06-43, proposed the allotment of Channel 300A at Oakwood, Texas, as its first local service. Charles Crawford filed timely comments, reiterating its expression of interest in the proposed Oakwood allotment but later filed a Withdrawal Request in compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Rules, stating that he desires to withdraw his petition and expression of interest. In response to this Notice, Linda Crawford filed a timely counterproposal, requesting the allotment of Channel 299C3 at Bedias, Texas, as its first local service and Channel 300A at Oakwood, Texas at new reference coordinates to resolve the conflict with the Notice's proposal. Linda Crawford
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4126A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4126A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4126A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4129A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4131A1.txt
  • Capstar seek dismissal of their Application for Review directed to a Memorandum Opinion and Order in DA 05-2506 which denied their petition for reconsideration and affirmed dismissal of their joint petition for rule making that proposed inter alia changes to the communities of license for their respective stations. 2. Clear Channel and Capstar provide a sworn declaration pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules, stating that they have not received nor will they receive any money or other consideration in exchange for their withdrawal request. We find that the withdrawal request complies with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules and that there are no impediments to granting the request. Therefore, we dismiss the Application for Review and terminate the proceeding.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-42A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-42A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-42A1.txt
  • 2004). No response was received, and therefore, in accordance with the Commission's reclassification procedures noted above, the license for Station WSTR(FM) has been reclassified to specify operation on Channel 231C0 instead of Channel 231C at Smyrna, Georgia. The counterproposal was placed on Public Notice on May 20, 2005, Report No. 2709, RM-11247. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 21,662, � 26. See In Re Reclassification of License of Station WSTR(FM), Smyrna, Georgia, supra. Revision of FM Assignment Policies and Procedures., 90 FCC 2d 88, 91-92 (1982). The FM allotment priorities are the following: (1) First full-time aural service; (2) Second full-time aural service; (3) First local service;
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4307A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4308A1.txt
  • at Mineral Point, Wisconsin, as its first local service; substitution of Channel *254A for vacant Channel *238A at Asbury, Iowa; and substitution of Channel 237A for Channel 236A at Maquoketa, Iowa and modification of the Station KMAQ-FM license to faciliticate the community of license application, proposing the reallotment of Station KQMG-FM from Independence to Solon, Iowa in compliance with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''). To accommodate the proposed Maquoketa channel substitution and Solon community of license application, Petitioner requests the reclassification of Station KGGO(FM), Channel 235C, to specify operation on Channel 235C0. Station KGGO(FM) currently operates on Channel 235C with an effective radiated power (``ERP'') of 100 kilowatts at 325 meters height above average terrain (``HAAT''). As such,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4309A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4311A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4311A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4311A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4312A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4313A1.txt
  • EMF's counterproposal (RM-11315) was accepted and placed on public notice in Report No. 2762 (February 17, 2006). The West Portsmouth and RGS counterproposals are being dismissed. West Portsmouth Broadcasting, Inc., requested the allotment of Channel 294A at West Portsmouth, Kentucky, as its first local aural transmission service. It withdrew its counterproposal on September 12, 2006, certifying pursuant to 47 C.F.R. �1.420(j), that it did not receive consideration for its withdrawal. RGS's counterproposal requesting the allotment of Channel 294A at Owingsville was not acceptable for consideration because it failed to include engineering for a fully spaced site at the community. Ultimately, the FAA issued a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation regarding the use of Channel 300A at Falmouth. However, this
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4505A1.txt
  • the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. Section 801(a)(1)(A) since this proposed rule is dismissed, herein.) For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Bokchito and Clayton, Oklahoma, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 22 FCC Rcd 9418 (MB 2007). 47 C.F.R. � 1.420 (j). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4505 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4505 h � 1 Z h � � � � 3� F �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4945A1.txt
  • of Stair's Weaverville counterproposal, and the withdrawal of McCoy's comments in MB Docket No. 05-191, in order to allow expeditious resolution of a long-pending rulemaking proceeding. The Joint Parties settled the proceeding pursuant to the rulemaking settlement window, announced by the Media Bureau (``Bureau''), as directed by the Commission, and the Bureau appropriately waived the reimbursement limitation provisions of Section 1.420(j) of the Rules. On October 24, 2005, Willsyr also filed a petition for reconsideration of the Glenville Report and Order, based upon the interrelated nature of the two settlements (``Willsyr Glenville Report and Order Reconsideration''). On August 27, 2007, the Estate of David T. Murray (``Estate'') withdrew its Section 1.41 Request, which had been filed in connection with the Station
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5036A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5036A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5036A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5037A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5037A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5037A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5038A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5038A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5038A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-60A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-60A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-60A1.txt
  • to response to request for supplemental information filed by the Petitioner. For the reasons discussed below, we will approve the withdrawal of the Petitioner's rulemaking petition. Background. The NPRM proposed the reallotment, downgrade, and change of community of license for Station WVBZ(FM) from Channel 262C at High Point, North Carolina, to Channel 262C0 at Liberty, North Carolina, pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. Capitol filed a conflicting minor change application for its Station WCMC-FM, Creedmoor, North Carolina, which would be treated as a counterproposal in this proceeding because the application was filed after the rulemaking petition but before the comment deadline of May 9, 2005, set forth in the NPRM. In its request for approval of withdrawal of interest,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-61A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-61A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-61A1.txt
  • BK Radio, former licensee of Station KOTY, Channel 239C2, Mason, Texas, filed a Counterproposal. In that Counterproposal, BK Radio proposed the substitution of Channel 240C2 for Channel 239C2 at Mason, reallotment of Channel 240C2 to Mertzon, Texas, and modification of the Station KOTY license to specify operation on Channel 240C2 at Mertzon. BK Radio filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license. Under Community of License, we are required to determine whether the proposed change in community of license will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. In determining whether a proposal would result in a preferential arrangement of allotments, we compare the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-805A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-805A1.txt
  • a sworn affidavit, stating that he has not or will not receive any consideration in connection with the withdrawal of his rulemaking petition. We approve the Petitioner's withdrawal of his rulemaking petition in this proceeding and the expression of interest in Channel 242A at Melvin, Texas. The withdrawal of the rulemaking petition and the expression of interest comply with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules because the Petitioner is not receiving any money or other consideration in return for the withdrawal. As stated in the Appendix to the NPRM, a continuing interest is required before a channel will be allotted. Because the rulemaking petition and expression of interest in the proposed allotment at Melvin have been dismissed, we will not allot
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-806A1.txt
  • Broadcasting, LLC (``Chisolm''), licensee of Station KREO(FM), Pine Bluffs, Wyoming, directed to the letter dismissal of a Petition for Rule Making filed by Laramie Mountain Broadcasting, Inc. The original Petition for Rule Making was filed by Chisolm's predecessor-in-interest, Laramie Mountain Broadcasting, Inc., former licensee of Station KREO(FM). Chisolm now requests that the Petition for Reconsideration be dismissed. Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Rules, it certifies that it has not and will not receive any compensation for this withdrawal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the above-referenced Petition for Reconsideration filed by Chisolm Trail Broadcasting, LLC IS DISMISSED as requested. This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act because it makes no change to the Rules. The Commission, is, therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-807A1.txt
  • a Request for Approval for Withdrawal filed by Aurora Media, LLC (``Aurora''). Aurora requests withdrawal of its Application for Review of a Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 06-2029, and its expression of interest in reallotting its unbuilt station on Channel 233C from Caliente to Moapa, Nevada, in the above captioned proceeding. 2. Aurora provides a sworn declaration pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules, stating that it has not received nor will it receive any money or other consideration in exchange for its withdrawal request. Aurora also states that it is concurrently filing an FCC Form 301 application to change the community of license for its unbuilt station, Channel 233C from Caliente to Moapa, Nevada pursuant to Revision of Procedures
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-949A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-949A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-949A1.txt
  • submitted by Englewood Wireless, proposing the allotment of Channel 250A as a first local service at Englewood, Tennessee. See Public Notice, Report No. 2749 (Jan. 18, 2006). See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and Section 1.420(g), n. 2, and Section 73.3573, n. 4, of the Commission's Rules. See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, Order, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n. 2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-950A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-950A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-950A1.txt
  • KIXC-FM accordingly. In its petition and subsequent comments submitted in this proceeding, KIXC stated its willingness and intention to implement the proposed changes. 2. In its letter, KIXC now states its intention to withdraw the pending petition for rulemaking. KIXC further states that no consideration has been paid or promised, directly or indirectly, for such withdrawal. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). That representation is supported by a certification executed by Fred R. Morton, Member, KIXC-FM, L.L.C. 3. It is the Commission's policy to refrain from making an allotment to a community absent an adequate expression of interest. By submitting a letter stating its intention to withdraw its petition for rule making, KIXC has demonstrated that it has no continuing interest in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-951A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-951A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-951A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-126A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-126A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-126A1.txt
  • and 110-45-54 WL, located 4.3 kilometers (2.7 miles) southwest of Wellington. The reference coordinates for Channel 239C at Salina are 38-50-58 NL and 112-00-28 WL, located 17.6 kilometers (11 miles) southwest of Salina. The reference coordinates for Channel 240C0 at Randolph are 41-56-46 NL and 111-00-04 WL, located 34.5 kilometers (21.5 miles) northeast of Randolph. This reallotment complies with Section 1.420(i) of the Rules because Channel 240C0 at Randolph is mutually exclusive with Channel 240C1 at Delta. Delta will continue to receive local service from ``full-time'' Station KNAK(AM). The gain area contains 124,749 persons. The loss area contains 329,074 persons. Currently, in the gain area, 293 persons receive one aural reception service, 3,440 persons receive two aural reception services, 4,102 persons
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1404A1.txt
  • Accountability Office, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the proposed rule was dismissed. 7. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Deborah Dupont, Media Bureau, (202) 418-7072. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau See Crowell, Texas, Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 10,686 (MB 2006). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1404 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1404 �@��� � � ... �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1405A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1405A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1405A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1408A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1410A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1410A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1410A1.txt
  • vacant Channel 293C3 at Llano, Texas; (2) the substitution of Channel 252A for vacant Channel 284A at Junction, Texas; (3) the substitution of Channel 295A for vacant Channel 284A at Blanket, Texas; and (4) the reallotment of Channel 295A from Burnet, Texas, to Kempner, Texas (pop. 1,004) and the associated modification of the license for Station KHLE(FM), pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. The counterproposal is mutually exclusive with NPRM I because Channel 295A at Blanket conflicts with Channel 294A at Cross Plains under the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements. The counterproposal also is mutually exclusive with NPRM II because the proposed substitution of Channel 284C3 at Llano conflicts with the allotment of Channel 284A at Bertram. Finally, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1485A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1485A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1486A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1487A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1488A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1490A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1490A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1490A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1491A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1491A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1491A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1492A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1492A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1492A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1494A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1494A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1494A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1495A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1495A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1495A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1496A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1496A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1496A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1497A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1499A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1499A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1499A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1500A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1500A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1500A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1501A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1501A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1501A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1502A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1502A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1502A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1503A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1588A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1588A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1599A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1599A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1599A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1600A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1600A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1600A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1601A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1601A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1601A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1624A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1624A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1624A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1630A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1630A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1631A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1631A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1633A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1633A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1633A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1652A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1652A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1692A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1692A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1698A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1703A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1703A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1703A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1704A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1704A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1704A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1705A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1705A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1705A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1710A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1710A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1711A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1711A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1712A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1712A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1713A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1713A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1713A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1722A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1722A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1722A1.txt
  • to file may lead to denial of the request. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1734A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1734A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1734A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1735A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1735A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1735A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1736A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1736A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1736A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1756A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1756A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1756A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1897A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1897A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1897A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1907A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1907A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1907A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1956A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1956A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1956A1.txt
  • interest in the upgraded channel is expressed or if an alternative equivalent channel is identified for those parties expressing such an interest. The rule was intended to encourage the filing of modification proposals by limiting the ability of other parties to compete for upgraded allotments, i.e., the rule codifies a new licensing right for a certain class of licensees. Section 1.420(g) unambiguously applies to any modification to ``another class of channel,'' i.e., any upgrade or downgrade proposal. Although the License Modification Order considered upgrades exclusively, it did not set forth an alternate rule for downgrades, and certainly did not announce a Rule which strips away the requirements imposed on upgrade proponents. Importantly, the Commission suggests - in the context of a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2027A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2027A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2027A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2028A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2028A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2028A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2116A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2117A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2147A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2161A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2234A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2235A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2273A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2273A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2274A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2274A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2277A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2295A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2295A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2332A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2333A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2334A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2354A1.txt
  • Released: October 27, 2008 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: The Audio Division, on its own motion, hereby sets aside the Report and Order in this proceeding pursuant to Section 1.113(a) of the Commission's Rules and provides interested parties with the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in FM Channel 299C3, Madisonville, Texas, in compliance with Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules. The R&O granted a counterproposal (RM-11423) to allot FM Channel 267A at Normangee, Texas. To accommodate this new allotment, the R&O substituted Channel 299C3 for Channel 267A as the reserved assignment for Station KKLB(FM), Madisonville, Texas, in the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System, pursuant to Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules. The R&O also denied,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2439A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2544A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2569A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2569A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2569A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2570A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2570A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2570A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2571A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2571A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2571A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2590A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2590A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2619A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2619A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2619A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2677A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2677A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2677A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2701A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2719A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2719A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2719A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2728A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2728A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2728A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-272A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-272A1.txt
  • the Station WJCD license to specify Norfolk as the community of license. In order to replace the loss of the sole local service at Windsor, the Notice also proposed the reallotment of Channel 287B from Norfolk to Windsor and modification of the Station WKUS license to specify Windsor as its community of license. This request was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-273A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-273A1.txt
  • for Channel 268C3 at Peach Springs, Arizona, should be addressed to the Audio Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Peach Springs, Arizona, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 22 FCC Rcd 15,118 (MB 2007) (``Notice''). See File No. BMPH-20070124AJQ. Greenlight filed its ``Withdrawal'' on January 7, 2008. Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Greenlight has supplied a declaration that it has not been paid nor promised any money or other consideration in exchange for the proposed withdrawal of its counterproposal in this proceeding. We will, therefore, grant the proposed withdrawal of Greenlight's counterproposal. See 5 U.S.C. � 801 (a)(1)(A). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-273 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-273
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-274A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-274A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-275A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-275A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-275A1.txt
  • the allotment of Channel 285A at Sells, Arizona, as the community's first local transmission service. In response to the NPRM, Lakeshore filed a timely counterproposal, proposing the downgrade of Channel 285C2 to Channel 285C3 at Willcox, the reallotment of Channel 285C3 to Davis-Monthan AFB, and the associated modification of the license for Station KWCX-FM pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. To accommodate this allotment, Lakeshore proposed to modify the transmitter site for Station KZZP(FM), Channel 284C, Mesa, Arizona, with the consent of the licensee, and agreed to reimburse the licensee for the reasonable costs of changing its transmitter site. Further, because the relocation of Station KWCX-FM would create ``white area,'' Lakeshore proposed two ``backfill'' allotments, Channels
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2775A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-27A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-27A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-27A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-31A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-31A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-31A1.txt
  • the request of JBL, a Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order to Show Cause proposed the upgrade of Channel 274A to Channel 274C3 at Cumberland, Kentucky, the reallotment of Channel 274C3 from Cumberland (pop. 2,611) to Weber City, Virginia (pop. 1,333) as a first local service, and the associated modification of the license for Station WVEK-FM pursuant to Sections 1.420(g)(3) and (i) of the Commission's rules (the ``Rules''). To accommodate this upgrade and reallotment, the NPRM/OSC also proposed: (1) the substitution of Channel 263A for then vacant Channel 274A at Glade Spring, Virginia; and (2) the substitution of Channel 273A for Channel 263A at Marion, Virginia, and the associated modification of Station WOLD-FM's license. The R&O denied JBL's proposal and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-408A1.txt
  • whether grant of an application would serve the public interest. To the extent that they are used for other than their intended purpose, e.g., for private financial gain, to settle personal claims, or as an emotional outlet, the public interest is disserved. Beyond the costs to licensees and the public, consideration of meritless challenges wastes Commission resources.'' Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3912 (1990), recon. denied, 6 FCC Rcd 3380 (1991). . The statement that D.B. Zwirn & Co. investors are ``citizens of New York'' was made to support diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. � 1332 which provides, inter alia, that U.S.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-504A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-504A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-504A1.txt
  • Allotments, ) RM-11419 Television Broadcast Stations. ) (Riverside, California) ) NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING Adopted: March 5, 2008 Released: March 5, 2008 Comment Date: [30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] Reply Comment Date: [45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: A. Introduction Pursuant to Section 1.420 of the Commission's rules, we initiate a rulemaking proceeding to substitute post-transition DTV channel 35 for channel 45 for KRCA-DT. In comments filed in the Seventh Report and Order for Advanced Television, KRCA License, LLC (KRCA) licensee of station KRCA(TV), channel 62, and KRCA-DT, channel 68, Riverside, California, requested this substitution in the event that channel 45, the tentative channel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-568A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-568A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-568A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-630A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-630A1.txt
  • of Station KZMK, Channel 265A, Sierra Vista, Arizona, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposed the reallotment of Channel 265A from Sierra Vista to Tanque Verde, Arizona, and modification of the Station KZMK license to specify Tanque Verde as the community of license. This would provide Tanque Verde with its first local service. This request was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal be mutually exclusive with the station's current authorization and that the reallotment result in a preferential arrangement of allotments.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-68A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-68A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-68A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-69A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-69A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-69A1.txt
  • to file may lead to denial of the request. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-737A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-737A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-737A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1032A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1032A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1032A1.txt
  • proposed channel changes were filed as part of a hybrid application and rulemaking proposal involving the Petitioner's concurrently filed minor change application. In this application, the Petitioner proposes the reallotment of Channel 297C from Alturus, California, to Fernley, Nevada, and the associated modification of its construction permit for a new FM station at Alturus, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. The modification of the Alturus construction permit is contingent upon the deletion of the Nevada City allotment. In its Comments, the Petitioner incorporates its rulemaking petition in support of the deletion of vacant FM Channel 297A at Nevada City and restates its intention to participate in the auction process for a new FM station on Channel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1103A1.txt
  • institute any proceeding, formal or informal, or take any action against Tama Broadcasting, Inc., D.B. Zwirn & Co., L.P., or their affiliates, with respect to their basic qualifications, including character qualifications, to be a Commission licensee.'' Tama Broadcasting, Inc., 24 FCC Rcd at 1618-19. 47 C.F.R. � 1.65(a). DFW-to-Bernard Decision, 23 FCC Rcd at 2644 n.12 (citing Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3912 (1990), recon. denied, 6 FCC Rcd 3380 (1991). This admonishment applies only to the Petitioners, not to their counsel. Attorney misconduct associated with frivolous pleadings is referred to the Office of General Counsel under seal. Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1125A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1200A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1250A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1357A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1357A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1357A1.txt
  • NPRM's proposed allotment of Channel 299A. Second, Pyeatt proposes the allotment of Channel 267A at Normangee, Texas, as a first local service (RM-11423). To accommodate this allotment, Pyeatt proposes the non-adjacent channel upgrade of Station KKLB(FM), Madisonville, Texas, from Channel 267A to Channel 299C3 at a new transmitter site and the associated modification of her construction permit, pursuant to Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules. Pyeatt's counterproposal is mutually exclusive with the NPRM's proposal because Channel 299C3 at Madisonville is short-spaced under the minimum distance separation rules with Channel 299A at Iola, Texas. In addition, Pyeatt's counterproposal is also mutually exclusive with Henderson's counterproposal because Channels 299A at Buffalo, Texas, and 299C3 at Madisonville are short-spaced to each other. In support
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1362A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1431A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1432A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1490A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1490A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1490A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1510A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rulemaking which conflict with the proposal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1534A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1534A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rulemaking which conflict with the proposal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1537A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1543A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1543A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1544A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1576A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1579A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1579A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1579A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1595A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1595A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1595A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1726A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1726A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1726A1.txt
  • September 17, 2009, the FM Table of Allotments, 47 C.F.R. Section 73.202(b), IS AMENDED, with respect to the community listed below, to read as follows: Community Channel Ten Sleep, Wyoming 267A 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority found in 47 U.S.C. Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and 307(b), and 47 C.F.R. Sections 0.61, 0.204(b), 0.283, and 1.420(i), and subject to final approval of petitioner's application to change the community of license for Station KYTS(FM), Channel 271C2, from Ten Sleep to Manderson, Wyoming, that effective August 24, 2009, the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System will reflect petitioner's construction permit for Station KYTS(FM), Channel 271C2, at Manderson, Wyoming. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the counterproposal filed by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1727A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1727A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1727A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1755A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1755A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1755A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1770A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1795A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1805A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1805A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-185A1.txt
  • channel changes are being filed as part of a hybrid application and rulemaking proposal involving the Petitioner's concurrently filed minor change application. In this application, the Petitioner proposes the reallotment of Channel 297C from Altlurus, California, to Fernley, Nevada, and the associated modification of its construction permit for a new FM station at Alturus, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. The modification of the Alturus construction permit is contingent upon the deletion of the Nevada City allotment. In support of its rulemaking request, the Petitioner contends that the deletion of vacant Channel 297A at Nevada City and the proposed new allotment at Mineral would result in a preferential arrangement of FM channels because Mineral would receive
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1922A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1922A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1922A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1963A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1963A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1969A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1969A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1969A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2026A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2041A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2041A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2041A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2180A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rulemaking which conflict with the proposal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2198A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2234A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2263A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2263A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2268A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2268A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2269A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2270A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2339A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rulemaking which conflict with the proposal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2480A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rulemaking which conflict with the proposal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2605A1.txt
  • Making to which this Appendix is attached. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its general freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments, we will not consider counterproposals which propose a new allotment to a community in a State which already has a VHF commercial television channel allotment. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2606A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2606A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2606A1.txt
  • Making to which this Appendix is attached. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its general freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments, we will not consider counterproposals which propose a new allotment to a community in a State which already has a VHF commercial television channel allotment. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-40A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-40A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-40A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-412A1.txt
  • Table of Allotments, Section 73.202(b) of the Commission's Rules, IS AMENDED, with respect to the communities listed below, to read as follows: Community Channel Number Evart, Michigan 274A Ludington, Michigan 249A 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority found in 47 U.S.C. Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and 307(b), and 47 C.F.R. Sections 0.61, 0.204(b), 0.283, and 1.420(i), that effective April 13, 2009, the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System will reflect for the following stations and allotments in Michigan: (1) Channel 242A at Pentwater, Michigan, as the reserved assignment for Station WMOM(FM), in lieu of Channel 274A; and (2) Channel 282A at Manistee, Michigan, as the reserved assignment for Station WMLQ(FM), in lieu of Channel 249A. (a)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-415A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-43A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-43A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-43A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-490A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-490A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-490A1.txt
  • being filed as part of a hybrid application and rulemaking proposal involving the Petitioner's concurrently filed minor change application. In this application, the Petitioner proposes the substitution of Channel 244C2 for Channel 244C3 at Morgan City, the reallotment of Channel 244C2 to Gray, Louisiana, and the associated modification of its license for Station KMYO-FM pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. The modification of the Morgan City license is contingent upon the requested channel substitution at Dulac. In support of its rulemaking request, the Petitioner contends that the substitution of Channel 230A for vacant Channel 242A at Dulac would provide a net gain in service to 4,255 persons. In addition, the Petitioner alleges that the KMYO-FM application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-552A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-552A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-552A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-606A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-606A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-606A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-638A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-638A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-638A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-739A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-739A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-739A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-833A1.txt
  • states its intention to withdraw its expression of interest in Channel 283C2 at Laramie, Wyoming, and requests that this proceeding be terminated. A declaration by Bruce Buzil, manager of Superior, represents that neither Superior nor any of its principals has received or will receive any consideration in exchange for the withdrawal of its expression of interest. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). 2. The Audio Division also has before it the ``Request for Dismissal'' submitted on January 12, 2009, on behalf White Park Broadcasting, Inc. (``White Park''). White Park's request seeks the dismissal of its counterproposal for the allotment of FM Channel 283C2 at Grand Encampment, Wyoming, rather than at Laramie, Wyoming, as proposed in the Notice. In support of its request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-836A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-836A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-840A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-840A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-840A1.txt
  • Bend. The NPRM proposed the allotment of FM Channel 235A at Markham, Texas, as a second local service. In response to the NPRM, Fort Bend filed a counterproposal, requesting the upgrade of its Station KHTZ (FM), Ganado, Texas, from Channel 284C2 to Channel 235C and the modification of its license to specify operation on non-adjacent Channel 235C, pursuant to Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules. To accommodate the proposed upgrade at Ganado, Fort Bend also requests the substitution of Channel 284C3 for Channel 236C3 at Victoria, Texas, and the associated modification of the license for Station KVIC(FM). Section 316(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, permits us to modify the license or construction permit if such action is in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-847A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-847A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-847A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1060A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1060A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1060A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1061A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1061A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1061A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-109A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rulemaking which conflict with the proposal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1148A1.txt
  • 244C2 at Maupin, Oregon. No parties filed comments in response to the Petition for Reconsideration. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Petitioner now withdraws its expression of interest in the allotment of Channel 244C2 at Maupin. Petitioner states that due to changed economic conditions, it is no longer interested in constructing and operating a station at Maupin. In compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Petitioner states that no consideration has been or will be received by it in return for the withdrawal of its expression of interest. Petitioner also requests the dismissal of its pending application for a new station at Maupin. Discussion. We will grant the Petition for Reconsideration and dismiss the petitioner's expression of interest because it demonstrated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1194A1.txt
  • create a gray area consisting of 1,057 persons. As discussed below, the creation of gray area is not fatal to the Counterproposal. 6. As stated earlier, the Counterproposal proposes to reallot Channel 229C from Richfield to Mount Pleasant and modify the Station KLGL license to specify Mount Pleasant as the community of license. This proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. Any reallotment proposal must result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies and Procedures. This
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-141A1.txt
  • Rulemaking (``Request'') and its associated application. It claims that no consideration was received in conjunction with its request to withdraw. No counterproposals or other comments were received in response to this Notice. For the reasons discussed below, we are dismissing the Petition for Rule Making. We will grant Petitioner's Request to dismiss its rulemaking Petition because the requirements of Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules have been met. Petitioner has demonstrated that no consideration has been or will be received in exchange for its withdrawal. Furthermore, we will not allot Channel 244A at Chester, Georgia because no other expression of interest has been filed for the proposed allotment. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the Petition for Rule Making filed by Georgia
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1806A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2000A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2000A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2000A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2279A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2279A1.txt
  • petition for rulemaking seeking the allotment of FM Channel 232A at Jewett, Texas, and we issued a notice proposing that rule change. 2. Crawford now states his intention to withdraw his petition for allotment of Channel 232A at Jewett. Crawford further states that no consideration has been paid or promised, directly or indirectly, for such withdrawal. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). 3. It is the Commission's policy to refrain from making an allotment to a community absent an adequate expression of interest. By filing his ``Withdrawal of Petition,'' Crawford has demonstrated that he has no continuing interest in the requested allotment. In addition, no other party has expressed an interest in the allotment of FM Channel 232A at Jewett, Texas. 4.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-22A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-22A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-22A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-23A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-23A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-23A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2426A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2443A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2443A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2443A1.txt
  • station WPTZ(DT)'s community of license from North Pole to Plattsburgh, and to further update the record. For the reasons discussed below, we will grant Hearst-Argyle's requested reallotment of channel 14 to Plattsburgh in the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments, and further grant its request to change WPTZ(DT)'s community of license. 2. Background. This reallotment proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, the Commission compares the existing allotment versus the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-307A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rulemaking which conflict with the proposal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-36A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-36A1.txt
  • and paid the requisite filing fee in compliance with the Commission's new procedures. In response to the NPRM, Fort Bend filed a counterproposal (RM-11416), requesting the upgrade of its Station KHTZ(FM), Ganado, Texas, from Channel 284C2 to Channel 235C at a new transmitter site and the modification of its license to specify operation on non-adjacent Channel 235C, pursuant to Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules. To accommodate the proposed upgrade at Ganado, Fort Bend also requests the substitution of Channel 284C3 for Channel 236C3 at Victoria, Texas, and the associated modification of the license for Station KVIC(FM). This counterproposal is mutually exclusive with the NPRM because Channel 235C at Ganado is short-spaced to Channel 235A at Markham under the Commission's minimum
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-38A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-38A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-38A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-487A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-488A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-489A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-57A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-57A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-57A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rulemaking which conflict with the proposal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-688A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-688A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-688A1.txt
  • FCC Rcd 4870, 4873 � 24 (1989) (``New Community R&O''), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990) (``New Community MO&O'') (``We believe the public interest, convenience, and necessity would best be served by allowing permittees and licensees to change their community in the circumstances set forth herein without being subject to competing applications.''). See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(i). The Commission has affirmed the propriety of using the FM allotment priorities in community of license changes for AM stations. See Alvin Lou Media, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 806 (2004); and Kidd Communications, 15 FCC Rcd 22 (2000). See, e.g., Old Forge and Black River, New York, Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 2470 (MB 2006) (granting a rulemaking request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-698A1.txt
  • other television stations. 47 C.F.R. � 73.623(d). PSIP Standard at Annex B, �1, No. 8. Channel 36 is the DTV RF channel number licensed to WTTG(TV), Washington, D.C. BMC's counterproposal to allot either channel 2 or 3 to Seaford is not entitled to consideration as BMC did not advance its counterproposal until the reply comment stage of this proceeding. Section 1.420(d) specially states that ``Counterproposals shall be advances in initial comments only and will not be considered if they are advanced in reply comments.'' 47 C.F.R. 1.420(d). Federal Communications Commission DA 10-698 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-698 � " #0 #0 #0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-74A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-74A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-74A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-754A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-754A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-754A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-786A1.txt
  • 249C2 at The Dalles, which is mutually-contingent with the disposition of the Station KNRQ-FM modification application. Moreover, upon grant of the Station KACI-FM modification application, Bicoastal shall complete construction of the newly-authorized facilities pursuant to the conditions of the Station KACI-FM construction permit. Cumulus shall prepare the license application for review and filing by Bicoastal. Discussion. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, we are granting the Joint Parties' Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed. In doing so, we approved the Settlement Agreement in accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules. The Joint Parties will collectively and individually receive payments that are less than the totality of their respective legitimate and prudent expenses incurred
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-852A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-852A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-852A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1034A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1034A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1034A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1072A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1072A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1072A1.txt
  • we grant the Reconsideration Petition and the Rule Making Petition. 2. Background. At the request of East Kentucky, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposed the upgrade of Station WPKE-FM, Coal Run, Kentucky, from Channel 276A to Channel 221C3 at a new transmitter site and the modification of its license to specify operation on non-adjacent Channel 221C3, pursuant to Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''). In order to accommodate this upgrade, we issued an Order to Show Cause (``OSC'') to Dickenson County as to why its license for Station WDIC-FM should not be modified from Channel 221A to Channel 276A. In response to the OSC, Dickenson County argued that there was a major terrain obstruction between Coal Run and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1401A1.txt
  • changing channel, we would not grant HRETA's waiver request. However, since no additional technical changes are necessary, and HRETA does not propose to make any technical changes, we believe that considering its proposal will not undermine the new purpose of the freeze on the filing of petitions for allotment changes. HRETA seeks to invoke the provisions set forth in Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. This procedure is limited to situations in which: (1) the new allotment would be mutually exclusive with the existing allotment; (2) the reallotment will result in a preferential
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1413A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1414A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1460A1.txt
  • Area, while Oak View is located in the Oxnard Urbanized. Area. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recons. granted in part, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990) (``Community of License MO&O''). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420(i) and 73.3573(g)(1). See, e.g., Headland, Alabama, and Chattahoochee, Florida, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 10352, 10354 (1995) (requiring proponents seeking to relocate to a community adjacent to an Urbanized Area that would place a city grade signal over 50 percent6 or more of an Urbanized Area to submit a Tuck showing; Powell Meredith Communications, Co., et al., Memorandum Opinion
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1495A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1495A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1495A1.txt
  • more effective implementation of overall policy on an individual basis). WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1157. Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 11-105, 2011 WL 2722585 (rel. Jul. 12, 2011) (``Third Further Notice''). 47 C.F.R. � 74.1233(a)(1). See 47 CFR �� 74.1233(b)(3) (reserved band) and (d)(2)(i) (non-reserved band). See Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 FCC Rcd 5563 � 2 (1987) (``We believe that `abuse of process' may be characterized as any action designed or intended to manipulate or take improper advantage of a Commission process, procedure or rule in order to achieve a result which that process,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1523A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1523A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1690A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1690A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1690A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1711A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1711A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1712A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1712A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1853A1.txt
  • issued to Bee Broadcasting, Inc., licensee of Station KBBZ(FM), Kalispell, Montana, as to why its license should not be modified from Channel 253C to Channel 296C. Thereafter, SPB concurrently filed the Channel 296C Petition and the Second Amendment to the Application. The Channel 296 Petition proposes an upgrade at Charlo from Channel 251C3 to non-adjacent Channel 296C pursuant to Section 1.420(g)(2). The Second Amendment seeks to modify the First Amendment to the Application by abandoning the previously proposed change in community of license from Charlo to Woods Bay. Instead, SPB proposes to amend its Application to specify upgraded, non-adjacent Channel 296C at Charlo at a different transmitter site in lieu of Channel 251C3. As a result of the Second Amendment, SPB
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1924A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1924A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1924A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2058A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2058A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2058A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2062A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2062A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2062A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-224A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-335A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-372A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-406A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-406A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-499A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-499A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-499A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-653A1.txt
  • 12. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-7072. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nazifa Sawez Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and Section 1.420(g), n.2, and Section 73.3573, n.4, of the Commission's Rules. See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, Order, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n.2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-746A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-746A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-746A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-74A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-74A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-74A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-867A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-867A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-867A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-96A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-96A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-96A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1008A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1008A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1008A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-325A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-325A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-325A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-326A1.txt
  • For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nazifa Sawez Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420(g), note 2, and 73.3573, note 4. 47 U.S.C. � 316(a). See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n.2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-328A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-551A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-551A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-551A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-552A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-552A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-552A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-670A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-670A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-670A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-815A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-815A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-815A1.txt
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of the filings in this proceeding; (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) Because the Commission has not yet lifted its freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking to establish new DTV channel allotments and for changes in community of license, we will not consider counterproposals which propose new allotments or changes in community of license. (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-866A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-866A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-866A1.txt
  • FCC Rcd at 12686. 47 C.F.R. � 74.1233(a)(1). 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 14859, 14872 � 50 (1998). See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review, First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 5272, 5277 � 8 (1999). See 47 CFR �� 74.1233(b)(3) (reserved band) and (d)(2)(i) (non-reserved band). 47 U.S.C. � 308(a). See Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 FCC Rcd 5563 � 2 (1987) (``We believe that `abuse of process' may be characterized as any action designed or intended to manipulate or take improper advantage of a Commission process, procedure or rule in order to achieve a result which that process,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-907A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-907A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-907A1.txt
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-226718A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-226718A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-226718A2.txt
  • 283C3 for Channel 288A at Cottage Grove, Oregon, reallot Channel 288C3 to Veneta, Oregon, and modify the license of Station KEUG(FM) to specify the new community. Finally, the petition requests that we reallot Channel 264C2 from Toledo, Oregon to Depoe Bay, and modify the license of Station KPPT(FM) to specify the new community. This proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules that authorizes the Commission to modify the license or permit of an FM station to specify a new community of license where the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-227516A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-227516A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-227516A2.txt
  • Radio filed Reply Comments and Further Reply Comments. For the reasons discussed below, we are modifying the licenses of eight stations and are allotting new FM channels to three communities as first local services. Background 2. Seven of the proposals set forth in the original Notice request a change in community of license. These requests were filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. In evaluating a proposal, we compare the existing versus the proposed arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246096A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246096A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246096A2.txt
  • it only resubmits or incorporates by reference its former pleadings. It should also restate its present intention to apply for the channel if it is reserved and, if authorized, to build a station promptly. Failure to file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Comments and Reply Comments; Service. Pursuant to applicable procedures set out in Sections 1.415 and 1.420 of the Commission's rules and regulations, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making to which this Appendix is attached. All submissions by parties to this proceeding or by persons acting on behalf of such parties must be made in written comments, reply comments, or other
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246353A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Report No. 2657 April 22, 2004 CONSUMER & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU REFERENCE INFORMATION CENTER ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------- RM NO. RULES SEC. PETITIONER DATE RECEIVED NATURE OF PETITION ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------- 10960 1.420 First Broadcasting 03/05/04 In the Matter of the Commission's Rules Regarding Investment Partners, Modification of FM and AM Authorizations LLC (Filed By: Tom W. Davidson, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 1676 International Drive Penthouse McLean, VA 22102) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ FCC PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 /
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259489A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) MM Docket No. 05-210 RM-10960 ERRATUM Released: June 22, 2005 By the Chief, Audio Division: On June 14, 2005, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC 05-120 in the above captioned proceeding. This Erratum corrects the fifth sentence of paragraph 52 to read: The Bureau is to waive the provisions of Section 1.420(j) of our rules, and must accept settlements that involve payments to petitioners in excess of their reasonable and prudent expenses. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Peter H. Doyle Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau 47 C.F.R. � 1420(j). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 05-XX Federal Communications Commission �@��� h F �@ �b w ]' �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276164A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276164A1.txt
  • clauses of the Report and Order. Accordingly, the two paragraphs below shall be inserted following paragraph 15 of the Report and Order, and all the paragraphs that follow shall be re-numbered accordingly: 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority found in 47 U.S.C. Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and 307(b), and 47 C.F.R. Sections 0.61, 0.204(b),0.283, and 1.420(i), IT IS ORDERED, That effective October 8, 2007, the FM Table of Allotments, 47 C.F.R. Section 73.202(b), IS AMENDED, with respect to the communities listed below, to read as follows: Community Channel Number Lynchburg, Tennessee 230A (a) Within 90 days of the effective date of this Order, the licensee shall submit to the Commission a minor change application for a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287071A1.pdf
  • this court's decision in Crawford v. FCC, 417 F.3d 1289 (D.C. Cir. 2005). There, the court rejected Crawford's claim of inadequate notice on virtually identical facts, stating that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations, 15 F.C.C.R. 15,809 (2000) ("Quanah NPRM"), and the FCC's regulations, 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(d), "put all interested parties on notice that their proposals could be precluded by any counterproposal � whether foreseeable or not � that was filed by the deadline, mutually exclusive with the Quanah proposal, and mutually exclusive with their own." Crawford, 417 F.3d at 1296 (emphasis in original). Here, the Quanah NPRM likewise gave Crawford adequate notice that his late-filed, conflicting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-86831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-86831A1.txt
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-368A1.pdf
  • 176 (109) 89 (55) 31 (19) C1 to C0 259 (161) 196 (122) 94 (58) 37 (23) C0 to C0 270 (168) 207 (129) 96 (60) 41 (25) C to C0 281 (175) 220 (137) 105 (65) 45 (28) APPENDIX D I. Part 1 of Title 47 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: Section 1.420 is amended by changing Note 2 to subsection (h) to Note 3 and adding Note 2 to subsection (g) to read as follows: Note 2: The reclassification of a Class C station in accordance with the procedure set forth in Note 4 to Section 73.3573 may be initiated through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-409A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-409A1.txt
  • petition for reconsideration that was denied in the above referenced MO&O. 3. In its application for review, Smith seeks to raise four issues. First, Smith contends that the staff erred in finding that the holder of a construction permit for an unbuilt station may reallot its channel to another community under the Commission's change of community rule, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(i). Second, Smith argues that the removal of an unbuilt station from one community to a new community should be considered a disqualifying loss of service to the old community, regardless of the unbuilt status of that station. Third, Smith questions whether the staff erred in adhering to the allotment priorities and to Section 307(b), in denigration of the premises of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-241A1.txt
  • petition for rulemaking. Broadcasters & Publishers, Inc. (``BPI''), licensee of Station WWKZ(FM), Aberdeen, Mississippi, filed an opposition to the application for review, and Sisk filed a reply to the opposition. Background In its rulemaking petition, Sisk requested the reallotment and change of community of license of its Station WCNA(FM), Channel 240C3, from Potts Camp to Saltillo, Mississippi, pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. Saltillo is not located within the current 60 dBu contour of Station WCNA(FM) as licensed to Potts Camp and, thus, Sisk proposed substantial relocation of his transmitter site (38.8 kilometers) to permit coverage of Saltillo should his allotment request be granted. Sisk contended that his proposal would result in a preferential arrangement of allotments under the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-25A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-25A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-25A1.txt
  • clearing by January 1, 2001, and requests for pre-approval would be acted on by March 1, 2001. See Spectrum Exchange Comments at 9. See 700 MHz MO&O and FNPRM � 61; see also supra � 15. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.622(a). See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3500 et seq. (broadcast application procedures). See 47 C.F.R. � 73.623(g). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420, 73.607, 73.611, 73.622, 73.623. See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, Fifth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12809, 12832-12833 �� 55-56 (1997) (``DTV Fifth Report and Order''); DTV Fifth Report and Order Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd at 6886-6887 �� 77-78. DTV Fifth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12833-35 �� 57-60. 700 MHz
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-317A1.txt
  • Archer City instead of Olney, in some fashion cancelled or terminated the outstanding Olney permit. It is further mistaken in asserting that the staff's subsequent modification of the Olney construction permit to specify Archer City is treated under the Commission's rules as a new ``original'' construction permit. Community of license changes are modifications of outstanding authorizations. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(i) (permit's community of license may be modified in a rulemaking proceeding if the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the present assignment). Pursuant to the rules governing such changes, the staff properly considered Texas Grace's request to change KRZB's community of license as a modification of the station's existing permit, and not as a new original permit. Significantly, Texas
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-100A1.txt
  • to the revocation of theses licenses. Indeed, we find nothing in the petition that would have warranted reopening the hearing if Rice's' claims had been timely raised." Under these circumstances, dismissing Lake's petition for reconsideration as moot in MM Docket No. 89-120 was proper. 6. Finally, we will not upgrade Channel 270A at Eldon, Missouri, to Channel 270C2. Under Section 1.420(g) of the Rules, only a licensee or permittee of an FM station may seek an upgrade to a higher class, adjacent FM Channel and a modification of its station authorization. Indeed, we have denied requests by applicants to upgrade the classes of FM channels because they are not the holders of a station authorization. Since Lake's authorization for Channel 270A
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-209A1.txt
  • and national minority issues and public affairs. Thus, we conclude that dereserving Channel *16 will allow QED to upgrade WQED(TV) to digital service and to improve broadcast service to the public. Although Alliance/CIPB assert that the Commission should give no weight to QED's proposed future operation of WQED(TV) because such proposals are not binding, we note that in adopting Section 1.420(h) of the rules, the Commission stated that "a public station requesting approval of a proposed [channel] exchange agreement is expected to assure the Commission, in the course of the rule making proceeding, that the proceeds will be devoted to activities related to the operation of the noncommercial licensee."46 While QED's petition was not filed pursuant to our Intra-band Exchange policy,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-35A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-35A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-35A1.txt
  • of Station KNSX (FM), Steelville, Missouri. An opposition was filed by KRMS-KYLC, Inc. (``KYLC''), the licensee at that time of Station KYLC(FM), Osage Beach Missouri; and Twenty-One Sound filed a reply. BACKGROUND This proceeding began with the filing of a rulemaking petition by KYLC, requesting an upgrade of its Station KYLC (FM), Channel 228A, Osage Beach, Missouri, pursuant to Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's Rules. Specifically, KYLC proposed the substitution of Channel 228C3 for Channel 228A at Osage Beach and the modification of its license for Station KYLC accordingly. To accommodate this upgrade, KYLC also proposed the substitution of Channel 253A for vacant but applied for Channel 229A at Warsaw, Missouri. Thereafter, a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``NPRM''), 5 FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-18A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-18A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-18A1.txt
  • BSTA-20010323ACD. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(f). File No. BPH-20000613AAF. Previously, Channel 263A had been allotted at Refugio, based on a proposal by WAB Broadcasting. Refugio, Texas, 14 FCC Rcd 3922 (MMB 1999). Refugio and Taft, Texas, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 11609 (MMB 1999). Pacific filed its Petition for Rule Making in accordance with 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(i), which allows FM licensees to request a new community of license in a rule making proceeding. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990). Refugio and Taft, Texas, Report and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-107A1.txt
  • Review. Background 2. At the request of Susquehanna, licensee of Station WABZ(FM) (``WABZ''), Channel 265A, Albemarle, North Carolina, the Report and Order reallotted Channel 265A to Indian Trail, North Carolina, as that community's first local broadcast radio transmission service, and modified Station WABZ's license to specify operation on Channel 265A at Indian Trail. The request was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment would result in a preferential arrangement of allotments.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-118A1.txt
  • Petitioners be paid $950,000 for agreeing to modify their application to specify Channel 268C1 at Corvallis rather than Channel 268C. The parties proposed the allotment of Channel *268C3 at The Dalles at a location near the site proposed in the Dalles NPRM. In Consolidated R&O, the Mass Media Bureau denied the settlement. The Bureau held that the settlement violated Section 1.420(j) of the rules because MBI would receive payment in excess of its legitimate and prudent expenses incurred in preparing and prosecuting its application. The Bureau rejected Petitioners' argument that Section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, required the approval of the settlement. The Bureau then did a comparative analysis and held that the public interest was better
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-140A1.txt
  • incorporates by reference petitioners' arguments concerning ``backfill'' allotment procedures. See Pacific Petition at n.2. Previously, Channel 263A had been allotted at Refugio, based on a proposal by WAB Broadcasting. Refugio, Texas, 14 FCC Rcd 3922 (MMB 1999). Refugio and Taft, Texas, 14 FCC Rcd 11609 (MMB 1999) (``NPRM''). Pacific filed its Petition for Rule Making in accordance with 47 C.F.R. �1.420(i), which allows FM licensees to request a new community of license in a rule making proceeding. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990) (``Community of License MO&O''). Refugio and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-154A1.txt
  • Sound''), licensee of Station KNSX(FM), Steelville, Missouri. No oppositions or replies were filed. BACKGROUND This proceeding commenced with the filing of a rulemaking petition by KRMS-KYLC, Inc. (``KRMS''), the former licensee of Station KRMS-FM, Channel 228A, Osage Beach, Missouri. The petition requested an upgrade of Station KRMS-FM to Channel 228C3 and a modification of its license in accordance with Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's rules. To accommodate this upgrade, KRMS also proposed the substitution of Channel 253A for vacant but applied for Channel 229A at Warsaw, Missouri. In response to a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Twenty-One Sound counter proposed the upgrade of its Station KNSX(FM), Steelville, Missouri, from Channel 227C2 to Channel 227C1. The staff Report and Order dismissed Twenty-One
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-184A1.txt
  • discussed below, we deny review. 2. At the request of Alpine Broadcasting Limited Partnership (``Alpine Broadcasting''), former permittee of Station KSIL, Channel 264C, Wallace, Idaho, the Report and Order reallotted Channel 264C from Wallace, Idaho, to Bigfork, Montana, and modified the Station KSIL construction permit to specify operation on Channel 264C at Bigfork. The request was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. The Bigfork R&O determined that the proposed reallotment would result in a preferential arrangement of allotments by providing a first local service to Bigfork and a net gain
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-120A1.txt
  • proposed new community of license change procedures. We anticipate that we would publish the Table by some means, for example, as a continually updated list of FM allotments in the Media Bureau's publicly accessible Consolidated Data Base System. Furthermore, under this approach we would add new allotments to the Table using procedures similar to those currently set forth in Section 1.420 of the Commission's rules, and we would continue to apply the same substantive Section 307(b) policies when comparing competing allotment proposals. Specifically, we would adopt in Part 73 procedures analogous to those contained in Section 1.420, to permit the filing of ``petitions to amend the FM Table of Allotments.'' In the case of new allotments, these procedures efficiently populate FM
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-175A1.txt
  • and CTE's KDTP(TV) license to specify Channel *11, Holbrook without opening the channels to competing applications. For the reasons set forth below, we grant the proposal with conditions. II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In their Joint Petition to Amend the Television Table of Allotments (Joint Petition), the petitioners requested that the Commission amend Section 73.606 of the Commission's Rules pursuant to Section 1.420(h) of the rules to delete the noncommercial reservation of analog Channel *39 at Phoenix and reserve analog Channel 11 for noncommercial educational use at Holbrook. They further requested that the Commission modify Telemundo's KPHZ(TV) license to specify Channel 39, Phoenix and CTE's KDTP(TV) license to specify Channel *11, Holbrook, without opening the channels to competing applications. In support of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-198A1.txt
  • to resume operation at Waskom while preserving local service at Oil City through the modification of the Station KRMD license. 3. We are substituting Channel 247C2 for Channel 300C2 at Oil City, Louisiana, reallotting Channel 247C2 to Waskom, Texas, and modifying the Station KQHN license to specify Waskom as its community of license. This action is taken pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest where the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the licensee's present authorization. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-119A1.txt
  • statement for the record, adopting the arguments pled by Big City and urging the Commission to grant the application for review. We will refer to the stations by their current call letters throughout this document. The call sign for Station KYOR(FM) was modified to KDGL(FM) on January 7, 2004. 16 FCC Rcd 2154 (MMB 2001) (``NPRM''). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(g)(3). This section provides in pertinent part that the license or construction permit for an FM station may be modified to a mutually exclusive, higher class adjacent or co-channel in the same community. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(i). This rule permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-150A1.txt
  • Licensees that want to change their DTV allotment, but which are not in any of these categories (e.g., are technically able to construct their full, authorized DTV facilities on their existing TCD) may request a change in allotment only after the proposed DTV Table is finalized and must do so through the existing allotment procedures, as set forth in Section 1.420 of our rules. Parties seeking alternative channel assignments consistent with this paragraph should file their requests in accordance with the filing procedures set forth in Section IV.D., infra. In assessing proposed alternative channel assignments, we will also consider requests that include the consensual substitution of the TCD of another station that is not otherwise eligible to request an alternative channel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-163A1.txt
  • class modifications have been made under our ``one-step'' procedures). However, we will permit an FM non-reserved band permittee or licensee to use notice and comment procedures to modify its current assignment to specify a non-adjacent class upgrade or downgrade in the same community of license. We take this action to preserve the facility improvement options now set forth at Section 1.420(g)(1) and (2). We will retain the Table for vacant allotments and will continue to use rule making procedures to establish new channel allotments, as the procedures for new allotments allow for efficient consideration of all proposals and counterproposals in keeping with our Section 307(b) obligations. While Section 307(b) considerations enter into community of license changes to authorized facilities as well,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-138A1.txt
  • rounds. Seventh Further Notice, 21 FCC Rcd at 12109, � 25, n.49. The Commission stated in the Seventh Further Notice that it would consider only engineering demonstrations and not requests based on financial or other reasons. Id. at n.50. See also Section III.C.5., infra � 103. Seventh Further Notice, 21 FCC Rcd at 12109, � 25 (citing 47 C.F.R. � 1.420). See also Third DTV Periodic NPRM at � 103-112 (proposing interference criteria for evaluating petitions for rulemaking requesting a new DTV allotment post-transition). See Second DTV Periodic Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 18307, � 65 and Seventh Further Notice, 21 FCC Rcd at 12109, � 26. See Appendix D5, infra. See Appendices A and B. One of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-186A1.txt
  • 1.100 Conversation State X $ 1.170 Conversation State X $ 1.210 Conversation State X $ 1.240 Conversation State X $ 1.240 Conversation State X $ 1.260 Conversation State X $ 1.295 Conversation State X $ 1.310 Conversation State X $ 1.350 Conversation State X $ 1.390 Conversation State X $ 1.400 Conversation State X $ 1.406 Conversation State X $ 1.420 Conversation State X $ 1.720 Conversation State X $ 1.890 Conversation * There are 52 entities listed, because one state changed providers and therefore rates, mid-year, and Puerto Rico is included. APPENDIX F APPENDIX G Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-18A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-18A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-18A1.txt
  • 19 FCC Rcd 4327 (MB 2004). Tilden, Texas, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 6112 (MB 2004). Batesville, Texas, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 16 FCC Rcd 12682 (MB 2001). The Media Bureau has referred this matter to the Commission pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 0.5(c). Quanah, Texas, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 15809 (MMB 2000). Section 1.420(d) of the Rules requires a counterproposal to be filed by the specified comment date in a rulemaking proceeding. 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(d). These Petitions for Rule Making were filed between April 18 and May 23, 2001. Benjamin and Mason, Texas, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 103 (MB 2003). Benjamin and Mason, Texas, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-204A1.txt
  • Review filed by Long Nine, Inc. (``Long Nine'') directed to the staff Memorandum Opinion and Order in this proceeding. Saga Communications Inc. (``Saga Communications'') filed an Opposition to Application for Review and Long Nine filed a Reply to Opposition to Application for Review. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Application for Review. II. BACKGROUND 2. Pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, a station authorization may be modified to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. Any reallotment proposal must result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies and Procedures. Section 1.420(i) and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-205A1.txt
  • Walton Beach License Company, LLC (``Qantum'') directed to the Memorandum Opinion and Order in this proceeding. Star Broadcasting, Inc., successor in interest to Gulf Coast Broadcasting Company, Inc. (``Petitioner''), filed an Opposition to Application for Review and Qantum filed a Reply to Opposition. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Application for Review. II. BACKGROUND 2. Pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, a station authorization may be modified to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. Any reallotment proposal must result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies and Procedures. A first local
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-215A1.txt
  • deny the Application for Review. II. Background 2. At the request of Secret Communications II, LLC, former licensee of Station WLZT (formerly WFCB), Channel 227B, Chillicothe, Ohio, the Report and Order reallotted Channel 227B from Chillicothe to Ashville, Ohio, and modified the Station WLZT license to specify operation on Channel 227B at Ashville. The reallotment was adopted pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-218A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-218A1.txt
  • also proposed the reallotment of Channel 287C2 from Crystal Beach to Winnie, and modification of its Station KLTO license to specify Winnie as the community of license. The reallotment of Channel 287C2 to Winnie conflicted with the proposed Channel 287A allotment at Vinton. 3. The Report and Order granted the Tichenor License Counterproposal. This action was taken pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-222A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-222A1.txt
  • the Channel 221 upgrade at Cass City on existing and potential NCE FM service. Czelada did not raise this issue prior to the issuance of the Report and Order or the Reconsideration Order. Accordingly, the Rules bar Czelada from raising this issue on review. Even if we were to consider the argument, we would deny review. Note 1 to Section 1.420(h) of the Rules imposes a ``particularly heavy burden'' on Channel 221 upgrade proponents by requiring the Commission to consider the preclusive impact of the upgrade on NCE FM service. The Commission, however, undertakes this analysis only when the 60 dBu contour of the Channel 221 upgrade proposal overlaps the Grade B contour of a television channel 6 station. No such
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-72A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-72A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-72A1.txt
  • request is granted herein. See, infra, Appendix D4. The term ``full, authorized DTV facilities'' refers to the original facilities certified by the licensee in its FCC Form 381. Seventh Further Notice, 21 FCC Rcd at 12109, � 25, n.49. See also infra Section III.I., � 132. Seventh Further Notice, 21 FCC Rcd at 12109, � 25 (citing 47 C.F.R. � 1.420). See Second DTV Periodic Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 18307, � 65 and Seventh Further Notice, 21 FCC Rcd at 12109, � 26. See Seventh Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15647, App. A. See Petition for Reconsideration of Woods Communications Corporation, filed Oct. 25, 2007, at 1. Id. at 2 (citing Attachment D, Engineering Statement of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-8A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-8A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-8A1.txt
  • earlier stages of the proceeding). The Commission's rules do not prohibit the grant and construction of authorized facilities pending final resolution of a related, outstanding rulemaking proceeding. Auburn, Northport, Tuscaloosa, Camp Hill, Gardendale, Homewood, Birmingham, Dadeville, Orrville, Goodwater, Pine Level, Jemison, and Thomaston, Alabama, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 10333, 10340 (MB 2004). See also Amendment of Section 1.420(f) of the Commission's Rules Concerning Automatic Stays of Certain Allotment Orders, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 9501 (1996) (deleting rule that automatically stayed allotment proceedings upon the filing of a petition for reconsideration). See 47 C.F.R. � 73.1750 (providing that ``[t]he license of any station that fails to transmit broadcast signals for any consecutive twelve month period expires as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-32A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-32A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-32A1.txt
  • arguments in question prior to such opportunity; or (3) The Commission determines that consideration of the facts or arguments relied on is required in the public interest. * * * * (h) Petitions for reconsideration, oppositions and replies shall conform to the requirements of �� 1.49 and 1.52, except that they need not be verified. Except as provided in � 1.420(e), an original and 11 copies shall be submitted to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554, by mail, by commercial courier, by hand, or by electronic submission through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System. Petitions submitted by electronic mail and petitions submitted directly to staff without submission to the Secretary shall not be considered to have been properly filed.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-16A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-16A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-16A1.txt
  • in question prior to such opportunity; or (3) The Commission determines that consideration of the facts or arguments relied on is required in the public interest. * * * * * (h) Petitions for reconsideration, oppositions and replies shall conform to the requirements of �� 1.49 and 1.52, except that they need not be verified. Except as provided in � 1.420(e), an original and 11 copies shall be submitted to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554, by mail, by commercial courier, by hand, or by electronic submission through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System. Petitions submitted only by electronic mail and petitions submitted directly to staff without submission to the Secretary shall not be considered to have been properly
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-73A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-73A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-73A1.txt
  • Petitioners opposed these Motions. J&J/M&M has failed to show good cause for its late filing. We deny the Motion and dismiss the Opposition. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.46(a). Quanah, Texas, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 15809 (MMB 2000) (``Quanah Notice''). Nation Wide Radio Stations withdrew its expression of interest in this allotment, and in accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Rules, this proposal was dismissed in Quanah, Texas, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 9495 (MB 2003) (``Quanah Report and Order''). Counterproposal at 36. (``The Joint Petitioners urge the Commission to adopt the above proposal in its entirety. ... However, in the unlikely event that the Commission finds a defect in the proposal, it can be severed into
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00368.pdf
  • C1 to C0 259 (161) 196 (122) 94 (58) 37 (23) C0 to C0 270 (168) 207 (129) 96 (60) 41 (25) C to C0 281 (175) 220 (137) 105 (65) 45 (28) Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-368 30 APPENDIX D I. Part 1 of Title 47 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: Section 1.420 is amended by changing Note 2 to subsection (h) to Note 3 and adding Note 2 to subsection (g) to read as follows: Note 2: The reclassification of a Class C station in accordance with the procedure set forth in Note 4 to Section 73.3573 may be initiated through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/TV_Notices/da020270.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/TV_Notices/da020270.txt
  • there is pending a petition for rule making seeking an alternate channel. An allotment Report and Order changing a channel allotment will 3 We remind new digital television licensees on Channels 52 to 59 that they will be required to move to the core by the end of the digital transition. 4 See Sections 1.401 (c) and (d) and Section 1.420 of the Commission's Rules regarding channel allotment matters. 3 specify a period of time for the filing of amendments to pending applications (using FCC Form 301), for the modified channel allotment. Such amendments to pending applications will be considered minor and the applications will retain their original file numbers. Amendments to Applications to Specify DTV Operation on Their Current Channel
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1998/fcc98056.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1998/fcc98056.wp
  • be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action, pursuant to �1.24, for a willful violation of this rule or if scandalous or indecent matter is inserted. 11. Section 1.401 is amended by changing paragraph (b) to read as follows: * * * * * (b) The petition for rulemaking shall conform to the requirements of �� 1.49, 1.52 and 1.419(b) (or � 1.420(e), if applicable), and shall be submitted or addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554, or (except in broadcast allotment proceedings) may be submitted electronically. 12. Section 1.403 is amended to read as follows: � 1.403 Notice and availability All petitions for rule making (other than petitions to amend the FM, Television, and Air-Ground Tables of Assignments) meeting
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/fcc01025.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/fcc01025.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/fcc01025.txt
  • clearing by January 1, 2001, and requests for pre-approval would be acted on by March 1, 2001. See Spectrum Exchange Comments at 9. See 700 MHz MO&O and FNPRM � 61; see also supra � 15. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.622(a). See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3500 et seq. (broadcast application procedures). See 47 C.F.R. � 73.623(g). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420, 73.607, 73.611, 73.622, 73.623. See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, Fifth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12809, 12832-12833 �� 55-56 (1997) (``DTV Fifth Report and Order''); DTV Fifth Report and Order Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd at 6886-6887 �� 77-78. DTV Fifth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12833-35 �� 57-60. 700 MHz
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2721A1.html
  • Formulation of Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, Competing Applicants, and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process and to the Prevention of Abuse of the Renewal Process, First Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 4780, 4793 n.3 (1989); see Silver Star Communications-Albany, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 6342, 6352 41 (1988); Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Process, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 FCC Rcd 5563, 5563 2 (1987); see also Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 1 FCC Rcd 421 (1986), appeal dismissed mem. sub nom
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1004A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1004A1.pdf
  • objections filed by the Petitioners For the reasons discussed below, we grant the Petitioner's rulemaking petition and dismiss the objections. BACKGROUND At the request of the Petitioners, the NPRM proposed the reallotment and change of community of license for Station KESC(FM) from Channel 279C1 at Wilburton, Oklahoma (pop. 2,972) to Channel 279C1 at Okemah, Oklahoma (pop. 3,038), pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. To prevent the removal of the sole local aural service at Wilburton, the NPRM also proposed the reallotment and change of community of license for Station KMCO(FM) from Channel 267C1 at McAlester, Oklahoma (pop. 17,783) to Channel 267C1 at Wilburton, Oklahoma. The Petitioners filed comments, reiterating their expressions of interest in the reallotments of Stations KESC(FM)
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1005A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1005A1.pdf
  • of Allotments, 47 C.F.R. � 73.202(b). In response to a petition filed by George S. Flinn, Jr. (``Flinn''), licensee of Station KWCA(FM), Channel 266A, Weaverville, California, the Notice proposes to change the community of license for Station KWCA(FM) from Weaverville to Palo Cedro, California, and to upgrade to Channel 266C3. Flinn's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In order to accommodate that change of community, Flinn further proposes to downgrade vacant Channel 267C to Channel 268C1 at Alturas, California. Flinn represents
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1007A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1007A1.pdf
  • from Hartford, Petitioner proposes to reallot Channel 237A from White River Junction, Vermont, to Hartford, and to modify Station WXLF's license accordingly. Petitioner also proposes to reallot Channel 231A from Keeseville, New York, to Morrisonville, New York, thus providing Morrisonville with its first local aural transmission service. Petitioner made the reallotment requests for Stations WWOD and WXLF pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering such a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1072A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1072A1.pdf
  • to specify the new community. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for the channel and to construct the facilities if the application is granted. Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Washington, DC (``Infinity''), licensee of Station WJFK-FM, filed comments in opposition. Petitioner filed reply comments. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1074A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1074A1.pdf
  • Released: June 2, 2006 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing changes in the FM Table of Allotments, 47 C.F.R. � 73.202(b), in response to a petition filed by Pulaski Broadcasting, Inc. (``PBI''), licensee of Station WKSR-FM, Channel 252C3, Killen, Alabama, pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. PBI and KEA Radio, Inc. (together, ``Joint Commenters'') filed comments (``Joint Comments'') supporting the changes proposed in the Notice. No other comments were received. 2. In an earlier proceeding, we granted PBI's request for an upgrade to Channel 252C3 and a change of the community of license for Station WKSR-FM from Pulaski, Tennessee, to Killen, Alabama.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1075A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1075A1.pdf
  • modify the construction permit authorization to specify the new community at its current coordinates. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for a construction permit to effectuate the change of community if Channel 233C is reallotted. No counterproposals or other comments were received. 2. Petitioner filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1076A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1076A1.pdf
  • comments were received in response to this proceeding. Background. The Notice proposed the reallotment of Channel 291C0 from Wilson to Knightdale, North Carolina, as its first local service, and modification of the Station WRDU(FM) license accordingly. Petitioner filed comments, reiterating its expression of interest in the reallotment of Station WRDU(FM) to Knightdale. Discussion. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 291C0 at Knightdale is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station WRDU(FM), Channel 291C0, Wilson, North Carolina.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1187A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1187A1.pdf
  • changes in the FM Table of Allotments, 47 C.F.R. � 73.202(b). In response to a petition filed by KERM, Inc. (``KERM''), licensee of Station KURM-FM, Channel 262A, Southwest City, Missouri, the Notice proposes to change the community of license for Station KURM-FM from Southwest City, Missouri, to Gravette, Arkansas. 2. KERM's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. KERM, which does not propose any change in the transmitter site for Station KURM-FM, represents that if its request is granted, it will file
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1227A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1227A1.pdf
  • non-final rulemaking proceedings. Previously, a rulemaking proposal could not be contingent upon a decision in an earlier, cut-off proceeding unless that decision had become final. We subsequently modified that policy so that a rulemaking proposal could be contingent upon an effective but not yet final decision in another rulemaking proceeding. The Petitioner filed its rulemaking petition in accordance with Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's rules. This section permits upgrades of FM stations on mutually exclusive co-channels or adjacent channels without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the upgraded channel. In support of its proposal, the Petitioner contends that the upgrade would enable it to continue to provide a 70 dBu service to all of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1230A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1230A1.pdf
  • the Petitioner. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petitioner's rulemaking petition. BACKGROUND At the request of the Petitioner, the NPRM/OSC proposed the reallotment, upgrade, and change of community of license for Station WVEK-FM from Channel 274A at Cumberland, Kentucky (pop. 2,611) to Channel 274C3 at Weber City, Virginia (pop. 1,333) as a first local service, pursuant to Sections 1.420(g)(3) and (i) of the Commission's rules. To accommodate this reallotment, the NPRM/OSC also proposed: (1) the substitution of Channel 263A for vacant Channel 274A at Glade Spring, Virginia; and (2) the substitution of Channel 273A for Channel 263A at Marion, Virginia, and the modification of Station WOLD(FM)'s license accordingly. The NPRM/OSC also requested that the Petitioner submit a Tuck showing
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1303A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1303A1.pdf
  • allot Channel 256A at Pawnee City. Viking Enterprises, LLC (``Viking'') filed a counterproposal proposing to allot Channel 245C2 at Holton, Kansas which requires the substitution of Channel 272A for Channel 244A at Humboldt. 2. Upon further engineering review, we have determined that the initiating petition for a change of community was technically defective because it failed to comply with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which requires the new allotment to be mutually exclusive with the existing allotment. The Channel 245C2 at Valley Falls is not mutually exclusive with the then-authorized Channel 244A construction permit at Humboldt as specifically required by Section 1.240(i), the request to change the community of license is not acceptable. Because the Notice was defective and erroneously
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1309A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1309A1.pdf
  • of the license of Station WJCD(FM) to reflect Norfolk as its community of license. Petitioner filed a motion for acceptance and late-filed comments reiterating its intention to file applications for each channel and to construct the facilities if the applications are granted. We received no other comments. Petitioner filed these proposals for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1406A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1406A1.pdf
  • Ava, Branson, and Mountain Grove. 5. We also reject C&C's contention that Puopolo's commitment to reimburse C&C for its reasonable costs of changing channels is inadequate. C&C cites several cases in support of its argument, but none of them is on point with the circumstances of this proceeding. Three of those cases involved requests for channel upgrades pursuant to Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's rules, and we held that the wording of Section 1.420(g) conveys the Commission's intent to restrict the rule's applicability to licensees and permittees. The fourth case turned on the Commission's holding that upgrades requested while applications are pending should not be allowed. None of those cases involved circumstances such as those presented here, where a new allotment
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1407A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1407A1.pdf
  • For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Committee's Petition for Reconsideration. BACKGROUND At the request of Clear Channel , the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding proposed the reallotment, downgrade, and change of community of license for Station WMRN-FM from Channel 295B at Marion, Ohio to Channel 294B1 at Dublin, Ohio, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules To accommodate the relocation of Station WMRN-FM to Dublin, the NPRM also proposed the reallotment, downgrade, and change of community of license for Station WSRW-FM from Channel 294B at Hillsboro, Ohio, to Channel 293A at Chillicothe, Ohio. Three parties filed objections to these proposals, questioning, inter alia, whether the reallotments would result in a preferential arrangement
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1451A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1451A1.pdf
  • Proposed Rule Making issued at the request of Charles Crawford (``Petitioner''), proposing to allot Channel 267A at Rosebud, Texas as a first local service; (2) a ``Request for Approval of Withdrawal'' filed by Petitioner; (3) and ``Comments and Expression of Interest'' filed by Gerald Proctor (``Proctor''). Petitioner filed its request for withdrawal on February 1, 2006, in compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, stating that no consideration was received in connection with the withdrawal of the petition. Three months later on May 8, 2006, and more than 20 months after the Reply Comment Deadline, Proctor filed its Comments and Expression of Interest, stating his interest in applying for Channel 267A at Rosebud. We will grant Petitioner's request for withdrawal.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1486A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1486A1.pdf
  • COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau See Steamboat Springs, Colorado, et al., Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 20 FCC Rcd 6327 (MB 2005) (``Notice'') (The instant Report and Order disposes of one docket in this multiple docket Notice.). The counterproposal was placed on Public Notice on June 24, 2005, Report No. 2717, (RM-11250). 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). Austwell is listed as a city with a population of 192 persons according to the 2000 U.S. Census. Voz states that Austwell is incorporated, has a city hall, post office, municipally provided water service, and administers the Austwell-Tivoli Independent School District. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1486 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1486 h� h� h� �@���
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1487A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1487A1.pdf
  • (HAAT), which is below the minimum Class C antenna height 451 meters HAAT. Station KAMX(FM), Luling, Texas, currently operates on Channel 234C with an effective radiated power (``ERP'') of 100 kilowatts (``kW'') at 398 meters height above average terrain (HAAT), which is below the minimum Class C antenna height 451 meters HAAT. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 21,662, � 26. Pursuant to an assignment of license (File No. BALH-20051206AAY) granted on January 19, 2006, the licensee of Station KELI(FM) is now Double O Texas Corp. We will serve this party a copy of this Report and Order. See Various Locations, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1532A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1532A1.pdf
  • specify operation on Channel 241B1 at Campo, California. Background 2. At the request of CCR-Brawley, licensee of Station KSIQ, the Notice proposed the substitution of Channel 241B1 for Channel 241B at Brawley, reallotment of Channel 241B1 to Campo, California, and modification of the Station KSIQ license to specify operation on Channel 241B1 at Campo. The Notice was pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1585A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1585A1.pdf
  • signed by Clyde Scott, Jr., President, but not verified. In response to the Notice, Petitioner's comments included his signed sworn statement as required by Section 1.52 of the rules. See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000). See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 21,662, � 26. See In Re Reclassification of License of Station WKQL(FM), Jacksonville, Florida, 19 FCC Rcd 10970 (MB 2004). Coordinates for Channel 246A at Homerville are 31-07-16 NL and 82-48-51 WL. The license coordinates for Station WKQL(FM) on Channel 245C0are 30-16-34 NL and 81-33-53 WL. (...continued from previous
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1758A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1758A1.pdf
  • Reconsideration filed by the Petitioner. For the reasons discussed below, we will grant reconsideration. BACKGROUND At the request of the Petitioner, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding proposed the reallotment and change of community of license for Station WTLX(FM) from Channel 263A at Columbus, Wisconsin, to Channel 263A at Monona, Wisconsin, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. The NPRM stated that the reallotment would provide a first local aural service at Monona (pop. 8,018) without depriving Columbus (pop. 4,479) of its sole local service. In order to prevent the removal of the sole local transmission service in Columbus, the Petitioner relied upon a simultaneously filed ``back-fill'' application to change the community of license
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1759A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1759A1.pdf
  • the need for Station KWPK-FM to change its frequency to Channel 282C2 at Sisters, Oregon. The Settlement Agreement provides, as consideration for the settlement, that SSR Communications will be compensated in the amount five thousand dollars for its legitimate and prudent expenses incurred in connection with the preparation, filing and advocacy of its counterproposal, consistent with the requirements of Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules. In response to the Order to Show Cause issued in MB Docket No. 05-9, Westend Radio and KSRV, Inc. separately filed comments requesting that Two Hearts submit financial documentation, showing that it has the ability to pay the total anticipated costs along with a written commitment, stating that it would reimburse the stations in a timely
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1761A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1761A1.pdf
  • (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Lake Park, Florida, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 20 FCC Rcd 19396 (MB 2005). See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 21649 (2000); see also 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420(g), n.2; 73.3573, n. 4. See Reclassification of License of Station WHYI-FM, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Order to Show Cause, 19 FCC Rcd 17449 (MB 2004). As stated in the Notice, Lake Park is an incorporated town listed in the 2000 U.S. Census with a population of 8,721 persons. Petitioner states that Lake Park has its own mayor, town manager, elementary school,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1764A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1764A1.pdf
  • reaffirming its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted. Georgia-Carolina Radiocasting, LLC (``Georgia-Carolina'') also filed comments. Reply comments were filed by Petitioner and Georgia-Carolina. After the record closed, Petitioner filed a response to Georgia-Carolina's reply comments, accompanied by a motion for leave to accept, and a statement for the record. 2. Background. The petition was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Petitioner states that Lexington is an incorporated community with a 2000 U. S. Census population of 239 persons. It is the county seat
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1885A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1885A1.pdf
  • Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Auxvasse, Missouri, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC Rcd (MB 2005). See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 21649 (2000); see also 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420(g), n.2; 73.3573, n. 4. See File No. BLH-19870504KB. In this regard, we issued an Order to Show Cause directed to Emmis Radio License, LLC, (``Emmis Radio''), licensee of Station KSHE(FM), Crestwood, Missouri, affording it 30 days to express in writing an intention to seek authority to upgrade Station KSHE(FM)'s technical facilities to preserve Class C status, or to otherwise challenge
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1886A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1886A1.pdf
  • Ashland. No other party has expressed an interest for this proposed allotment. It is the Commission's policy to refrain from making an allotment to a community absent an adequate expression of interest. Therefore, we dismiss Petitioner's petition to allot Channel 288C3 at Ashland, Kansas. We also dismiss Chisholm's Greensburg Petition pursuant to its request for withdrawal. In compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Chisholm states that no consideration was received in connection with the withdrawal of the petition. Next we consider Chisholm's counterproposal. Chisholm states that its counterproposal to allot Channel 288C3 at Kinsley conflicts with the Notice's proposal to allot Channel 288C3 at Ashland, Kansas. Our staff engineering analysis confirms that the requisite mutual exclusivity exits between Channel
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1901A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1901A1.pdf
  • Station KRZB, Channel 248C2, Archer City, Texas, BPH-19990217IB, are 33-51-40 NL and 98-38-52 WL. The Joint Parties propose to change those coordinates to 33-32-30 NL and 98-46-30 WL. See ``Request for Approval of Withdrawal'' filed by Linda Crawford on June 21, 2006. See ``Request for Approval of Withdrawal'' filed by Jeraldine Anderson on June 22, 2006. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.207 and 73.208. Archer City, Texas, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 15,532 (MB 2003) (``Archer City R&O''). The construction permit (BPH-19990217IB) for FM Station KRZB, Channel 248C2, Archer City, Texas, was reinstated on January 12, 2006. See Broadcast Applications, Report No. 26152, Public Notice (Media Bur., rel. Jan. 17, 2006). See Claremont, Locust Grove and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2022A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2022A1.pdf
  • D'Allesandro argue that we should deny the CXR proposal because it fails to protect LPFM Stations WLOU-LP, Williamsburg, Virginia, and WRBG-LP, Millsboro, Delaware. This argument is without merit. Proposed allotments for full power FM stations are not required to protect low power stations. We modify the Station WDYL(FM) license to specify Lakeside as the community of license pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In this instance, the reallotment of Channel 265B1 at Lakeside, Virginia, is mutually exclusive with the licensed site of Station WDYL(FM), Channel 265A, Chester,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2027A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2027A1.pdf
  • communities. 2. Background. At the request of the Joint Parties, the Notice in this proceeding proposed nine city of license modifications. Included among those proposals was a request to reallot Channel 274A from Springfield, Kentucky, to New Haven, Kentucky, and modify the Station WLSK to specify New Haven as the community of license. These requests were filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. In evaluating a proposal, we compare the existing versus the proposed arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2028A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2028A1.pdf
  • (3) comments filed by World Radio Link, Inc. (``WRL''); and (4) reply comments filed by the Petitioner. For the reasons discussed below, we will grant the rulemaking petition. Background. In response to the Petitioner's rulemaking petition (the ``Boonville Petition''), the NPRM proposed the upgrade of its Station KWJK-FM, Boonville, Missouri, from Channel 226A to Channel 226C3 in accordance with Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's rules. To accommodate this upgrade, the NPRM proposed the substitution of Channel 272A for vacant but applied for Channel 226A at Wheatland, Missouri, at the reference site proposed by the Petitioner, which is located 5.4 kilometers northwest of Wheatland. The Channel 272A site proposed by the Petitioner is fully spaced and meets the Commission's technical requirements. The
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2276A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2276A1.pdf
  • for Approval of Withdrawal of Petition for Reconsideration filed by Self and Urban. For the reasons discussed below, we will grant the Request for Withdrawal and dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration. The R&O reallotted and changed the community of license for Station WLAY-FM from Channel 278A at Russellville to Channel 278A at Littleville, Alabama, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. Self filed a Petition for Reconsideration, contending that the R&O improperly concluded that Self's Comments were late filed and did not further address his Comments. Thereafter, Self withdrew his Comments and Petition for Reconsideration. Both Self and Urban contend that approval of the withdrawal of the Comments and Petition for Reconsideration is consistent with Section 1.420(j)
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2561A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2561A1.pdf
  • Vernon Center, Minnesota; and (2) supporting comments filed by the Petitioner. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the Petitioner's rulemaking petition. Background. At the request of the Petitioner, the NPRM proposed the reallotment and modification of its construction permit from Channel 231A at Vernon Center (pop. 359) to Channel 231A at Eagle Lake, Minnesota (pop. 1,787), pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. Because the principal community (70 dBu) contour of the reallotted station appeared to encompass a majority of the Mankato, Minnesota, Urbanized Area, the NPRM requested that the Petitioner submit a Tuck showing to demonstrate that Eagle Lake is sufficiently independent of the Mankato, Minnesota, Urbanized Area to warrant a first local service. In its comments, the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2563A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2563A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2564A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2564A1.pdf
  • of Stations WNND(FM), WLUP-FM, and WDRV(FM), Chicago, Illinois; WTMX(FM), Skokie, Illinois, and WWDV(FM), Zion, Illinois (collectively referred to as ``Joint Parties'') filed an Application for Review of the Report and Order. Subsequently, the Joint Parties requested that their Application for Review in this docket be dismissed. After having reviewed the Joint Parties' request, we find that it complies with Section 1.420(j) of our Rules and that there are no impediments to granting that request. Therefore, we dismiss the Joint Parties' Application for Review in this docket and terminate the proceeding. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED That the above-referenced Application for Review filed by the Joint Parties IS DISMISSED as requested and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 3. For further information concerning
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2566A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2566A1.pdf
  • PROPOSED RULE MAKING Adopted: December 20, 2006 Released: December 22, 2006 Comment Date: February 12, 2007 Reply Date: February 27, 2007 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: 1. The Audio Division has before it for consideration a Petition for Rule Making filed by Cox Radio, Inc. (``Cox''), licensee of Station WKHL(FM), Channel 244A, Stamford, Connecticut. Pursuant to Sections 1.420(g) and (i) of the Commission's rules, Cox proposes to change the community of license for Station WKHL(FM) from Stamford, Connecticut, to Port Chester, New York. Cox represents that the proposed allotment of Channel 244A at Port Chester is mutually exclusive with the current allotment of Channel 244A at Stamford. Cox states that the proposal would not remove the sole local
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-263A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-263A1.pdf
  • addressed to the Audio Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau St. Simons Island, Georgia, 20 FCC Rcd 15244 (MB 2005). See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21649 (2000); see also note 2 to Section 1.420(g) and note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's Rules. Station WOGK operates on Channel 229C with the minimum effective radiated power of 100 kilowatts and less than the minimum Class C antenna height above average terrain (``HAAT'') of 451 meters. See Reclassification of License of Station WOGK(FM), Ocala, Florida, 17 FCC Rcd 1657 (MMB 2002). See Public Notice, DA
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-264A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-264A1.pdf
  • the substitution of Channel 229C2 for Channel 229C3 at Naples, Florida, reallotment of Channel 229C2 from Naples to Sanibel, Florida, as its first local service, and modification of the Station WTLT(FM) license accordingly. Petitioner filed comments, reiterating its expression of interest in the reallotment of Station WTLT(FM) to Channel 229C2 at Sanibel, Florida. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 229C2 at Sanibel is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station WTLT(FM), Channel 229C3, Naples, Florida. Discussion.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-265A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-265A1.pdf
  • community's first local aural transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station KRWP(FM) to reflect the changes. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for the channel and to construct the facilities if the application is granted. No other comments were received. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-266A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-266A1.pdf
  • the FM Table of Allotments, 47 C.F.R. � 73.202(b). In response to a petition filed by Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), licensee of Station WZKF(FM), Channel 255B, Salem, Indiana, the Notice proposes to change the community of license for Station WZKF(FM) from Salem, Indiana, to Prospect, Kentucky. Clear Channel's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Clear Channel represents that if its request is granted, it will file an application to modify the facilities of Station WZKF(FM) to specify operation
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-267A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-267A1.pdf
  • in the FM Table of Allotments, 47 C.F.R. � 73.202(b). In response to a petition filed by Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), licensee of Station WEGR(FM), Channel 274C1, Memphis, Tennessee, the Notice proposes to change the community of license for Station WEGR(FM) from Memphis to Arlington, Tennessee. Clear Channel's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In order to accommodate the reallotment of Channel 274C1 at Arlington, Tennessee, Clear Channel proposes to modify the site of vacant Channel 274A at
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-268A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-268A1.pdf
  • Channel 269C1 from Ely to Spring Creek, Nevada, as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station KCLS(FM) to reflect the new community. Subsequently, Petitioner requested to withdraw its petition for rulemaking. No other comments or counterproposals were filed. We accept Petitioner's request to withdraw. Petitioner has submitted the required affidavit pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED That the petition for rule making filed by Ruby Radio Corporation, licensee of Station KCLS(FM), Ely, Nevada, proposing the substitution of Channel 269C1 for Channel 269C3 at Ely, the reallotment of Channel 269C1 from Ely to Spring Creek, Nevada, IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. For further information
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-271A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-271A1.pdf
  • his petition for rulemaking. On December 15, 2004, Katherine Pyeatt filed a timely counterproposal to this petition, proposing to allot Channel 248A at three communities, Woodson, Chillicothe and Henrietta, Texas, with a channel substitution at Archer City, Texas. Subsequently, Katherine Pyeatt also withdrew her counterproposal. We accept these withdrawals. Each withdrawal was accompanied by the requisite affidavit pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of our rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED That the proposal filed by Charles Crawford proposing to allot Channel 298A at Woodson, Texas, and the counterproposal filed by Katherine Pyeatt proposing to allot Channel 248A at Woodson, Chillicothe and Hennrietta, Texas, with a channel substitution at Archer City, Texas ARE DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. For
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-272A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-272A1.pdf
  • FM Station WUSW operates on Channel 279C with less than the minimum Class C antenna height above average terrain (``HAAT'') of 451 meters HAAT. As a result, FM Station WUSW is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the reclassification procedures adopted in the Commission's Second Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-93, Note 2 to Section 1.420(g), and Note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's rules. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 73.3573, Note 4, we issued an Order to Show Cause directed to Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), licensee of FM Station WUSW, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, affording it 30 days to express in writing an intention to seek authority to upgrade its
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-337A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-337A1.pdf
  • application for construction permit for a minor change in the licensed facilities for Station WTDA(FM). According to Commission policy, this application is considered a counterproposal in this matter. Petitioner filed comments, reply comments, and other responsive pleadings. NABC filed reply comments, and two sets of further comments. Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-343A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-343A1.pdf
  • we deny the Petition for Reconsideration. 2. The Report and Order granted Cleveland Radio's request to reallot Channel 252A, Station WKSI-FM, Charles Town, West Virginia, to Stephens City Virginia, as that community's first local aural transmission service, and modified Station WKSI-FM's license to specify Stephens City as its community of license. Cleveland Radio made the reallotment request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. 3. Mid Atlantic's Petition for Reconsideration of the Report and Order, asserts that Cleveland Radio should have submitted a Tuck showing because Stephens City, Virginia, is located within
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-344A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-344A1.pdf
  • service and modification of the Station WJSJ(FM) license accordingly. To accommodate the proposed Yulee reallotment, the Notice also proposed the relocation of the transmitter site of co-owned Station WSJF(FM), Channel 288C3, St. Augustine Beach, Florida. Petitioner filed comments, reiterating its expression of interest in the reallotment of Station WJSJ(FM) to Yulee, Florida. Discussion. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 287A at Yulee is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station WJSJ(FM), Channel 287A, Fernandina Beach, Florida.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-345A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-345A1.pdf
  • ROL. 2. Petitioner and Salsa subsequently filed motions seeking dismissal of their respective expressions of interest. Each filing included the required affidavit stating that he did not receive, either directly or indirectly, any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in exchange for the dismissal of his expression of interest. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules, we will grant both motions. 3. At the time Entravision filed its counterproposal to upgrade Station to Channel 285C0 at Pilot Point, Texas, it was short-spaced to the existing Channel 285A allotment for Meridian, Texas. In this regard, a timely counterproposal in MM Docket No. 01-47 proposed the reallotment of Channel 285A from Meridian to Hico,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-382A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-382A1.pdf
  • 2. At the request of Gulf Coast Broadcasting Company, Inc., former licensee of Station WPGG, Channel 227C1, Evergreen, Alabama, the Report and Order substituted Channel 227C2 for Channel 227C1 at Evergreen, reallotted Channel 227C2 to Shalimar, Florida, and modified of the Station WPGG license to specify operation on Channel 227C2 at Shalimar. The Report and Order was pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-384A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-384A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-425A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-425A1.pdf
  • his expression of interest. Most recently, on October 26, 2005, Crawford submitted a ``Request for Approval of Withdrawal,'' which he describes as a ``final withdrawal of interest.'' Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations, Mojave and Trona, California, Stringtown and Haileyville, Oklahoma, and Cumberland Head, New York, 20 FCC Rcd 5999 (MB 2005). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 06-425 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-425 h� ^ _ `��gd� Z [ ] _ ` � h� h� �@��� � h� @& � � � � � � 7 8 9 : C D E P Q R S T � � � � � � � � � � 0 0 0 0 0
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-433A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-433A1.pdf
  • C0 station. Station KYQQ(FM) operates on Channel 293C with less than the minimum Class C antenna height above average terrain (``HAAT'') of 451 meters HAAT. As a result, Station KYQQ(FM) is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the reclassification procedures adopted in the Commission's Second Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-93, Note 2 to Section 1.420(g), and Note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's rules. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 73.3573, Note 4, we issued an Order to Show Cause directed to Journal Broadcast Corporation (``Journal''), licensee of Station KYQQ(FM), Arkansas City, Kansas, affording it 30 days to express in writing an intention to seek authority to upgrade its technical facilities to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-514A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-514A1.pdf
  • Station KTED(FM) license accordingly. To accommodate this upgrade and reallotment, the Joint Parties proposed the substitution of Channel 265C1 for Channel 252A at Glenrock, Wyoming and modification of the Station KGRK(FM) license accordingly; and the substitution of Channel 253C2 for vacant Channel 265A at Bairoil, Wyoming. Discussion. The Joint Parties filed the change of community license request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license where the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the licensee's or permittee's present assignment. The reallotment of Station KTED(FM), Channel 251C at Bar Nunn, Wyoming is not mutually exclusive with the current use of Channel 265C2 at Douglas, Wyoming. As
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-516A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-516A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-517A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-517A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-518A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-518A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-523A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-523A1.pdf
  • Louisiana (pop. 1,148) as a first local service. In response to NPRM I and NPRM II, Ruston Broadcasting Company (``RBC''), the predecessor in interest to CCC, simultaneously and timely filed an identical counterproposal in both proceedings. In its counterproposal, CCC proposed to upgrade its Station KNBB(FM), Ruston, Louisiana, from Channel 257C3 to Channel 257C2, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's rules. To accommodate this co-channel upgrade, CCC proposed to (1) substitute Channel 266A for vacant Channel 257A at Clayton, Louisiana; (2) allot Channel 300C3 at Saint Joseph, Louisiana, rather than Channel 257C3 as proposed by SJBC in MM Docket No. 01-19; and (3) allot Channel 279A at Wisner, Louisiana, rather than Channel 300C3 as proposed by WBC
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-610A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-610A1.pdf
  • did not file the necessary application to implement minimum Class C facilities for FM Station KCYY. Therefore, in accordance with the Commission's reclassification procedures noted above, the license for FM Station KCYY is hereby reclassified to specify operation on Channel 262C0 instead of Channel 262C at San Antonio. 3. LaGrange made the reallotment request in this docket pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. This
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-622A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-622A1.pdf
  • changes in the FM Table of Allotments, Section 73.202(b) of the Commission's Rules. In response to a petition filed by Radio and Investments, Inc. (``R&I''), licensee of Station KDDK(FM), Channel 288A, Franklin, Louisiana, the Notice proposes to change the community of license for Station KDDK(FM) from Franklin to Addis, Louisiana. R&I's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In order to accommodate the proposed allotment, R&I further requested a change in reference coordinates for Station KEUN-FM, Channel 288A, Eunice, Louisiana. Tri-Parish Broadcasting
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-725A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-725A1.pdf
  • Making filed by Sutton Broadcasting Corporation IS DISMISSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 6. For further information concerning the above, contact R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Clayton, Georgia and Sylva, North Carolina, 19 FCC Rcd 10202 (MB 2002). Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules, Petitioner provided a declaration under penalty of perjury stating that neither Petitioner nor any of its principals has received or will receive any consideration in exchange for the withdrawal of its Petition for Rule Making in this proceeding. Federal Communications Commission DA 06-725 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-725 ' � � � � � Z �
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-726A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-726A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-727A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-727A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-729A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-729A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-793A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-793A1.pdf
  • of its license to Class C0. In this regard, a Channel 259C0 reallotment to Hendersonville would not be short-spaced to the pending application at Eva. As requested by the Joint Parties, we are going forward with the Amended Proposal in this Notice. 3. The Joint Parties' proposal includes nine city of license modifications. These requests are filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. In evaluating a proposal, we compare the existing versus the proposed arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-796A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-796A1.pdf
  • support of the proposal, reaffirming her intention to apply for Channel 241A, if allotted. 3. In response to the NPRM, BK filed a counterproposal proposing to reallot and change the community of license for Station KOTY(FM) from Channel 239C2 at Mason, Texas, to Channel 240C2 at Mertzon, Texas (RM-10770). BK Radio submitted its counterproposal pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. BK's counterproposal is mutually exclusive with the Petitioner's proposal because Channel 240C2 at Mertzon, Texas, is short-spaced to Channel 241A at Eldorado. Discussion 4. Generally, conflicting proposals are
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-797A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-797A1.pdf
  • the modification of the license for Station WBKY(FM) to reflect the changes. Petitioner pledges to file an application for the channel and to construct the facilities if the application is granted. Opposing comments were filed by Mid-West Management, Inc. (``Mid-West''). Petitioner filed comments and reply comments. Background Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-843A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-843A1.pdf
  • comments were received in response to this proceeding. Background. The Notice proposed the reallotment of Channel 253C1 from Abilene to Burlingame, Kansas, as its first local service and modification of the Station KSAJ(FM) license accordingly. Petitioner filed comments, reiterating its expression of interest in the reallotment of Station KSAJ(FM) to Burlingame, Kansas. Discussion. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed reallotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 253C1 at Burlingame is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station KSAJ(FM), Channel 253C1, Abilene, Kansas. When
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-844A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-844A1.pdf
  • Auction No. 37, of a construction permit for an unbuilt FM station on Channel 231A, Vernon Center, Minnesota. The Petitioner requests the reallotment and modification of its construction permit from Channel 231A at Vernon Center (pop. 359) to Channel 231A at Eagle Lake, Minnesota (pop. 1,787). The Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In reviewing a proposal under Section 1.420(i), the Commission compares the existing and proposed arrangement of allotments to determine whether the reallotment would
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-845A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-845A1.pdf
  • the change of community. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for a construction permit to effectuate the change of community if Channel 269A is reallotted. Edward J. Cox II (``Cox'') filed a letter objecting to the proposed reallotment. No counterproposals were filed. 2. Petitioner filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-849A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-849A1.pdf
  • dismissals of Crawford petitions for new allotments at Mason and Benjamin, Texas. In that decision, the Court rejected Crawford's identical argument that he was not given adequate notice regarding his Mason and Benjamin proposals. In view of that Court decision, Crawford now requests that his Goldthwaite proposal be withdrawn and his Application for Review be dismissed. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Rules, Crawford also attached a declaration stating that no consideration has been paid or promised, directly or indirectly, for this withdrawal. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the aforementioned Application for Review filed by Charles Crawford IS DISMISSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 6. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Robert Hayne,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-986A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-986A1.pdf
  • Carolina, and modify the license of Station WKXU to reflect the change of community. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to file an application for a construction permit to effectuate the change of community if Channel 273A is reallotted. No counterproposals or other comments were received. 2. Petitioner filed its proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-987A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-987A1.pdf
  • Media Bureau (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Petitioner also proposes the substitution of Channel 263A for vacant Channel 241A at Clayton, OK. See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000), and Section 1.420(g), n. 2, and Section 73.3573, n. 4, of the Commission's Rules. 47 U.S.C. � 316(a). See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, Order, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n.2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-988A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-988A1.pdf
  • Bureau: The Audio Division has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by Finger Lakes Radio Group, Inc. (``Petitioner''), requesting the reallotment and change of community of license for its Station WFLR-FM from Channel 240A at Dundee, New York, to Channel 238A at Odessa, New York. The Petitioner filed this proposal for reallotment in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. In reviewing a proposal under Section 1.420(i), the Commission compares the existing and proposed arrangement of allotments to determine whether the reallotment would
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-992A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-992A1.pdf
  • service, the Notice also proposed the reallotment of co-owned Station WQXC-FM, Channel 265A from Otsego to Allegan, Michigan and modification of the Station WQXC-FM license to reflect this change. Petitioner filed comments, reiterating its expression of interest in the reallotment of Station WZUU(FM) to Mattawan, Michigan and Station WQXC-FM to Allegan, Michigan. Discussion. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. To this end, the proposed reallotment of Channel 223A at Mattawan, Michigan is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of FM Station WZUU,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1128A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1128A1.pdf
  • 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Glenmora and Marksville, Louisiana, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 20 FCC Rcd 12971 (MB 2005). See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 21649 (2000); see also 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420(g), n.2; 73.3573, n. 4. See Reclassification of License of Station KIOC, Orange, Texas, Order to Show Cause, 19 FCC Rcd 19486 (MB 2004). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1128 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1128 �@��� �@��� �@��� �@��� gd~ gd~ gd~ gd~ gd~ gd~ � gd~ gd~ " 4 O /O Q k l � � � � / 0
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1132A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1132A1.pdf
  • March 9, 2007 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: 1. The Audio Division has before it a Request for Withdrawal filed by Chisholm Trail Broadcasting Company (``Chisholm''). Chisholm requests withdrawal of its counterproposal (RM-11335) and its Petition for Reconsideration of a Report and Order in the above captioned proceeding. 2. Chisholm provides a sworn declaration pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules, stating that it has not received nor will it receive any money or other consideration in exchange for its withdrawal request. After reviewing the withdrawal request, we find that it complies with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules and that there are no impediments to granting the request. Therefore, we dismiss Chisholm's counterproposal, including the allotment
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1349A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1349A1.pdf
  • David P. Garland (``Garland''), a Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposed the allotment of Channel 274A at Milano, Texas, as a first local aural service. In response to the NPRM, Henderson filed a counterproposal, proposing the upgrade and reallotment of his Station KLTR(FM) from Channel 297A, Caldwell, Texas, to Channel 297C3 at Bedias, Texas, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. To accommodate the upgrade and reallotment, Henderson also proposed (1) the allotment of Channel 274A at Caldwell, Texas as a replacement service; and (2) the modification of the reference coordinates for vacant Channel 274A at Centerville, Texas. After the pleading cycle ended, Garland and Henderson filed a Joint Motion for Dismissal of the Garland Petition, Adoption
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1849A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1849A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1854A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1854A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2091A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2091A1.pdf
  • as a first local aural service. In response to the NPRM, JBD Incorporated (``JBD'') filed a counterproposal, proposing a change in the allotment from Channel 243A to 244A at Harrogate, Tennessee, its reallotment from Harrogate to Halls Crossroads, Tennessee, and the modification of the Station WMYL(FM) (formerly WXJB(FM)) license, accordingly. JBD submitted this request pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. The R&O compared these mutually exclusive proposals for first local services, granted JBD's counterproposal, and denied Meredith's rulemaking petition based on our policy of preferring a first local service to the community with the larger population. RTA filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the R&O and subsequently submitted a request for dismissal of its petition for
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2092A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2092A1.pdf
  • filed a request for withdrawal. A counterproposal was filed by Citadel Broadcasting Company (``Citadel'') proposing to substitute Channel 251C1 for Channel 250A at Edmond, Oklahoma, reallot Channel 251C1 to The Village, Oklahoma, and to modify the license for Station WWLS-FM, accordingly. No other comments or counterproposals were filed. We grant Petitioner's request for withdrawal which was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules. Petitioner states that he has not been paid or promised any consideration in exchange for withdrawing his petition. It is the Commission's policy to refrain from making an allotment to a community absent an expression of interest. Therefore, since there has been no continued expression of interest for an allotment of Channel 251C3 at Arapaho, Oklahoma,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2194A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2194A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2195A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2195A1.pdf
  • response to a Petition for Rule Making filed by Cox Radio, Inc. (``Cox''), licensee of Station WCTZ(FM), Channel 244A, Stamford, Connecticut, the Notice proposes to change the community of license for Station WCTZ(FM) from Stamford, Connecticut, to Port Chester, New York. and to reallot Channel 244A at Port Chester. 2. Cox's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. Cox, which does not propose any change in the transmitter site for Station WCTZ(FM), represents that if its request is granted, it will timely
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2196A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2196A1.pdf
  • the licensee of Station KYVA-FM, Channel 279C0, at Grants, New Mexico. Petitioner seeks to reallot Channel 279C0 from Grants to Church Rock, New Mexico, and to modify its license for Station KYVA-FM accordingly. Petitioner filed comments and reply comments in which it reiterates its intent to effectuate its proposal. Petitioner made the reallotment request in this docket pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. In
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2389A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2389A1.pdf
  • Inc., Jacor Broadcasting of Clorado, Inc., and Citicasters Licenses, L.P. filed a Joint Request for Approval of Agreement and Other Relief. As part of an overall settlement resolving this proceeding and related application proceedings, Coloradio, Inc. has withdrawn its interest in pursuing its allotment proposal in this proceeding and requested dismissal of its Application for Review. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the rules, Coloradio, Inc. has provided a declaration stating that it has not received or been promised any money or other consideration in exchange for this dismissal. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the aforementioned Application for Review filed by Meadowlark Group, Inc. IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. For further information concerning a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2393A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2393A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2544A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2544A1.pdf
  • Counterproposal was filed, is fatal to that Joint Parties' Counterproposal. The condition on the Station KHLB construction permit relates only to the possibility that the Commission could grant review and reverse the outcome in MM Docket No. 00-148. 7. Both Linda Crawford and Katherine Pyeatt filed a Withdrawal of Petition requesting dismissal of their respective proposals. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the rules, both parties filed affidavits stating that no consideration has been paid or promised, directly or indirectly, for these requests for dismissals. As requested, we are dismissing both proposals. 8. We are allotting Channel 297A to Goldthwaite, Texas. This will provide Goldthwaite with its first local service. This allotment conflicts with the proposed substitution of Channel 297A for
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2650A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2650A1.pdf
  • AND ORDER (Proceeding Terminated) Adopted: June 13, 2007 Released: June 15, 2007 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: 1. The Audio Division has before it a Notice of Proposed Rule Making issued in response to a Petition for Rule Making filed by Woman's World Broadcasting, Inc. (``WWB''), licensee of Station WTSH-FM, Channel 296C2, Rockmart, Georgia. Pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. WWB proposes to upgrade the facilities of WTSH-FM to Channel 296C1, to change the station's community of license from Rockmart to Aragon, Georgia, and to modify the license of WTSH-FM to operate on Channel 296C1 at Aragon. The proposed allotment of Channel 296C1 at Aragon, which would provide a first local service to Aragon, is mutually
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2747A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2747A1.pdf
  • this proceeding, which was dismissed as defective. The Report and Order granted the allotment of Channel 286A at Dubois, Idaho as the community's first local aural transmission service. Joint Parties now request to withdraw their Petition for Reconsideration, stating that they have filed counterproposals in other proceedings that effectuate most of the same changes. They attach affidavits pursuant to Section 1.420(j). We will grant the Joint Parties' request to withdraw and dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the aforementioned proceeding IS TERMINATED. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Victoria M. McCauley (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Ammon and Dubois, Idaho, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 10626
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2854A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2854A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2855A1.pdf
  • may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Noticewill be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date forfiling initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the decision in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2882A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2882A1.pdf
  • for not substituting Channel 229A for Channel 230A at Station WPFR-FM, Clinton, Indiana, as requested in Petitioners' proposal. 5. Since both Counterproposals are subject to dismissal, Petitioners' original proposal is now the only proposal before us. Petitioner made the request to upgrade Channel 230A, Fishers, Indiana, to Channel 230B1 and to reallot Channel 230B1 to Lawrence, Indiana, pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In considering a reallotment proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. 6.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3151A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3151A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3154A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3154A1.pdf
  • local service, which conflicted with the proposed allotment of Channel 265C at Prairie City, Oregon, as its first local service, requested by SSR Communications in a timely counterproposal in MB Docket No. 05-10. For this reason, the Report and Order consolidated the two proceedings. To resolve the conflict, the Report and Order approved a Settlement Agreement in compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, which provided a global resolution to this consolidated proceeding. The Report and Order allotted Channel 280C1 at Monument, Oregon, as its first local service and Channel 260C at Prairie City, Oregon, as its first local service as provided in the Settlement Agreement; substituted Channel *247C1 for vacant Channel *280C1 at Weiser, Idaho; and allotted Channel 267C1
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3158A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3158A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3195A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3195A1.pdf
  • and modification of the Station WVIX(FM) license accordingly. Univision Radio filed comments, reiterating its expression of interest in the reallotment of Station WVIX(FM) to Lemont. The Notice stated that Station WVIX(FM) is a pre-1964 ``grandfathered'' station that is short-spaced to two other pre-1964 ``grandfathered'' stations, Stations WXRT-FM and WLIT-FM in Chicago, Illinois. Discussion. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. The proposed reallotment of Channel 228A at Lemont is mutually exclusive with the current authorized facilities of Station WVIX(FM), Channel 228A, Joliet, Illinois. When
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3414A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3414A1.pdf
  • meters HAAT. As a result, Station KYQQ(FM) is subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the reclassification procedures adopted in the Commission's Second Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-93, See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, 15 FCC Rcd 21649 (2000). Note 2 to Section 1.420(g), and Note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Commission's rules. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 73.3573, Note 4, we issued an Order to Show Cause, Reclassification of License of Station KYQQ(FM)) Arkansas City, Kansas, Order to Show Cause, 20 FCC Rcd 12122 (MB 2005), directed to Journal Broadcast Corporation (``Journal''), licensee of Station KYQQ(FM), Arkansas City, Kansas,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3416A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3416A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3478A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3478A1.pdf
  • new channels to two communities as first local services. I. BACKGROUND 2. The Notice proposed the reallotment of Channel 265A from Sierra Vista to Tanque Verde, Arizona, and modification of the Station KZMK license to specify Tanque Verde as the community of license. This would provide Tanque Verde with its first local service. This request was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. In making this determination, we compare the existing versus the proposed arrangement of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3558A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3558A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3559A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3559A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3561A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3561A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3621A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3621A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3622A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3622A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3623A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3623A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4122A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4122A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4123A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4123A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4124A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4124A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4125A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4125A1.pdf
  • Law.' No other comments or counterproposals were received in response to this proceeding. Background. The Notice in MB Docket No. 06-43, proposed the allotment of Channel 300A at Oakwood, Texas, as its first local service. Charles Crawford filed timely comments, reiterating its expression of interest in the proposed Oakwood allotment but later filed a Withdrawal Request in compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Rules, stating that he desires to withdraw his petition and expression of interest. In response to this Notice, Linda Crawford filed a timely counterproposal, requesting the allotment of Channel 299C3 at Bedias, Texas, as its first local service and Channel 300A at Oakwood, Texas at new reference coordinates to resolve the conflict with the Notice's proposal. Linda Crawford
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4126A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4126A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4129A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4129A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4131A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4131A1.pdf
  • Capstar seek dismissal of their Application for Review directed to a Memorandum Opinion and Order in DA 05-2506 which denied their petition for reconsideration and affirmed dismissal of their joint petition for rule making that proposed inter alia changes to the communities of license for their respective stations. 2. Clear Channel and Capstar provide a sworn declaration pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules, stating that they have not received nor will they receive any money or other consideration in exchange for their withdrawal request. We find that the withdrawal request complies with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules and that there are no impediments to granting the request. Therefore, we dismiss the Application for Review and terminate the proceeding.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4307A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4307A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4309A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4309A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4311A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4311A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4312A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4312A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4313A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4313A1.pdf
  • EMF's counterproposal (RM-11315) was accepted and placed on public notice in Report No. 2762 (February 17, 2006). The West Portsmouth and RGS counterproposals are being dismissed. West Portsmouth Broadcasting, Inc., requested the allotment of Channel 294A at West Portsmouth, Kentucky, as its first local aural transmission service. It withdrew its counterproposal on September 12, 2006, certifying pursuant to 47 C.F.R. �1.420(j), that it did not receive consideration for its withdrawal. RGS's counterproposal requesting the allotment of Channel 294A at Owingsville was not acceptable for consideration because it failed to include engineering for a fully spaced site at the community. Ultimately, the FAA issued a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation regarding the use of Channel 300A at Falmouth. However, this
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4505A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4505A1.pdf
  • the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. Section 801(a)(1)(A) since this proposed rule is dismissed, herein.) For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Bokchito and Clayton, Oklahoma, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 22 FCC Rcd 9418 (MB 2007). 47 C.F.R. � 1.420 (j). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4505 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4505 h � 1 Z h � � � � 3� F �
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4945A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4945A1.pdf
  • of Stair's Weaverville counterproposal, and the withdrawal of McCoy's comments in MB Docket No. 05-191, in order to allow expeditious resolution of a long-pending rulemaking proceeding. The Joint Parties settled the proceeding pursuant to the rulemaking settlement window, announced by the Media Bureau (``Bureau''), as directed by the Commission, and the Bureau appropriately waived the reimbursement limitation provisions of Section 1.420(j) of the Rules. On October 24, 2005, Willsyr also filed a petition for reconsideration of the Glenville Report and Order, based upon the interrelated nature of the two settlements (``Willsyr Glenville Report and Order Reconsideration''). On August 27, 2007, the Estate of David T. Murray (``Estate'') withdrew its Section 1.41 Request, which had been filed in connection with the Station
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5036A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5036A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5037A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5037A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5038A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5038A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-60A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-60A1.pdf
  • to response to request for supplemental information filed by the Petitioner. For the reasons discussed below, we will approve the withdrawal of the Petitioner's rulemaking petition. Background. The NPRM proposed the reallotment, downgrade, and change of community of license for Station WVBZ(FM) from Channel 262C at High Point, North Carolina, to Channel 262C0 at Liberty, North Carolina, pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. Capitol filed a conflicting minor change application for its Station WCMC-FM, Creedmoor, North Carolina, which would be treated as a counterproposal in this proceeding because the application was filed after the rulemaking petition but before the comment deadline of May 9, 2005, set forth in the NPRM. In its request for approval of withdrawal of interest,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-61A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-61A1.pdf
  • BK Radio, former licensee of Station KOTY, Channel 239C2, Mason, Texas, filed a Counterproposal. In that Counterproposal, BK Radio proposed the substitution of Channel 240C2 for Channel 239C2 at Mason, reallotment of Channel 240C2 to Mertzon, Texas, and modification of the Station KOTY license to specify operation on Channel 240C2 at Mertzon. BK Radio filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license. Under Community of License, we are required to determine whether the proposed change in community of license will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. In determining whether a proposal would result in a preferential arrangement of allotments, we compare the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-805A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-805A1.pdf
  • a sworn affidavit, stating that he has not or will not receive any consideration in connection with the withdrawal of his rulemaking petition. We approve the Petitioner's withdrawal of his rulemaking petition in this proceeding and the expression of interest in Channel 242A at Melvin, Texas. The withdrawal of the rulemaking petition and the expression of interest comply with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules because the Petitioner is not receiving any money or other consideration in return for the withdrawal. As stated in the Appendix to the NPRM, a continuing interest is required before a channel will be allotted. Because the rulemaking petition and expression of interest in the proposed allotment at Melvin have been dismissed, we will not allot
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-807A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-807A1.pdf
  • a Request for Approval for Withdrawal filed by Aurora Media, LLC (``Aurora''). Aurora requests withdrawal of its Application for Review of a Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 06-2029, and its expression of interest in reallotting its unbuilt station on Channel 233C from Caliente to Moapa, Nevada, in the above captioned proceeding. 2. Aurora provides a sworn declaration pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's rules, stating that it has not received nor will it receive any money or other consideration in exchange for its withdrawal request. Aurora also states that it is concurrently filing an FCC Form 301 application to change the community of license for its unbuilt station, Channel 233C from Caliente to Moapa, Nevada pursuant to Revision of Procedures
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-126A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-126A1.pdf
  • and 110-45-54 WL, located 4.3 kilometers (2.7 miles) southwest of Wellington. The reference coordinates for Channel 239C at Salina are 38-50-58 NL and 112-00-28 WL, located 17.6 kilometers (11 miles) southwest of Salina. The reference coordinates for Channel 240C0 at Randolph are 41-56-46 NL and 111-00-04 WL, located 34.5 kilometers (21.5 miles) northeast of Randolph. This reallotment complies with Section 1.420(i) of the Rules because Channel 240C0 at Randolph is mutually exclusive with Channel 240C1 at Delta. Delta will continue to receive local service from ``full-time'' Station KNAK(AM). The gain area contains 124,749 persons. The loss area contains 329,074 persons. Currently, in the gain area, 293 persons receive one aural reception service, 3,440 persons receive two aural reception services, 4,102 persons
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1408A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1408A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1710A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1710A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1711A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1711A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1713A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1713A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1722A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1722A1.pdf
  • to file may lead to denial of the request. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1756A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1756A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1956A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1956A1.pdf
  • interest in the upgraded channel is expressed or if an alternative equivalent channel is identified for those parties expressing such an interest. The rule was intended to encourage the filing of modification proposals by limiting the ability of other parties to compete for upgraded allotments, i.e., the rule codifies a new licensing right for a certain class of licensees. Section 1.420(g) unambiguously applies to any modification to ``another class of channel,'' i.e., any upgrade or downgrade proposal. Although the License Modification Order considered upgrades exclusively, it did not set forth an alternate rule for downgrades, and certainly did not announce a Rule which strips away the requirements imposed on upgrade proponents. Importantly, the Commission suggests - in the context of a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2273A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2273A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2274A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2274A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2277A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2277A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2332A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2332A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2333A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2333A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2334A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2334A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2354A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2354A1.pdf
  • Released: October 27, 2008 By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: The Audio Division, on its own motion, hereby sets aside the Report and Order in this proceeding pursuant to Section 1.113(a) of the Commission's Rules and provides interested parties with the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in FM Channel 299C3, Madisonville, Texas, in compliance with Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules. The R&O granted a counterproposal (RM-11423) to allot FM Channel 267A at Normangee, Texas. To accommodate this new allotment, the R&O substituted Channel 299C3 for Channel 267A as the reserved assignment for Station KKLB(FM), Madisonville, Texas, in the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System, pursuant to Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules. The R&O also denied,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2439A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2439A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2569A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2569A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2570A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2570A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2590A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2590A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2619A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2619A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-272A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-272A1.pdf
  • the Station WJCD license to specify Norfolk as the community of license. In order to replace the loss of the sole local service at Windsor, the Notice also proposed the reallotment of Channel 287B from Norfolk to Windsor and modification of the Station WKUS license to specify Windsor as its community of license. This request was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-273A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-273A1.pdf
  • for Channel 268C3 at Peach Springs, Arizona, should be addressed to the Audio Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau Peach Springs, Arizona, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 22 FCC Rcd 15,118 (MB 2007) (``Notice''). See File No. BMPH-20070124AJQ. Greenlight filed its ``Withdrawal'' on January 7, 2008. Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Greenlight has supplied a declaration that it has not been paid nor promised any money or other consideration in exchange for the proposed withdrawal of its counterproposal in this proceeding. We will, therefore, grant the proposed withdrawal of Greenlight's counterproposal. See 5 U.S.C. � 801 (a)(1)(A). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-273 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-273
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-274A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-274A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-275A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-275A1.pdf
  • the allotment of Channel 285A at Sells, Arizona, as the community's first local transmission service. In response to the NPRM, Lakeshore filed a timely counterproposal, proposing the downgrade of Channel 285C2 to Channel 285C3 at Willcox, the reallotment of Channel 285C3 to Davis-Monthan AFB, and the associated modification of the license for Station KWCX-FM pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. To accommodate this allotment, Lakeshore proposed to modify the transmitter site for Station KZZP(FM), Channel 284C, Mesa, Arizona, with the consent of the licensee, and agreed to reimburse the licensee for the reasonable costs of changing its transmitter site. Further, because the relocation of Station KWCX-FM would create ``white area,'' Lakeshore proposed two ``backfill'' allotments, Channels
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-27A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-27A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-31A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-31A1.pdf
  • the request of JBL, a Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order to Show Cause proposed the upgrade of Channel 274A to Channel 274C3 at Cumberland, Kentucky, the reallotment of Channel 274C3 from Cumberland (pop. 2,611) to Weber City, Virginia (pop. 1,333) as a first local service, and the associated modification of the license for Station WVEK-FM pursuant to Sections 1.420(g)(3) and (i) of the Commission's rules (the ``Rules''). To accommodate this upgrade and reallotment, the NPRM/OSC also proposed: (1) the substitution of Channel 263A for then vacant Channel 274A at Glade Spring, Virginia; and (2) the substitution of Channel 273A for Channel 263A at Marion, Virginia, and the associated modification of Station WOLD-FM's license. The R&O denied JBL's proposal and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-568A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-568A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-630A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-630A1.pdf
  • of Station KZMK, Channel 265A, Sierra Vista, Arizona, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposed the reallotment of Channel 265A from Sierra Vista to Tanque Verde, Arizona, and modification of the Station KZMK license to specify Tanque Verde as the community of license. This would provide Tanque Verde with its first local service. This request was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal be mutually exclusive with the station's current authorization and that the reallotment result in a preferential arrangement of allotments.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-68A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-68A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-69A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-69A1.pdf
  • to file may lead to denial of the request. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-737A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-737A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1032A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1032A1.pdf
  • proposed channel changes were filed as part of a hybrid application and rulemaking proposal involving the Petitioner's concurrently filed minor change application. In this application, the Petitioner proposes the reallotment of Channel 297C from Alturus, California, to Fernley, Nevada, and the associated modification of its construction permit for a new FM station at Alturus, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. The modification of the Alturus construction permit is contingent upon the deletion of the Nevada City allotment. In its Comments, the Petitioner incorporates its rulemaking petition in support of the deletion of vacant FM Channel 297A at Nevada City and restates its intention to participate in the auction process for a new FM station on Channel
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1357A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1357A1.pdf
  • NPRM's proposed allotment of Channel 299A. Second, Pyeatt proposes the allotment of Channel 267A at Normangee, Texas, as a first local service (RM-11423). To accommodate this allotment, Pyeatt proposes the non-adjacent channel upgrade of Station KKLB(FM), Madisonville, Texas, from Channel 267A to Channel 299C3 at a new transmitter site and the associated modification of her construction permit, pursuant to Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules. Pyeatt's counterproposal is mutually exclusive with the NPRM's proposal because Channel 299C3 at Madisonville is short-spaced under the minimum distance separation rules with Channel 299A at Iola, Texas. In addition, Pyeatt's counterproposal is also mutually exclusive with Henderson's counterproposal because Channels 299A at Buffalo, Texas, and 299C3 at Madisonville are short-spaced to each other. In support
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1726A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1726A1.pdf
  • September 17, 2009, the FM Table of Allotments, 47 C.F.R. Section 73.202(b), IS AMENDED, with respect to the community listed below, to read as follows: Community Channel Ten Sleep, Wyoming 267A 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority found in 47 U.S.C. Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and 307(b), and 47 C.F.R. Sections 0.61, 0.204(b), 0.283, and 1.420(i), and subject to final approval of petitioner's application to change the community of license for Station KYTS(FM), Channel 271C2, from Ten Sleep to Manderson, Wyoming, that effective August 24, 2009, the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System will reflect petitioner's construction permit for Station KYTS(FM), Channel 271C2, at Manderson, Wyoming. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the counterproposal filed by
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1727A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1727A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-185A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-185A1.pdf
  • channel changes are being filed as part of a hybrid application and rulemaking proposal involving the Petitioner's concurrently filed minor change application. In this application, the Petitioner proposes the reallotment of Channel 297C from Altlurus, California, to Fernley, Nevada, and the associated modification of its construction permit for a new FM station at Alturus, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. The modification of the Alturus construction permit is contingent upon the deletion of the Nevada City allotment. In support of its rulemaking request, the Petitioner contends that the deletion of vacant Channel 297A at Nevada City and the proposed new allotment at Mineral would result in a preferential arrangement of FM channels because Mineral would receive
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2234A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2234A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2263A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2263A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2268A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2268A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2269A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2269A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2270A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2270A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-40A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-40A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-412A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-412A1.pdf
  • Table of Allotments, Section 73.202(b) of the Commission's Rules, IS AMENDED, with respect to the communities listed below, to read as follows: Community Channel Number Evart, Michigan 274A Ludington, Michigan 249A 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority found in 47 U.S.C. Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and 307(b), and 47 C.F.R. Sections 0.61, 0.204(b), 0.283, and 1.420(i), that effective April 13, 2009, the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System will reflect for the following stations and allotments in Michigan: (1) Channel 242A at Pentwater, Michigan, as the reserved assignment for Station WMOM(FM), in lieu of Channel 274A; and (2) Channel 282A at Manistee, Michigan, as the reserved assignment for Station WMLQ(FM), in lieu of Channel 249A. (a)
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-415A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-415A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-43A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-43A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-490A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-490A1.pdf
  • being filed as part of a hybrid application and rulemaking proposal involving the Petitioner's concurrently filed minor change application. In this application, the Petitioner proposes the substitution of Channel 244C2 for Channel 244C3 at Morgan City, the reallotment of Channel 244C2 to Gray, Louisiana, and the associated modification of its license for Station KMYO-FM pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. The modification of the Morgan City license is contingent upon the requested channel substitution at Dulac. In support of its rulemaking request, the Petitioner contends that the substitution of Channel 230A for vacant Channel 242A at Dulac would provide a net gain in service to 4,255 persons. In addition, the Petitioner alleges that the KMYO-FM application
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-833A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-833A1.pdf
  • states its intention to withdraw its expression of interest in Channel 283C2 at Laramie, Wyoming, and requests that this proceeding be terminated. A declaration by Bruce Buzil, manager of Superior, represents that neither Superior nor any of its principals has received or will receive any consideration in exchange for the withdrawal of its expression of interest. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). 2. The Audio Division also has before it the ``Request for Dismissal'' submitted on January 12, 2009, on behalf White Park Broadcasting, Inc. (``White Park''). White Park's request seeks the dismissal of its counterproposal for the allotment of FM Channel 283C2 at Grand Encampment, Wyoming, rather than at Laramie, Wyoming, as proposed in the Notice. In support of its request
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-836A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-836A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding: (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-840A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-840A1.pdf
  • Bend. The NPRM proposed the allotment of FM Channel 235A at Markham, Texas, as a second local service. In response to the NPRM, Fort Bend filed a counterproposal, requesting the upgrade of its Station KHTZ (FM), Ganado, Texas, from Channel 284C2 to Channel 235C and the modification of its license to specify operation on non-adjacent Channel 235C, pursuant to Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules. To accommodate the proposed upgrade at Ganado, Fort Bend also requests the substitution of Channel 284C3 for Channel 236C3 at Victoria, Texas, and the associated modification of the license for Station KVIC(FM). Section 316(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, permits us to modify the license or construction permit if such action is in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-847A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-847A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1060A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1060A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1061A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1061A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1148A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1148A1.pdf
  • 244C2 at Maupin, Oregon. No parties filed comments in response to the Petition for Reconsideration. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Petitioner now withdraws its expression of interest in the allotment of Channel 244C2 at Maupin. Petitioner states that due to changed economic conditions, it is no longer interested in constructing and operating a station at Maupin. In compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Petitioner states that no consideration has been or will be received by it in return for the withdrawal of its expression of interest. Petitioner also requests the dismissal of its pending application for a new station at Maupin. Discussion. We will grant the Petition for Reconsideration and dismiss the petitioner's expression of interest because it demonstrated
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1194A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1194A1.pdf
  • create a gray area consisting of 1,057 persons. As discussed below, the creation of gray area is not fatal to the Counterproposal. 6. As stated earlier, the Counterproposal proposes to reallot Channel 229C from Richfield to Mount Pleasant and modify the Station KLGL license to specify Mount Pleasant as the community of license. This proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. Any reallotment proposal must result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies and Procedures. This
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-141A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-141A1.pdf
  • Rulemaking (``Request'') and its associated application. It claims that no consideration was received in conjunction with its request to withdraw. No counterproposals or other comments were received in response to this Notice. For the reasons discussed below, we are dismissing the Petition for Rule Making. We will grant Petitioner's Request to dismiss its rulemaking Petition because the requirements of Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules have been met. Petitioner has demonstrated that no consideration has been or will be received in exchange for its withdrawal. Furthermore, we will not allot Channel 244A at Chester, Georgia because no other expression of interest has been filed for the proposed allotment. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the Petition for Rule Making filed by Georgia
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1806A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1806A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2279A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2279A1.pdf
  • petition for rulemaking seeking the allotment of FM Channel 232A at Jewett, Texas, and we issued a notice proposing that rule change. 2. Crawford now states his intention to withdraw his petition for allotment of Channel 232A at Jewett. Crawford further states that no consideration has been paid or promised, directly or indirectly, for such withdrawal. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). 3. It is the Commission's policy to refrain from making an allotment to a community absent an adequate expression of interest. By filing his ``Withdrawal of Petition,'' Crawford has demonstrated that he has no continuing interest in the requested allotment. In addition, no other party has expressed an interest in the allotment of FM Channel 232A at Jewett, Texas. 4.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-22A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-22A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-23A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-23A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-36A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-36A1.pdf
  • and paid the requisite filing fee in compliance with the Commission's new procedures. In response to the NPRM, Fort Bend filed a counterproposal (RM-11416), requesting the upgrade of its Station KHTZ(FM), Ganado, Texas, from Channel 284C2 to Channel 235C at a new transmitter site and the modification of its license to specify operation on non-adjacent Channel 235C, pursuant to Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules. To accommodate the proposed upgrade at Ganado, Fort Bend also requests the substitution of Channel 284C3 for Channel 236C3 at Victoria, Texas, and the associated modification of the license for Station KVIC(FM). This counterproposal is mutually exclusive with the NPRM because Channel 235C at Ganado is short-spaced to Channel 235A at Markham under the Commission's minimum
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-38A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-38A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-74A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-74A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-754A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-754A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-786A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-786A1.pdf
  • 249C2 at The Dalles, which is mutually-contingent with the disposition of the Station KNRQ-FM modification application. Moreover, upon grant of the Station KACI-FM modification application, Bicoastal shall complete construction of the newly-authorized facilities pursuant to the conditions of the Station KACI-FM construction permit. Cumulus shall prepare the license application for review and filing by Bicoastal. Discussion. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, we are granting the Joint Parties' Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed. In doing so, we approved the Settlement Agreement in accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules. The Joint Parties will collectively and individually receive payments that are less than the totality of their respective legitimate and prudent expenses incurred
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1072A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1072A1.pdf
  • we grant the Reconsideration Petition and the Rule Making Petition. 2. Background. At the request of East Kentucky, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposed the upgrade of Station WPKE-FM, Coal Run, Kentucky, from Channel 276A to Channel 221C3 at a new transmitter site and the modification of its license to specify operation on non-adjacent Channel 221C3, pursuant to Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''). In order to accommodate this upgrade, we issued an Order to Show Cause (``OSC'') to Dickenson County as to why its license for Station WDIC-FM should not be modified from Channel 221A to Channel 276A. In response to the OSC, Dickenson County argued that there was a major terrain obstruction between Coal Run and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1523A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1523A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-653A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-653A1.pdf
  • 12. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-7072. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nazifa Sawez Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and Section 1.420(g), n.2, and Section 73.3573, n.4, of the Commission's Rules. See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, Order, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n.2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-867A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-867A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DOC-276164A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DOC-276164A1.pdf
  • clauses of the Report and Order. Accordingly, the two paragraphs below shall be inserted following paragraph 15 of the Report and Order, and all the paragraphs that follow shall be re-numbered accordingly: 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority found in 47 U.S.C. Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and 307(b), and 47 C.F.R. Sections 0.61, 0.204(b),0.283, and 1.420(i), IT IS ORDERED, That effective October 8, 2007, the FM Table of Allotments, 47 C.F.R. Section 73.202(b), IS AMENDED, with respect to the communities listed below, to read as follows: Community Channel Number Lynchburg, Tennessee 230A (a) Within 90 days of the effective date of this Order, the licensee shall submit to the Commission a minor change application for a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-06-119A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-06-119A1.pdf
  • statement for the record, adopting the arguments pled by Big City and urging the Commission to grant the application for review. We will refer to the stations by their current call letters throughout this document. The call sign for Station KYOR(FM) was modified to KDGL(FM) on January 7, 2004. 16 FCC Rcd 2154 (MMB 2001) (``NPRM''). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(g)(3). This section provides in pertinent part that the license or construction permit for an FM station may be modified to a mutually exclusive, higher class adjacent or co-channel in the same community. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(i). This rule permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-06-163A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-06-163A1.pdf
  • class modifications have been made under our ``one-step'' procedures). However, we will permit an FM non-reserved band permittee or licensee to use notice and comment procedures to modify its current assignment to specify a non-adjacent class upgrade or downgrade in the same community of license. We take this action to preserve the facility improvement options now set forth at Section 1.420(g)(1) and (2). We will retain the Table for vacant allotments and will continue to use rule making procedures to establish new channel allotments, as the procedures for new allotments allow for efficient consideration of all proposals and counterproposals in keeping with our Section 307(b) obligations. While Section 307(b) considerations enter into community of license changes to authorized facilities as well,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-18A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-18A1.pdf
  • 19 FCC Rcd 4327 (MB 2004). Tilden, Texas, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 6112 (MB 2004). Batesville, Texas, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 16 FCC Rcd 12682 (MB 2001). The Media Bureau has referred this matter to the Commission pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 0.5(c). Quanah, Texas, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 15809 (MMB 2000). Section 1.420(d) of the Rules requires a counterproposal to be filed by the specified comment date in a rulemaking proceeding. 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(d). These Petitions for Rule Making were filed between April 18 and May 23, 2001. Benjamin and Mason, Texas, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 103 (MB 2003). Benjamin and Mason, Texas, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-204A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-204A1.pdf
  • Review filed by Long Nine, Inc. (``Long Nine'') directed to the staff Memorandum Opinion and Order in this proceeding. Saga Communications Inc. (``Saga Communications'') filed an Opposition to Application for Review and Long Nine filed a Reply to Opposition to Application for Review. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Application for Review. II. BACKGROUND 2. Pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, a station authorization may be modified to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. Any reallotment proposal must result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies and Procedures. Section 1.420(i) and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-205A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-205A1.pdf
  • Walton Beach License Company, LLC (``Qantum'') directed to the Memorandum Opinion and Order in this proceeding. Star Broadcasting, Inc., successor in interest to Gulf Coast Broadcasting Company, Inc. (``Petitioner''), filed an Opposition to Application for Review and Qantum filed a Reply to Opposition. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Application for Review. II. BACKGROUND 2. Pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, a station authorization may be modified to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. Any reallotment proposal must result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies and Procedures. A first local
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-215A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-215A1.pdf
  • deny the Application for Review. II. Background 2. At the request of Secret Communications II, LLC, former licensee of Station WLZT (formerly WFCB), Channel 227B, Chillicothe, Ohio, the Report and Order reallotted Channel 227B from Chillicothe to Ashville, Ohio, and modified the Station WLZT license to specify operation on Channel 227B at Ashville. The reallotment was adopted pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-218A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-218A1.pdf
  • also proposed the reallotment of Channel 287C2 from Crystal Beach to Winnie, and modification of its Station KLTO license to specify Winnie as the community of license. The reallotment of Channel 287C2 to Winnie conflicted with the proposed Channel 287A allotment at Vinton. 3. The Report and Order granted the Tichenor License Counterproposal. This action was taken pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. Community of License requires that any reallotment proposal result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-222A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-222A1.pdf
  • the Channel 221 upgrade at Cass City on existing and potential NCE FM service. Czelada did not raise this issue prior to the issuance of the Report and Order or the Reconsideration Order. Accordingly, the Rules bar Czelada from raising this issue on review. Even if we were to consider the argument, we would deny review. Note 1 to Section 1.420(h) of the Rules imposes a ``particularly heavy burden'' on Channel 221 upgrade proponents by requiring the Commission to consider the preclusive impact of the upgrade on NCE FM service. The Commission, however, undertakes this analysis only when the 60 dBu contour of the Channel 221 upgrade proposal overlaps the Grade B contour of a television channel 6 station. No such
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-11-73A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-11-73A1.pdf
  • Petitioners opposed these Motions. J&J/M&M has failed to show good cause for its late filing. We deny the Motion and dismiss the Opposition. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.46(a). Quanah, Texas, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 15809 (MMB 2000) (``Quanah Notice''). Nation Wide Radio Stations withdrew its expression of interest in this allotment, and in accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Rules, this proposal was dismissed in Quanah, Texas, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 9495 (MB 2003) (``Quanah Report and Order''). Counterproposal at 36. (``The Joint Petitioners urge the Commission to adopt the above proposal in its entirety. ... However, in the unlikely event that the Commission finds a defect in the proposal, it can be severed into
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-99-55A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-99-55A1.pdf
  • to limit minor changes in the NCE FM and FM translator services to proposals that would continue to provide 1 mV/m service to some portion of the stations' presently authorized 1 mV/m service areas. See infra, � 8. See comments filed by West Virginia Radio Corporation (AM only), Communications Technologies, Inc. (AM only) and Radio Property Ventures; 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(i); Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License in MM Docket 88-526, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989) ("New Community of License R&O"); see also infra, � 9. See comments filed by Hardy & Carey, NPR, EIC and V-Soft Communications. The Commission's rules and policies are intended to encourage the
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/31/releases/fc010025.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/31/releases/fc010025.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/31/releases/fc010025.txt
  • clearing by January 1, 2001, and requests for pre-approval would be acted on by March 1, 2001. See Spectrum Exchange Comments at 9. See 700 MHz MO&O and FNPRM � 61; see also supra � 15. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.622(a). See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3500 et seq. (broadcast application procedures). See 47 C.F.R. � 73.623(g). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420, 73.607, 73.611, 73.622, 73.623. See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, Fifth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12809, 12832-12833 �� 55-56 (1997) (``DTV Fifth Report and Order''); DTV Fifth Report and Order Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd at 6886-6887 �� 77-78. DTV Fifth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12833-35 �� 57-60. 700 MHz
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/4361-98.pdf
  • 1 2 3 4 Other Andorra $165,32437.6 4.410.821.625.5 $848 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $5,567100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 385,29420.8 8.6 7.819.043.7 Austria $39,813,44164.6 0.822.611.5 0.5 $3,700,48445.3 0.027.624.2 2.9 $307,19396.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.6 102,113,63144.9 2.328.322.5 2.0 Belgium $70,985,42059.9 0.423.413.3 2.9 $6,508,72050.5 0.030.716.7 2.1 $1,662,64369.7 0.016.2 0.213.9 156,393,16341.5 1.828.016.812.0 Cyprus $8,822,85956.3 0.726.312.4 4.4 $2,112,03161.3 0.025.010.4 3.3 $322,76076.5 0.013.2 8.6 1.7 15,657,68051.3 1.420.515.611.1 Denmark $36,270,24164.0 1.522.3 7.3 4.8 $2,869,38337.8 0.035.216.011.0 $1,115,23957.3 0.036.8 4.8 1.1 102,361,57041.4 6.930.2 9.511.9 Finland $16,259,03442.8 2.642.610.3 1.6 $2,328,58342.2 0.038.518.3 1.0 $735,38894.0 0.0 5.1 0.5 0.4 46,134,63935.0 9.033.118.1 4.8 France $283,361,26859.4 0.626.210.0 3.7 $31,325,39739.1 0.036.713.011.2 $8,338,13975.3 0.012.2 4.4 8.1 846,290,43042.3 2.429.415.010.9 Germany $643,236,44575.1 1.613.1 7.2 3.0 $49,972,02458.7 0.021.911.8 7.6 $3,391,267 0.0 0.061.221.017.8 1,879,933,05349.1 7.523.210.6 9.6 Gibraltar $1,954,34495.0 0.3 0.2 2.6
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/4361-f02.pdf
  • 0.998.7 0.0 1,327,689 0.041.4 3.241.913.4 Saint Helena $189,96110.750.9 0.136.0 2.4 $0 $0 269,461 3.747.2 0.145.1 3.8 Sao Tome and Principe $1,145,503 2.460.6 3.619.214.2 $0 $1,289 0.051.348.7 0.0 0.0 1,527,052 3.025.6 5.050.316.1 Senegal $8,567,95142.2 8.7 0.725.323.2 $413,69273.4 0.0 0.016.610.0 $308,72856.0 0.0 0.030.513.5 34,832,81018.9 7.0 1.039.134.1 Seychelles $457,19372.3 9.2 0.5 8.5 9.6 $816 0.0 0.028.171.9 0.0 $577 0.0 0.0100.0 0.0 0.0 684,48244.410.2 1.420.423.5 Sierra Leone $6,472,59675.2 5.0 1.7 3.614.5 $529,658100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $879,05297.6 2.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 13,601,10551.9 5.4 3.214.425.2 Somalia $11,103,191 0.034.0 0.355.010.7 $87,035 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 0.0 $115,458 0.0100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18,916,963 0.016.0 0.371.412.2 South Africa $34,924,66473.2 5.6 1.015.8 4.3 $2,088,05525.643.9 0.123.2 7.2 $2,413,71859.2 3.7 1.9 0.334.8 112,278,72142.511.9 2.728.214.7 Sudan $1,288,766 0.0 5.9 2.761.929.4 $133,283100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1999/da992272.doc
  • of the Rules to specify a new community of license. Each petitioner has stated that it will apply for its requested channel, if allotted to the specified community. We believe that each proposal warrants consideration because it complies with our technical requirements and would serve the public interest. 2. Each proposal is filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1999/da992353.doc
  • KBIL(FM), Channel 283A, Grand Isle, Louisiana, requesting the substitution of Channel 283C2 for Channel 283A at Grand Isle, the reallotment of Channel 283C2 to Empire, Louisiana, as that community's first local transmission service, and modification of its authorization accordingly. Petitioner stated its intention to effectuate the changes reflected in its proposal. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Modification"), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change of Community MO&O"),
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1999/da992356.doc
  • II, L.L.C. ("petitioner"), requesting the reallotment of Channel 227B from Chillicothe to Ashville, Ohio, as the community's first local aural service, and the modification of Station WKKJ's license to specify Ashville as its community of license. Petitioner states that it will apply for the channel, if allotted to Ashville. 2. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O"), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1999/da992562.doc
  • Channel 224B1 at Ridgecrest at a newly specified transmitter site and modification of the license of Station KZIQ-FM, as well as a change in the reference coordinates of Station KMLT, Channel 224A, Thousand Oaks, California, to avoid a short spacing to the proposed reallotment of Channel 224A to Fountain Valley, California. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community R&O''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ``Change
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1999/da992563.doc
  • making filed by Gene Milner Broadcasting Company, Inc. ("petitioner"), licensee of Station WRZA(FM), Channel 260B, Kankakee, Illinois, proposing the reallotment of Channel 260B from Kankakee to Park Forest, Illinois, and the modification of Station WRZA(FM)'s license accordingly. Petitioner states its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Park Forest. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1999/da992582.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1999/da992684.doc
  • 265A. A staff engineering analysis indicates that the proposed allotments can be made in compliance with the Commission's spacing requirements. Since Pearsall and George West are located within 320 kilometers of the U.S.-Mexican border, concurrence of the Mexican Government will be requested for the allotment of Channel 281C1 at Pearsall and Channel 265A at George West. In accordance with Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules, we will not accept competing expressions of interest for the use of Channel 281C1 at Pearsall. With respect to Channel 265A at George West, the Commission's Rules do not contemplate the filing of expressions of interest in proceedings, such as this one, which seek to make equivalent channel substitutions. 4. We shall direct an Order to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1999/da992686.doc
  • (``Shamrock''), licensee of Station KJFK, Channel 255C1, Lampasas, Texas, proposing the reallotment of Channel 255C1 from Lampasas, Texas, to Leander, Texas, and modification of its license to specify operation at Leander. Shamrock indicated that it would file an application for Channel 255C1 at Leander, if the channel is allotted to the community. 2. Shamrock filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O") 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1999/da992695.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1999/da992759.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comment herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1999/da992810.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1999/da992825.doc
  • the proposal warrants consideration since the allotment of Channel 245C1 at Plainview, Kansas, would enable Station KFIX(FM) to provide an expanded service to its community of license and surrounding areas. Therefore, as requested, we will propose to modify the license issued to Radio, Inc. for Station KFIX(FM) to specify the higher class channel in accordance with the requirements of Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules. A staff engineering analysis has determined that Channel 245C1 can be allotted to Plainview consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of Section 73.207(b) of the Commission's Rules utilizing the licensed site of Station KFIX(FM) at coordinates 39-01-15 NL and 99-28-12 WL. Channel 255A can be allotted to Larned at Station KGTR(FM)'s presently licensed transmitter site
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1999/da992843.doc
  • by a grant of their joint request since it will enable both stations to operate on higher class channels and thus provide service to a greater number of people. In addition, they state that the proposed channel substitutions can be accomplished without accepting competing expressions of interest as the proposal constitutes an incompatible channel swap as set forth in Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's Rules. They point out that an incompatible channel swap requires that the proposed channel swap between communities is mutually exclusive, requires the licensee in one of the communities to relinquish its channel to the licensee in the other community, and the allotments are the only available channels of that class available to each community, citing Modification of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000066.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000068.doc
  • before it a Petition for Rule Making filed by Montachusset Broadcasting, Inc. (``Montachusett Broadcasting''), licensee of Station WORC-FM, Channel 255A, Spencer, Massachusetts, proposing the reallotment of Channel 255A from Spencer to Webster, Massachusetts, and the modification of its Station WORC-FM license to specify Webster as the community of license. Montachusett Broadcasting filed its Petition for Rue Making pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989); recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000079.doc
  • behalf of KXTJ License, Inc. (``KXTJ''), proposing the reallotment of Channel 300C from Beaumont Texas to Dayton, Texas. KXTJ also requests modification of its license for Station KXTJ(FM), Beaumont, to be modified to specify operation at Dayton. KXTJ stated its intention to apply for Channel 300C if it is reallotted to Dayton. 2. KXTJ filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O") 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000142.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000167.doc
  • of the Rules to specify a new community of license. Each petitioner has stated that it will apply for its requested channel, if allotted to the specified community. We believe that each proposal warrants consideration because it complies with our technical requirements and would serve the public interest. 2. Each proposal is filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000168.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000171.doc
  • Station WTKE(FM), Channel 251C1, Andalusia, Alabama, seeking to amend the FM Table of Allotments by realloting Channel 251C1 to Holt, Florida, and modification of its authorization accordingly. Petitioner failed to state its intention to apply for Channel 251C1 if it is reallotted to Holt, and should do so in responsive comments. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community R&O''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ``Change
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000172.doc
  • and modify the license of Station WDMG-FM to specify Willacoochee as its community of license. Finally, petitioner proposes that Channel 256C3 be allotted to Barnwell, as a "back-fill" allotment, at new coordinates. Petitioner states that it will apply for Channel 257C1, if allotted to Pembroke, and Channel 256C3, if allotted to Barnwell. 2. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, petitioner states that the proposed changes will provide a first local service to two communities (Pembroke and Willacoochee) without depriving either Barnwell or
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000212.doc
  • requesting the reallotment of Channel 270C2 from Paris, Texas, to Mount Pleasant, Texas, and modification of its license for Station KBUS(FM) to specify Mount Pleasant as its community of license. Carephil indicated that it would file an application for Channel 270C2 at Mount Pleasant if the channel is allotted to the community. 2. Carephil filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O"), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000255.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000260.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000262.doc
  • Commission's spacing requirements at Silver Rock's proposed site. To accommodate Channel 257C1 at Red Lodge we shall also propose the substitution of Channel 292C3 for vacant Channel 259C3 at Joliet, Montana. As requested, we shall propose to modify the license for Station KMXE-FM, Red Lodge, to specify operation on Channel 257C1 in lieu of Channel 257A. In accordance with Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules, we will not accept competing expressions of interest for the use of Channel 257C1 at Red Lodge or require the Silver Rock to demonstrate the availability of an additional equivalent class channel for use by such parties. 4. In view of the fact that the proposed allotment would provide expanded service to Red Lodge, Montana, the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000296.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000297.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000298.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000299.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000369.doc
  • 252A, Nogales, Arizona, seeking the substitution of Channel 253A for Channel 252A, the reallotment of Channel 253A to Vail, Arizona, as that community's first local aural transmission service, and modification of its authorization accordingly. Petitioner stated its intention to apply for Channel 253A if it is reallotted to Vail, as requested. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules that permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community R&O''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ``Change
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000394.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comment herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000481.doc
  • license. To accommodate its proposal for Station WIXK-FM, Smith also requests the substitution of Channel 249A for Channel 296A at Moose Lake, Minnesota, and modification of the license of Station KBFH at Moose Lake. Smith stated its intention to apply for Channel 296C2 if it is reallotted to Coon Rapids, as requested. 2. Smith filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O") 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000542.doc
  • to any Urbanized Area. Channel 278B can be allotted to Saint Johnsville in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 15.9 kilometers (9.9 miles) east, to accommodate petitioner's desired transmitter site. As requested, we also propose to modify Station WQBJ's license to specify Saint Johnsville as its community of license. In accordance with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, we will not accept competing expressions of interest in Channel 278B at Saint Johnsville or require the petitioner to demonstrate the availability of an additional equivalent channel for use by such parties. Saint Johnsville is located within 320 kilometers (200 miles) of the U.S.-Canadian border. However, prior approval by the Canadian Government is not required since
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000543.doc
  • license accordingly. Second, it proposes the reallotment of Channel 289C2 from South Bend to Raymond, Washington, and the modification of Station KJET(FM)'s license accordingly. Third, it proposes the allotment of Channel 300A to South Bend, Washington. Petitioner states its intention to apply for the respective channels, if allotted to the specified communities. 2. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000544.doc
  • before it a petition for rule making filed by Keymarket Licenses LLC, licensee of Station WOGI-FM (formerly WZKT(FM)), Channel 252A, Charleroi, Pennsylvania, proposing the reallotment of Channel 252A from Charleroi to Duquesne, Pennsylvania, and the modification of Station WOGI-FM's license accordingly. Petitioner states its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted. 2. The proposal is filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TVAuthorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990). In
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000553.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000646.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000647.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000648.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000700.doc
  • 279C1, Gadsden, Alabama, seeking the substitution of Channel 279C for Channel 279C1, the reallotment of Channel 279C to Springville, Alabama, as that community's first local aural transmission service, and modification of its authorization accordingly. Petitioner stated its intention to apply for Channel 279C if it is reallotted to Springville, as requested. 2. Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules that permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community R&O''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ``Change
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000736.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000775.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000776.doc
  • KIKT(FM), Greenville, Texas, requesting the reallotment of Channel 228C3 from Greenville, Texas, to Cooper, Texas, and modification of its license for Station KIKT(FM) to specify Cooper as its community of license. KRBE indicated that it would file an application for Channel 228C3 at Cooper if the channel is allotted to the community. 2. KRBE filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O"), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000782.doc
  • for rule making filed by Tennessee Valley Radio, Inc. (``petitioner''), licensee of Station WPZM(FM), Channel 227C1, Tullahoma, Tennessee, proposing the reallotment of Channel 227C1 from Tullahoma, Tennessee to Madison, Alabama, and the modification of Station WPZM(FM)'s license accordingly. Petitioner states its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted to Madison, Alabama. 2. The proposal is filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TVAuthorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990). In
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000849.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000890.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000916.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000922.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000943.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comment herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000999.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comment herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001012.doc
  • to file may lead to denial of the request. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001079.doc
  • or adjacent channels due to spacing restrictions. Petitioners further state that this proposal requests an upgrade on an nonadjacent channel which would normally allow for competing expressions of interest. However, in similar situations, the Commission has acknowledged that while not strictly adjacent channel relationships, the mutual exclusivity of the channels involved is similar to the scenario provided for in Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's Rules. Section 1.420(g)(3) allows the modification of a station's license to a higher class channel if the channel is a co-channel or adjacent channel mutually exclusive with the existing license. However, the Commission has acknowledged that it will consider analogous proposals involving channel substitutions at other communities which would be necessary to create a mutually exclusive relationship
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001111.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001142.doc
  • filed on behalf of All American Broadcasting, Inc. (``petitioner''), licensee of FM Station KNTO, Channel 240A, Livingston, California, requesting the reallotment of Channel 240A from Livingston to Dos Palos, California, and modification of its authorization accordingly. Petitioner states that it will apply for Channel 240A if it is reallotted to Dos Palos. 2. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community R&O''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part (``Change
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001154.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001155.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001207.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001215.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001216.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001217.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001218.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001221.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001237.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001238.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001260.doc
  • therefore would also require equivalent protection in accordance with the Treaty. 4. In consideration of the above, we believe the proposal warrants consideration since the modification proposal at Florence would enable Station KCDX to provide an expanded service to the community. Therefore, we will propose to modify the license for Station KCDX, as requested. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules, we will not accept other expressions of interest in the use of Channel 276C at Florence, or require the petitioner to demonstrate the availability of an additional equivalent class channel for use by such parties. We also propose to delete Channel *275A at Comobabi, as requested by the petitioner to accommodate its proposal. As indicated above,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001396.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001410.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001411.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001485.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001518.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001538.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001539.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001555.doc
  • transmitter site relocation. Best has stated that a reimbursement agreement has been reached with the licensee for Station KCHI for the reasonable costs of changing channels and relocating the station's transmitter site should the Commission order the changes. We will shall also propose to modify Station KCSX's license to specify operation on the higher powered channel. In accordance with Section 1.420(g)(3), we will not accept competing expressions of interest in the use of Channel 247C2 at Moberly. A staff engineering analysis indicates that Channel 247C2 can be allotted to Moberly, Missouri, Channel 280C3 can be allotted to Malta Bend, Missouri, and Channel 273A can be allotted to Chillicothe, Missouri, in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements at the requested
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001569.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001570.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001758.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001795.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001796.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001797.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001798.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001803.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001836.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001837.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001838.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001839.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001899.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001905.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001958.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001959.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001961.doc
  • first local aural service to Rowe will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments. See, Littlefield, Wolfforth and Tahoka, Texas, 12 FCC Rcd 3215 (1997), recon. granted on other grounds, 15 FCC Rcd 5532 (2000) (change of community denied because unbuilt station would serve a larger underserved population than would receive a first local aural service). In conformance with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, we will not accept competing expressions of interest in the use of Channel 275C3 at Rowe. 8. Accordingly, we seek comments on the proposed amendment of the FM Table of Allotments, Section 73.202(b) of the Commission's Rules, for the communities listed below, to read as follows: Channel No. City Present Proposed Las Vegas, New Mexico 244A,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001963.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal(s) in this Notice, they will considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002017.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002018.doc
  • of the Rules to specify a new community of license. Each petitioner has stated that it will apply for its requested channel, if allotted to the specified community. We believe that each proposal warrants consideration because it complies with our technical requirements and would serve the public interest. 2. Each proposal is filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002030.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002031.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002068.doc
  • before it the petition for rule making filed by Southern Broadcasting of Athens, Inc. ("petitioner"), licensee of Station WPUP(FM), Royston, Georgia, requesting the reallotment of Channel 279C3 from Royston to Arcade, Georgia, as its first local aural service. Petitioner states that it will apply for the channel, if allotted. 2. Petitioner filed its request pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. It states that the allotment of Channel 279C3 at Royston is mutually exclusive with its use at Arcade. Based on the Commission's allotment priorities, petitioner contends that the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002069.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002111.doc
  • Texas. 14 FCC Rcd 15406 (1999). KQQK License filed Comments, Reply Comments, and Supplement to Reply Comments. Tichenor License Corporation filed Comments. The Notice proposed the reallotment of Channel 293C from Galveston to Missouri City, and modification of the Station KQQK license to specify Missouri City as the community of license. 2. KQQK License filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989); recon. granted in part, 5 FCC
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002116.doc
  • of Galaxy Communications, L.P. ("Galaxy"), licensee of Station WTKV(FM), Oswego, New York, seeking to amend the FM Table of Allotments by reallotting Channel 288A from Oswego to Granby, New York and modifying its authorization accordingly. Galaxy has stated its intention to apply for Channel 288A if it is reallotted to Granby. 2. Galaxy seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In support of its proposal, Galaxy explains that the requested reallotment from Oswego to Granby is mutually exclusive with its existing authorization. Galaxy claims that the distance between
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002146.doc
  • of Station KVLL, Channel 234C2, Wells, Texas, proposing the reallotment of Channel 234C2 from Woodville, Texas, to Wells, Texas, and modification of its license to specify operation at Wells. Radio Woodville indicated that it would file an application for Channel 234C2 at Wells, if the channel is allotted to the community. 2. Radio Woodville filed its request pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Change of Community R&O") 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002161.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002208.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002209.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002210.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002211.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002212.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002213.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002214.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002215.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002244.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002323.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002324.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da002364.doc
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/da991444.doc
  • therefore, allot Channel 262A to Troy to provide that community with its first local aural service. . In order to resolve the remaining conflict between the Moscow proposal and the Post Falls counterproposal, we must comparatively evaluate them, provided, first, we make a determination that Rook's counterproposal entailing a change in the community of license, is in accord with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. This rule permits, under limited circumstances, the reallotment of a channel from one community to another and the modification of a station's license to the new community without entertaining competing applications for the new channel. See Modification of FM and TV Channels to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon granted
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/da992378.doc
  • licensee of Station WCLT(AM)-FM, Newark, Ohio, Franklin Communications, Inc., licensee of Stations WVKO(AM) and WSNY(FM), and Scantland Broadcasting, Ltd., licensee of FM Stations WJZA, Lancaster, Ohio, and WZJZ, Richwood, Ohio ("North American, et al."). 2. As stated in the Notice, petitioner seeks to change Station WZAZ-FM's community of license from Marysville to Hilliard, Ohio, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. The allotment of Channel 289A to Hilliard could provide the community with its first local aural service while Marysville would retain local aural service from fulltime AM Station WUCO. While we did not question Hilliard's status as a community for allotment purposes, we noted that Hilliard is located within the Columbus Urbanized Area. Therefore, even though,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/da992653.doc
  • if allotted, and to construct a station there. Comments opposing Hawkeye's proposal were filed by Sunbrook Communications, Inc. (``Sunbrook''), licensee of FM Stations KGGL(FM) and KZOQ(FM) and of AM Stations KGRZ(AM) and KYLT(AM), all of Missoula, Montana. Hawkeye proposed to downgrade Station KQWK to Channel 248C3 and to reallot that channel from Wallace to Lolo under the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. That section permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license while not affording other interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of interest in the proposed allotment. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989) (``Change of Community
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/da992687.doc
  • local aural service, and the modification of its construction permit for Station WAXK to specify Windham as its community of license. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to apply for the channel, if reallotted. No other comments were received. 2. As stated in the Notice, petitioner seeks the reallotment of its station to Windham pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. Windham is incorporated and listed in the 1990 U.S. Census and attributed with a population of 1,682 persons. Windham has its own local government, its own police, fire and ambulance services, town hall, library and other community attributes. While the reallotment would result in the removal of the only potential local service at Jewett, a community
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/da992698.doc
  • gas, electric and sewer service, as well as its own educational system. 3. We believe the public interest would be served by substituting Channel 248C1 for Channel 248C2 at Archer City, Texas, since it could provide the community with an expanded radio service and also enable Station KRZB to expand its coverage area. As requested, and in accordance with Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules, we will modify Station KRZB's construction permit to specify operation on the higher powered channel. In addition, we believe the public interest would be served by allotting Channel 282C3 to Granite, Oklahoma, as the community's first local aural service. Technical Summary 4. Channel 248C1 can be allotted to Archer City, Texas, in compliance with the Commission's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/da992773.doc
  • counterproposal to provide a first local service to Sandersville, Mississippi. 2. At the request of Blakeney, licensee of Station WKZW(FM), Channel 232C2, Bay Springs, Mississippi, the Notice proposed reallotting Channel 232C2 from Bay Springs to Ellisville, Mississippi, as the latter community's first locally competitive aural transmission service, and modifying its authorization accordingly. This reallotment proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. In its "Comments and Alternative Counterproposal," Blakeney counterproposed that if the Commission decided not to change Station WKZW's community of license to Ellisville, that Channel 232C2 instead be
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/da993004.doc
  • BPH-951020MA), proposing the reallotment of Channel 297C1 to Bayfield, Colorado, as that community's first local aural transmission service, and modification of its authorization to specify operation on Channel 296C. Petitioner filed comments stating its intention to apply for Channel 296C at Bayfield, if allotted. No other comments were received. 2. Petitioner's request was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community R&O''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted n part (``Change
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99055.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99055.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99055.wp
  • limit minor changes in the NCE FM and FM translator services to proposals that would continue to provide 1 mV/m service to some portion of the stations' presently authorized 1 mV/m service areas. See infra, � 8. 13 See comments filed by West Virginia Radio Corporation (AM only), Communications Technologies, Inc. (AM only) and Radio Property Ventures; 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(i); Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License in MM Docket 88-526, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989) ("New Community of License R&O"); see also infra, � 9. 14 See comments filed by Hardy & Carey, NPR, EIC and V-Soft Communications. The Commission's rules and policies are intended to encourage
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000025.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000025.txt
  • not require any existing station to change either its frequency or its site. Therefore, the issues raised by Newport and WFSM, Inc. to the Order to Show Cause were not addressed. Murray filed a petition for reconsideration taking issue with our finding that its proposal was not an incompatible channel swap and did not qualify for treatment under Rule Section 1.420(g)(3). We issued an MO&O affirming our finding that Murray's proposal for a non-adjacent channel upgrade did not fall under that section. We determined that Murray's counterproposal did not possess all the required attributes of mutually exclusivity and therefore was not an incompatible channel swap. Nevertheless, we granted Murray's upgrade proposal as a non-adjacent channel upgrade under that section because no
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000143.doc
  • Station KPLV(FM), Channel 227C1, Port Lavaca, Texas, and by 4.2 kilometers to Station KKZN(FM), Channel 227C2, Haltom City, Texas, and these three stations are providing contour protection under Section 73.215 to Station KLNC(FM) as if they were fully-spaced stations. 3. The proposed reallotment of Channel 227C from Killeen to Cedar Park, Texas, was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000321.doc
  • 256A at Camp Wood, Texas to make available a previously proposed site for the allotment at Karnes City. Comal requests, as an alternative to the upgrade at Pleasanton, the allotment of Channel 253C2 at Blanco, Texas, with the same related channel substitutions at Hondo and Bandera as proposed by petitioner. Petitioner filed its counterproposal pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 88-526 ("Change of Community R&O"), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ("Change of Community MO&O"), 5 FCC
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000372.doc
  • November 22, 1999, requesting the allotment of Channel 239A at Lindale, Texas. Caf� filed comments restating its interest in an allotment at Lindale. No other comments were received in response to the Notice in this proceeding. 2. On February 9, 2000, Caf� filed comments withdrawing its interest in an allotment at Lindale. Caf�'s comments were filed in compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules. As stated In the Notice, a showing of continuing interest is required before a channel will be allotted. It is the Commission's policy to refrain from making an allotment to a community absent an expression of interest. In this case, since Cafe has stated that it no longer intends to pursue an allotment at Lindale and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000373.doc
  • local service. Midwest requests modification of the license for Station WPCK, Kaukauna, to specify operation on Channel 285C3 at Denmark as the community of license. Midwest filed supporting comments in which it reaffirmed its interest in Channel 285C3 at Denmark. 2. The proposed reallotment of Channel 285C3 from Kaukauna to Denmark, Wisconsin, was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recond. granted in
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000392.doc
  • of Greater Des Moines ("Petitioner"). Petitioner also requested modification of its license for Station KJJY-FM to specify operation at the new location. Petitioner filed comments restating its interest in the allotment of Channel 223C2 at West Des Moines. 2. The proposed reallotment of Channel 223C2 from Ankeny to West Des Moines, Iowa was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000494.doc
  • Pacific also requests the allotment of Channel 291A at Refugio. Pacific filed supporting comments in which it reaffirmed its interest in Channel 293C2 at Taft and Channel 291A at Refugio. WAB Broadcasting (``WAB'') filed comments supporting the allotment at Refugio. 2. The proposed reallotment of Channel 293C2 from Refugio to Taft, Texas, was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(I) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recond. granted in
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000498.doc
  • has before it for consideration the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 2044 (1999), requesting the allotment of Channel 252A at Palacios, Texas. Prawn filed comments and a counterproposal. Reply comments were filed by Prawn and Sandlin Broadcasting Co., Inc. (``Sandlin''). 2. On January 6, 2000, Prawn filed a statement withdrawing from this proceeding. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Rules, Prawn submitted a declaration that it has not and will not receive any consideration for this withdrawal. In view of this statement and the fact that no other party has expressed an interest in an allotment at Palacios, we will dismiss both the Petition for Rule Making and Counterproposal. 3. In view of the above, IT IS
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000540.doc
  • Minnesota, to Fairmont, Minnesota, and modification of the license for Station KXAC to specify Fairmont as its community of license. Minnesota Valley filed comments supporting the allotment of Channel 263C2 at Fairmont. No other comments were received in response to the Notice. 2. On March 3, 2000, Minnesota Valley filed a statement withdrawing from this proceeding. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Rules, Minnesota Valley submitted a declaration that it has not and will not receive any consideration for this withdrawal. In view of this statement and the fact that no other party has filed comments or a counterproposal in this proceeding, we will dismiss Minnesota Valley's Petition for Rule Making. 3. In view of the above, IT IS ORDERED,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000574.doc
  • for leave to supplement. No other comments were received. 2. San Joaquin requests the substitution of Channel 300B1 for Channel 299A at Merced, California, the reallotment of Channel 300B1 to North Fork, California, as that locality's first local aural transmission service, and modification of its authorization for Station KAJZ(FM) accordingly. San Joaquin's proposal seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community R&O''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part ``Change
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000602.doc
  • by 21st Century petitioner. EPL claims that the Notice leaves no doubt that any channel substitution was to be contingent on an expression of interest in Channel 237A and the reallotment of Channel 283C3 to Wolfforth. Finally, EPL states that the Commission's Rules and the Notice make clear that counterproposals may only be considered if raised in initial comments, 47 C.F.R.�1.420(d) and the Appendix to the Notice. As such, the petition should be denied because it introduces new facts into the proceeding without any attempt to satisfy the requirements of Section 1.429(b) of the Commission's Rules. 6. Reply. 21st Century disagrees that this is a late-filed counterproposal. 21st Century argues that the issue was presented in the Notice. 21st Century points
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000649.doc
  • in his counterproposal were accurate to the best of his knowledge. Section 1.52 of the Commission's Rules requires that the original of any document filed with the Commission by a party not represented by counsel shall be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In the absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Further, Section 1.420(b) of the Commission's Rules places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also, Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes ("Abuse of Process"), 5 FCC Rcd 3910, n. 41 (1990). While we have considered proposals which did not initially
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000655.doc
  • 260C1 from Princeville, Hawaii to Kalaheo, Hawaii, and the modification of Station KAYI's construction permit to specify Kalaheo as its community of license. We combined these petitions for rule making because favorable action on both would result in leaving Princeville without local aural transmission service. As noted in the Notice, each petition for rule making was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. As noted above, grant of both petitions will leave Princeville without local transmission service. However, this is ameliorated by the fact that neither station is operating. We have
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000673.doc
  • Broadcasting of Athens, Inc. (``Southern), licensee of Station WPUP(FM), Channel 279C3, Royston, Georgia. Southern is the only party that filed comments. Background The Notice proposed to reallot Channel 279C3 from Royston to Commerce, Georgia, as the community's second local service and to change the community of license of Southern's Station WPUP(FM) to Commerce. This proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules that authorizes the Commission to modify the license or permit of an FM station to specify a new community of license where the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the station's present allotment. The Notice stated that the proposed reallotment is mutually exclusive with the existing allotment at Royston and that this proposal would not
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000740.doc
  • of the above, we are reallotting Channel 255A from Spencer to Webster, Massachusetts, and are modifying the Station WORC-FM license to specify Webster as the community of license. This will enable Station WORC-FM to continue operation. Channel 255A cannot be implemented at Spencer. As such, we believe that this proposal to reallot Channel 255A back to Webster complies with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules and Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Community of License"), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989); recon granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990). 4. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and 307(b)of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000777.doc
  • Lampasas without disruption. Further, our analysis indicates that the reallotment will not remove service from a rural area to serve an urban area as Leander is not located within a U.S. Census Urbanized Area. 4. Channel 255C1 can be allotted to Leander, Texas, in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements at Shamrock's specified site. In accordance with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, we will modify the license for Station KJFK to specify operation on Channel 255C1 at Leander, Texas, as its new community of license. 5. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.204(b) and 0.283 of the Commission's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000833.doc
  • in his counterproposal were accurate to the best of his knowledge. Section 1.52 of the Commission's Rules requires that the original of any document filed with the Commission by a party not represented by counsel shall be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In the absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Further, Section 1.420(b) of the Commission's Rules places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also, Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes ("Abuse of Process"), 5 FCC Rcd 3910, n. 41 (1990). (Therefore, we believe these rules should be strictly enforced
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000835.doc
  • Monahans without disruption. Further, our analysis indicates that the reallotment will not remove service from a rural area to serve an urban area as Gardendale is not located within a U.S. Census Urbanized Area. 4. Channel 271C can be allotted to Gardendale, Texas, in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements at Capstar's specified site. In accordance with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, we will modify the license for Station KFZX to specify operation on Channel 271C at Gardendale, Texas, as its new community of license. 5. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.204(b) and 0.283 of the Commission's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000917.doc
  • COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Chief, Allocations Branch Policy and Rules Division Mass Media Bureau The counterproposal filed by Idaho is not acceptable for consideration in this proceeding for the following reasons. First, it appears that Idaho is requesting the substitution of Channel 294C1 for Channel 294C2 at McCall, Idaho, and, reallotment of Channel 294C1 to Victor, Montana, under Section 1.420(I) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community R&O''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part (``Change
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000921.doc
  • to the Notice in this proceeding. 2. Although Elgin initially filed comments restating is support of an allotment at Shiner, on March 14, 2000, Elgin submitted comments withdrawing its interest in an allotment at Shiner stating that it did not receive any consideration for the withdrawal of its expression of interest for Channel 232C3 at Shiner in compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules. Brewer also providing comments supporting the new allotment at Shiner but on April 18, 2000, advised the Commission of its withdrawal of its interest for the Shiner allotment. Brewer provided a declaration of no consideration for withdrawal of interest in the allotment of Channel 232C3 at Shiner, Texas. As stated In the Notice, a showing of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001001.doc
  • Channel 251C3 for Channel 256A at Camp Wood, Texas, and modification of the construction permit for Station KAYG to specify operation on Channel 251C3. The Notice further stated that Channel 251C3 could be allotted to Camp Wood at La Radio's specified site without conflicting with any current allotments or proposals. It was pointed out, however, that in accordance with Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules, should another party indicate an interest in the Class C3 allotment, the modification could not be implemented unless an equivalent class channel could also be allotted to Camp Wood. 3. McCoy submitted a counterproposal requesting the allotment of Channel 251C2 at Rocksprings, Texas. McCoy argues that his counterproposal is superior to the proposal advanced in the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001054.doc
  • Media Bureau In its counterproposal, Mount Rushmore also includes a proposal to institute a proceeding to reevaluate the Commission's FM allotment priorities, claiming that the current allotment scheme discriminates against minorities. Such a proposal is not appropriately filed in an adjudicatory proceeding such as this and will not be considered further. See FCC File No. BPH-0980817IK. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Rules, Mountain Tower filed a statement that it had not received or been promised any consideration for its withdrawal. The coordinates for Channel 259A at Saratoga, Wyoming, are 41-27-12 and 106-48-30. The coordinates for Channel 259C1 at Green River, Wyoming, are 41-31-36 and 109-28-06. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1054 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1054 ~  �
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001108.doc
  • and prosecution of those comments. The second settlement agreement requests approval of BCR's withdrawal in this proceeding. This request states that BCR has withdrawn its expression of interest in Channel 254A at Marianna, Arkansas, and that Legend has agreed to pay BCR its reasonable and prudent expenses relating to the preparation, filing and prosecution of its counterproposal. Pursuant to Section 1.420(j), of the rules, all parties to these agreements certify that each will not receive or pay any amount in excess of the reasonable and prudent expenses in this matter. We will grant these withdrawals as well as Fred Flinn's earlier withdrawal. Accordingly we will consider the remaining matters before us, which are the proposal and counterproposal filed by Legend in
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001109.doc
  • as the new community of license. Regent Licensee of Flint, Inc. (``Regent'') filed comments in which it reaffirmed its interest in Channel 268A at Clio. The MacDonald Broadcasting Company (``MacDonald'') filed an opposition to the Notice. Regent filed reply comments. 2. The proposed reallotment of Channel 268A from Tuscola to Clio, Michigan, was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recond. granted in
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001112.doc
  • Kiawah Island, South Carolina and modify Station WNST (FM)'s license accordingly (RM-8474). SB filed an Opposition to LMC's Petition for Reconsideration and LMC filed a Reply to SB's Opposition. For the reasons stated below, we grant both petitions for reconsideration to the extent indicated and we grant LMC's proposal. II. Background 2. LMC seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's license to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001144.doc
  • Proposed Allocation of Channel 244A at Peterstown, West Virginia.'' That request seeks the dismissal of Bible's underlying Petition for Rule Making proposing the allotment of Channel 244A to Peterstown, West Virginia, and termination of this proceeding, pursuant to a settlement agreement between Bible and Equus. A copy of the settlement agreement was submitted to the Commission in compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules. The settlement agreement, as amended on April 6, 2000, provides that in consideration for Bible's entering into this agreement and its voluntary request for withdrawal and cancellation of the proposed allotment of Channel 244A at Peterstown, West Virginia, and for Bible's agreement not to file rulemaking requests or applications adversely affecting Station WREL-FM, Equus shall pay
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001146.doc
  • Royalty II Corporation (``Capstar'') filed reply comments as well as a withdrawal of objection. Late filed comments were filed by REC Networks (``REC''), to which petitioner filed a ``Motion to Strike Late Filed Pleading''.Additionally, petitioner filed a ``Motion to Accept Supplement to `Comments and Alternate Proposal''. 2. As stated in the Notice, petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001147.doc
  • Channel 283C2 to Empire, Louisiana, as that community's first local transmission service, and modification of the authorization issued for Station KBIL accordingly. Petitioner filed supporting comments reaffirming its intention to apply for Channel 283C2 if allotted to Empire, Louisiana, as requested. No other comments were received. 2. As stated in the Notice, petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authroizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001156.doc
  • For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Chief, Allocations Branch Policy and Rules Division Mass Media Bureau The community of Northumberland has been added to the caption. Public Notice of the filing of the counterproposal was given on May 6, 1999, Report No. 2328. See, Section 1.420(b) of the Commission's Rules and Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuse of the Commission's Processes ("Abuse of Process"), 5 FCC Rcd 3910, n. 41 (1990). See also, Lancaster, Groveton and Milan, New Hampshire, MM Docket 99-9, DA 00-649, released March 24, 2000. The coordinates for Channel 256A at Whitefield are 44-27-17 NL; 71-31-36 WL.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001165.doc
  • and changing the reference coordinates of vacant Channel 291A at Kerrville, Texas. 3. We are substituting Channel 249C1 for Channel 249C3 at Cuero, reallotting Channel 249C1 to McQueeney, and modifying the license of Station KVCQ to specify operation on Channel 249C1 at McQueeney, Texas. This will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments as required by the Commission in Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules and Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Community of License"), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989); recon granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990). In reaching this determination, we compared the existing versus the proposed arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001179.doc
  • petitioning parties identify themselves in light of their expressions of interest in the proposed allotments. The petitions for both the Arnoldsburg and Gassaway proposals were filed on behalf of the respective proponents by counsel. Since both petitioners were represented by counsel, albeit the same counsel, they were not required to sign, verify or give their addresses. See Amendment of Section 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3919 n.41 (1990). Technical Summary 9. An engineering analysis has determined that Channel 264A can be allotted to Arnoldsburg in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 3.9 kilometers (2.4 miles) to avoid a short-spacing to the licensed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001206.doc
  • (``petitioner''), for Station KDJM, Channel 223C1, Greeley, Colorado, proposing the reallotment of Channel 223C1 to Broomfield, Colorado, as that community's first local aural transmission service, and modification of its license accordingly. Petitioner filed supporting comments in response to the Notice. No other comments were received. 2. As stated in the Notice, petitioner's proposal, filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, would reallot Channel 223C1 from Greeley (pop. 60,536), an urbanized area as defined by the U.S. Census, to Broomfield (pop. 24,638), located partially within the Denver urbanized area. The Notice advised that petitioner's requested reallotment, which is mutually exclusive with its existing authorization at Greeley, would enable it to provide a first local aural transmission service
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001208.doc
  • Broadcasting West Coast, Inc. ("InterMart") filed a counterproposal. Reising, InterMart, Spectrum Radio, Inc. ("Spectrum") and Community Resource Foundation, Inc. ("CRF") filed reply comments. 2. InterMart counterproposed the deletion of Channel 223C3 at LaBelle, Florida, reallotment of the channel to Estero, Florida, and modification of its construction permit for Station WWWD, LaBelle, to specify operation at Estero in accordance with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. To accommodate Channel 223C3 at LaBelle, InterMart requests the substitution of Channel 223C1 for Channel 224C1 at Key West, Florida, and modification of the license for Station WEOW, Key West, to specify operation on Channel 224C1. In support of the counterproposal, InterMart states that the reallotment will not deprive LaBelle of its only local transmission service
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001245.doc
  • However, in neither case did Lunderville comply with the requirements of Section 1.52 of the Commission's Rules which require that the original of any document filed with the Commission by a party not represented by counsel be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In the absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Further, Section 1.420(b) of the Commission's Rules places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. We have, in the past, considered proposals which did not initially comply with the verification requirement where adoption of the proposal would not adversely affect another allotment or proposed allotment. However, in this case, no alternate channel
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001331.doc
  • the record before us, we find that the public interest would be served by substituting Channel 274C for Channel 288C2 at Boulder City and modifying the license of Station KSTJ to specify the higher powered channel since it could provide service to an area 250 times larger than at present and thus serve a greater population. In accordance with Section 1.420 of the Commission's Rules, interested parties were given an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest in Channel 274C at Boulder City. However, no such expression was received. We will also adopt the channel substitutions proposed in the Notice for Bullhead City, Kingman and Lake Havasu City, Arizona, and Ludlow, California, and modify the respective station licenses. Having found
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001394.doc
  • continuing interest is required before a channel will be allotted, and absent such an expression of interest, it is the Commission's policy to refrain from allotting the channel. Since petitioner has withdrawn its interest in the reallotment of Channel 243A from Fredonia to Falconer, we shall grant petitioner's request to dismiss its proposal. In compliance with the requirements of Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, petitioner states that it has not received, and will not receive, any consideration for the withdrawal of its petition. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the petition for rule making of North Country Broadcasting, Inc. to reallot Channel 243A from Fredonia to Falconer, New York, and modify Station WCQA's license accordingly, IS DISMISSED. 4. IT IS
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001395.doc
  • contour will cover only ten percent of the Portland, Oregon-Vancouver, Washington, Urbanized Area. Therefore, we find that the reallotment will result in a preferential arrangement of allotments since it will further the third allotment priority, the provision of a first local aural service, while the channel's retention at Tillamook will serve only the fourth allotment priority. In accordance with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, we will also modify petitioner's license for Station KJUN to specify Scappoose as its community of license. 3. Channel 281C3 can be allotted to Scappoose in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 6.5 kilometers (4.1 miles) northwest to accommodate petitioner's desired transmitter site. Canadian concurrence in the allotment has
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001521.doc
  • issued in response to a petition filed on behalf of Capstar Royalty II Corporation (``Capstar'') (now Capstar TX Limited Partnership) (``petitioner''), licensee of Station WQEN(FM), Channel 279C1, Gadsden, Alabama, proposing to change its community of license to Springville, Alabama, and to modify the license to specify operation on Channel 279C at the latter community pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. Petitioner filed comments in response to the Notice withdrawing its interest in pursuing its proposal. Petitioner also filed a Supplement to its request for dismissal. 2. As stated in the Appendix to the Notice, a showing of continuing interest is required before a channel will be allotted. Based upon the petitioner's withdrawal of interest in pursuing
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001557.doc
  • service within their primary service areas. As indicated in the Notice, Channel 245C1 can be allotted to Plainville at the licensed site of Station KFIX at coordinates 39-01-15 NL and 99-28-12 WL. Additionally, Channel 255C3 can be allotted to Larned at the existing licensed site of Station KGTR at coordinates 38-09-54 NL and 99-06-05 WL. Therefore, in accordance with Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules, we will modify the license of Station KFIX, Plainville, to specify operation on Channel 245C1, and will also modify the license for Station KGTR, Larned, to specify operation on Channel 255C3. As petitioner admittedly benefits from the change of frequency for the Larned station, it has stated its willingness to reimburse the licensee of Station KGTR
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001560.doc
  • to specify operation on the higher class channel and Pecos as its community of license. Petitioner filed comments reiterating its intention to apply for the channel, if allotted. No other comments were received. 2. As stated in the Notice, petitioner seeks the modification of its construction permit to specify a new community of license pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. In this connection, we find that Pecos is a community for allotment purposes, with a 1990 U.S. Census population of 1,012 people, its own local government, police and fire departments, kindergarten through 12th grade school system, numerous businesses, post office and separate zip code. In addition, the substitution of Channel 268C3 for Channel 268A could enable
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001573.doc
  • Fountain Green and Levan, Utah, providing expanded service at Levan and a first local service at Fountain Green. Channel 260A can be allotted to Fountain Green, Utah, in compliance with the Commission's spacing requirements without a site restriction. Channel 244C1 can be allotted to Levan, Utah, in compliance with the spacing requirements at Micro's requested site. In accordance with Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules, we shall also modify the construction permit for Station KBLN, Levan, Utah, to specify operation on Channel 244C1 in lieu of Channel 256A since there were no expressions of interest in the use of Channel 244C1 at Levan. 5. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and 307(b) of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001674.doc
  • (202) 418-2700. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Chief, Allocations Branch Policy and Rules Division Mass Media Bureau The communities of Gibsland and Hodge, Louisiana, have been added to the caption. The counterproposals filed by Contemporary Communications (RM-9748) and Baker Creek Broadcasting Company (RM-9747) were put on public notice on October 18, 1999, Report No. 2366. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, Houston Christian Broadcasters, Inc. states that it has neither received any consideration nor paid any consideration to anyone in connection with its withdrawal of its petition for rule making. See FCC File BMPED-19991022ABW. See FCC File BAPH-19991005AB. The FM allotment priorities are: (1) first fulltime aural service; (2) second fulltime aural service; (3) first local service;
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001675.doc
  • from Stamps to Fouke, Arkansas, as that community's first local aural transmission service and modification of its authorization accordingly. Petitioner filed supporting comments in response to the Notice. Additionally, consolidated comments were filed on behalf of First Broadcasting Management, LLC, Gain-Air, Inc., and KCYT-FM License Corp. (collectively ``FBM''). Petitioner filed reply comments. 2. This proposal is filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990). This would enable petitioner to provide Fouke (pop. 634), an incorporated community that is not associated with an urbanized area, with its first local aural
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001694.doc
  • to apply for the proposed channel allotments. No other comments were received. 2. Radio Power and Waters seek to upgrade their station's facilities from their present Class A to Class C3 by swapping Channel 275C3 for Channel 244A at Canton and Channel 244C3 for Channel 275A at Morristown. They advanced their proposal as an incompatible channel swap pursuant to Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's Rules and, as such, neither allotment would be available for application by any other party. However, because Channel 244C3 could be allotted to Canton for use by Station WVLF without requiring a change of channel for Station WNCQ-FM at Morristown, the Notice requested comments on whether competing expressions of interest in use of the channels should be
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001755.doc
  • to a larger area and population. A staff engineering analysis has determined that Channel 257C1 can be allotted to Red Lodge, Montana, in compliance with the Commission's spacing requirements at Silver Rock's selected site. In order to accomplish the substitution at Red Lodge, we shall also substitute Channel 292C3 for vacant Channel 259C3 at Joliet, Montana. In accordance with Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules, we are herein modifying the license for Station KMXE-FM, Red Lodge, Montana, to specify operation on Channel 257C1. 4. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r) and 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.204(b) and 0.283 of the Commission's Rules, IT IS ORDERED, That
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001898.doc
  • Osceola, Sedalia, and Wheatland, Missouri, providing expanded service at Osceola and Sedalia and a new service at Wheatland. As proposed in the Notice, Channel 262A can substituted for Channel 222A at Osceola, Missouri, and Channel 222A can be substituted for Channel 221A at Sedalia, Missouri, at the requested sites in compliance with the Commission's spacing requirements. In accordance with Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules, we are herein modifying the license for Station KSDL, Sedalia, Missouri, to specify operation on Channel 222A in lieu of Channel 221A and the license for Station KCVJ, Osceola, Missouri, to specify operation on Channel 262A in lieu of Channel 222A. In addition, we shall allot Channel 226A at Wheatland, Missouri, in response to the counterporposal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001904.doc
  • and Elk Mountain, Wyoming, Channel 243A to Medicine Bow and Manville, Wyoming, and the Channel 263A at Encampment, Wyoming and Channel 263C1 at Fort Washakie, Wyoming, As stated in the Notice, counterproposals are to be advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. See 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, Mount Rushmore's counterproposal will not be considered further. The FM allotment priorities are: (1) First full-time aural service; (2) Second full-time aural service; (3) First local service, and (4) other public interest matters. [Co-equal weight is given to priorities (2) and (3).] Our staff research reveals that Lusk and Sinclair have the social, economic, cultural,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001960.doc
  • Notice. Hershey Broadcasting Company (``Hershey'') filed ``Comments and Counterproposal'' in which it proposed the allotment of Channel 238A to Burnsville, West Virginia as that community's first local aural transmission service. 2. On May 1, 2000, petitioner expressed its interest in withdrawing its petition for rule making concerning the allotment of Channel 238A to Buckhannon, West Virginia. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, petitioner advises that there is no agreement, written or oral, with any party regarding its request for withdrawal and that no party had paid any money to petitioner for the withdrawal of its expression of interest. Further, Hershey has filed comments explaining that it has not paid any consideration to petitioner in connection with the withdrawal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da002002.doc
  • allocation site for Rangely to specify a site 26.3 kilometers (16.3 miles) north of the community at coordinates 40-19-02 NL and 108-51-46 WL. IBC urges that adoption of its counterproposal would result in a more efficient allotment arrangement by providing both Rangely and Ridgway with a first local aural transmission service. Discussion 4. IBC's proposal was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da002014.doc
  • behalf of Capstar TX Limited Partnership (``petitioner''), licensee of Station WTKE(FM), Channel 251C1, Andalusia, Alabama, proposing the reallotment of Channel 251C1 to Holt, Florida, as that community's first local aural transmission service, and modification of its authorization accordingly. Petitioner filed supporting comments in response to the Notice. No other comments were filed. 2. This proposal is filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990). This would enable petitioner to provide Holt, an unincorporated community that is not within an urbanized area, with its first local aural transmission service and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da002056.doc
  • alternate site for the proposed Channel 281C1 upgrade at Pearsall in order to accommodate its Channel 227A proposal at Charlotte. 3. Thereafter, Victoria Radio filed a Request to Withdraw Counterproposal. In that Request, Victoria Radio notes that it had earlier requested withdrawal of its pending application and now seeks to withdraw its counterproposal in this proceeding. In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Rules, Victoria Radio filed Declarations from John R. Furr and John W. Barger, president of Victoria Radio. In those Declarations, both parties state that there are no agreements between Furr and any principals of Victoria Radio concerning the withdrawal of the Station KEPG one-step application. Both parties further state that there has been no consideration paid or promised
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da002058.doc
  • at Valley Mills, Texas. 4. On June 14, 2000, Valley Mills Radio Broadcasting Company, Gorman Community Broadcasting Company and Elgin FM Limited Partnership filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss the petition and counterporposals which requested allotments at Valley Mills, Hico, Gorman and Walnut Springs, Texas. Valley Mills Radio, Gorman Company and Elgin have each submitted comments in compliance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules. 5. As stated in the Notice, a showing of continuing interest is required before a channel will be allotted. It is the Comission's general policy to refrain from making allotments to a community absent an expression of interest. Therefore, since all parties have withdrawn from the proceeding and since no other expressions of interest were filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da002105.doc
  • Dowdy and Radio Center counterproposals was given on June 20, 2000, Report No. 2419. The Murphy counterproposal, however, was found to be unacceptable for consideration herein and thus not put on Public Notice. Murphy filed his counterproposal with the Commission but failed to comply with the Commission's requirements that a copy of such pleadings be served on the petitioner. Section 1.420(a) of the Commission's Rules states that all comments must be served on the petitioner and paragraph 7 of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making additionally states that if the pleading is not served on the petitioner, it would be considered an ex parte contact and not considered in this proceeding. Therefore, Murphy's counterproposal to allot Channel 221A to Byromville, Georgia,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da002238.doc
  • of Channel 263A from Conklin, New York to Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, and the modification of Station WCDW(FM)'s license accordingly. Petitioners filed comments in support of the proposals reaffirming their intention to apply for the respective channels if, allotted to the specified communities. Reply comments were also filed by petitioners. 2. The proposed reallotments were filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permit the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da002363.doc
  • Broadcasting, Inc. (``petitioner''), licensee of FM Station KNTO, Channel 240A, Livingston, California, proposing the reallotment of Channel 240A from Livingston to Dos Palos, California, as that community's first local aural transmission service and modification of its authorization accordingly. Petitioner filed supporting comments in response to the Notice. No other comments were received. 2. This proposal is filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Change of Community''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990). This would enable petitioner to provide Dos Palos (pop. 4,196), an incorporated community that is not associated with an urbanized area, with its first local
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da002374.doc
  • That the petition for rule making filed by Smiley Community Radio Company, IS DISMISSED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 4. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Chief, Allocations Branch Policy and Rules Division Mass Media Bureau In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, petitioner states that it has neither been paid nor promised to be paid any money or other consideration in exchange for its withdrawal. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 00-2374 + , � � � � � � � @& 0 $j� $j�
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da993040.doc
  • and Montpelier Broadcasting, Inc. ("MBI") filed comments and a counterproposal. Petitioner also filed reply comments as well as comments responsive to the counterproposal. 2. As stated in the Notice, petitioner seeks to upgrade Station WGTK from a Class A to a Class C2 and change its community of license from Middlebury to Berlin, Vermont, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. The allotment of Channel 265C2 to Berlin could provide that community with its first local aural service while Middlebury would retain local aural service from fulltime AM Station WFAD and noncommercial educational FM Station WRMC. While the Commission did not question Berlin's status as a community for allotment purposes, it did request the petitioner to provide
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00129.doc
  • error by allotting Channel 241A at Shingletown despite the pendency of her appeal of the Chester R&O, where she had proposed the mutually exclusive allotment of Channel 242C2 at Shasta Lake City. We disagree. The Commission's rules no longer prohibit the grant and construction of authorized facilities pending final resolution of a related, outstanding rulemaking proceeding. See Amendment of Section 1.420(f) of the Commission's Rules Concerning Automatic Stays of Certain Allotment Orders, 11 FCC Rcd 9501 (1996) (deleting rule that automatically stayed in allotment proceedings upon the filing of a petition for reconsideration). See e.g. Cloverdale, Montgomery and Warrior, AL, 12 FCC Rcd 2090, 2093 (MMB 1997) (since lifting the automatic stay provision, the Commission routinely grants applications notwithstanding petitions pending
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00130.doc
  • would not result in the elimination of any noncommercial channel reservations. Second, the Bureau held that this proposal could be effectuated in accordance with Section 309 of the Act and our rules without soliciting competing expressions of interest for dereserved Channel 23 for the same reasons as those given when the Commission adopted the intraband channel swap provision of Section 1.420(h). As stated above, petitioner could have filed this proposal in two stages, the first being a sale of its commercial station, and the second a channel exchange pursuant to Section 1.420(h) of the rules to regain the channel it desires. At the time Section 1.420(h) was adopted, the Commission recognized that it needed to create a process whereby commercial and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00153.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00153.txt
  • November 7, 1996. Specifically, it was later determined that an operation on Channel 294A in the Mt. Juliet area would cause EMI to four Nashville area FAA localizers. Thereafter, on February 11, 1997, MJB filed a Petition for Rule Making proposing the reallotment of Channel 294A from Mt. Juliet to Belle Meade, Tennessee. This Petition was filed pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Rules which permits the modification of an authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties to file a competing expression of interest where the new community is mutually exclusive with the existing one. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Community of License''), 4 FCC Rcd
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00368.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00368.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00368.txt
  • 176 (109) 89 (55) 31 (19) C1 to C0 259 (161) 196 (122) 94 (58) 37 (23) C0 to C0 270 (168) 207 (129) 96 (60) 41 (25) C to C0 281 (175) 220 (137) 105 (65) 45 (28) APPENDIX D I. Part 1 of Title 47 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: Section 1.420 is amended by changing Note 2 to subsection (h) to Note 3 and adding Note 2 to subsection (g) to read as follows: Note 2: The reclassification of a Class C station in accordance with the procedure set forth in Note 4 to Section 73.3573 may be initiated through the filing of an original petition for amendment of the FM
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/TV_Notices/da020270.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/TV_Notices/da020270.txt
  • there is pending a petition for rule making seeking an alternate channel. An allotment Report and Order changing a channel allotment will 3 We remind new digital television licensees on Channels 52 to 59 that they will be required to move to the core by the end of the digital transition. 4 See Sections 1.401 (c) and (d) and Section 1.420 of the Commission's Rules regarding channel allotment matters. 3 specify a period of time for the filing of amendments to pending applications (using FCC Form 301), for the modified channel allotment. Such amendments to pending applications will be considered minor and the applications will retain their original file numbers. Amendments to Applications to Specify DTV Operation on Their Current Channel
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1998/fcc98056.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1998/fcc98056.wp
  • be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action, pursuant to �1.24, for a willful violation of this rule or if scandalous or indecent matter is inserted. 11. Section 1.401 is amended by changing paragraph (b) to read as follows: * * * * * (b) The petition for rulemaking shall conform to the requirements of �� 1.49, 1.52 and 1.419(b) (or � 1.420(e), if applicable), and shall be submitted or addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554, or (except in broadcast allotment proceedings) may be submitted electronically. 12. Section 1.403 is amended to read as follows: � 1.403 Notice and availability All petitions for rule making (other than petitions to amend the FM, Television, and Air-Ground Tables of Assignments) meeting
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000474.doc
  • Reconsideration at 4-5. Formulation of Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, Competing Applicants, and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process and to the Prevention of Abuse of the Renewal Process, First Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd. 4780, 4793 n.3 (1989); see Silver Star Communications-Albany, Inc., 3 FCC Rcd. 6342, 6352 � 41 (1988); Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Process, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 FCC Rcd. 5563, 5563 � 2 (1987); see also Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 1 FCC Rcd. 421 (1986), appeal dismissed mem. sub
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/fcc01025.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/fcc01025.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/fcc01025.txt
  • clearing by January 1, 2001, and requests for pre-approval would be acted on by March 1, 2001. See Spectrum Exchange Comments at 9. See 700 MHz MO&O and FNPRM � 61; see also supra � 15. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.622(a). See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3500 et seq. (broadcast application procedures). See 47 C.F.R. � 73.623(g). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420, 73.607, 73.611, 73.622, 73.623. See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, Fifth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12809, 12832-12833 �� 55-56 (1997) (``DTV Fifth Report and Order''); DTV Fifth Report and Order Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd at 6886-6887 �� 77-78. DTV Fifth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12833-35 �� 57-60. 700 MHz
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1996/dd960809.html
  • [12]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96333.txt TELE-COMMUNICATIONS INC. GRANTED TELE COMMUNICATIONS A ONE-TIME WAIVER OF OUR RULES THAT REQUIRE AT LEAST TWELEVE MONTHS BETWEEN FCC FORM 1240 RATE ADJUSTMENTS AND A ONE-TIME WAIVER ALLOWING TELE-COMMUNICATIONS , INCL TO MODIFY ITS APPROVAL ANNNUAL ADJUSTMENT FORM. Action by Chief, Cable Services Bureau. Adopted: August 8, 1986. (DA No. 96-1278). CSB Internet URL: [13]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1996_TXT/da961278.txt ALLOTMENT ORDERS. DELETED SECTION 1.420(F) OF THE COMMISSIONS RULES WHICH FOR RULEMAKING PROCEEDINGS TO AMEND FMO OR TV TABLE OF ALLOTMENTS, PROVIDES FOR AN AUTOMATIC STAY, UPON THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ANY COMMISSION ORDER MODIFYING AN AUTHORIZATION TO SPECIFY OPERATION ON A DIFFERENT FM OR TV CHANNEL , THEREBY REMOVING AN INCENTIVE FOR THE FILING OF PETITION FOR REFCONSIDERATION THAT ARE
• http://www.fcc.gov/DiversityFAC/040614/FMRadioWhitePaper.doc
  • of a particular person to apply, at the time of the petition, for a construction permit in a particular community. However, the petitioner is not required to actually apply for the construction permit. Not surprisingly, many petitioners never apply for permits, since the petitioning process is tedious and often lengthy; see 47 C.F.R. ��1.401 et seq. and particularly 47 C.F.R. �1.420. The petitioner may have moved or passed away by the time the allotment is placed in the FM Table and the permit is offered for auction. In practice, many times more applicants actually (and energetically) seek permits for allotments they did not earlier petition for than the number of applicants that filed petitions. Furthermore, the petition for rulemaking process often
• http://www.fcc.gov/DiversityFAC/041004/FMRadioWhitePaper.doc
  • of a particular person to apply, at the time of the petition, for a construction permit in a particular community. However, the petitioner is not required to actually apply for the construction permit. Not surprisingly, many petitioners never apply for permits, since the petitioning process is tedious and often lengthy; see 47 C.F.R. ��1.401 et seq. and particularly 47 C.F.R. �1.420. The petitioner may have moved or passed away by the time the allotment is placed in the FM Table and the permit is offered for auction. In practice, many times more applicants actually (and energetically) seek permits for allotments they did not earlier petition for than the number of applicants that filed petitions. Furthermore, the petition for rulemaking process often
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2721A1.html
  • Formulation of Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, Competing Applicants, and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process and to the Prevention of Abuse of the Renewal Process, First Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 4780, 4793 n.3 (1989); see Silver Star Communications-Albany, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 6342, 6352 41 (1988); Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Process, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 FCC Rcd 5563, 5563 2 (1987); see also Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 1 FCC Rcd 421 (1986), appeal dismissed mem. sub nom
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-01-1734A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-01-1734A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-01-1734A1.txt
  • to whether this policy should be extended to pre-1964 stations that have subsequently modified their facilities but still do not comply with the minimum separation standards now set forth in Section 73.207(b) of the Rules. All parties filing Comments or Reply Comments supported the continuation of the Newnan and Peachtree policy. 3. Southern Broadcasting filed its proposal pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Rules which permits the modification of a station authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (``Community of License''), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-01-700A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-01-700A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-01-700A1.txt
  • transmitter site and because it is not a migration to this Urbanized Area. Indeed, the station is currently licensed to the central city of this Urbanized Area. Comparative Analysis 6. Having determined that Park Forest is entitled to a first local service, we must compare the existing and proposed arrangement of allotments as required by the generic proceeding adopting Section 1.420(i) of the Rules. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990). Retaining the station in Kankakee would result in a seventh local transmission service, triggering priority 4, other pubic interest matters. By way of contrast, reallotting and changing the community
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-02-2310A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-02-2310A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-02-2310A1.txt
  • kilowatts at 302 meters HAAT. Both stations are below the minimum Class C antenna height requirements of 450 meters HAAT. Since Station WLWI-FM and WQST-FM are operating below minimum Class C standards, they are subject to reclassification as a Class C0 facility pursuant to the Second Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98-93, and as set forth in Section 1.420(g), note 2, and Section 73.3574, note 4, of the Commission's Rules. 2. Pursuant to the reclassification procedures set forth in the Second Report and Order, supra, and Section 1.420(g), note 2, the reclassification of a Class C FM station to a Class C0 station may be initiated through the filing of a petition for rule making to amend the FM
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-02-2514A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-02-2514A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-02-2514A1.txt
  • channel changes. First, Big City requested the substitution of Channel 281A for Channel 296A at Fallbrook, California, and the modification of its license for Station KSYY (FM) accordingly. Second, Big City proposed, with the consent of Morris, the downgrade and change of community of license for Morris' Station KYOR(FM), Channel 295B, Yucca Valley, California, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. Specifically, Big City proposed the substitution of Channel 295B1 for Channel 295B at Yucca Valley, the reallotment of Channel 295B1 to Desert Hot Springs, and the modification
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1429A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1429A1.pdf
  • parties consummated the transaction, and the call letters were changed to WPZS(FM) on November 16, 2004. For administrative convenience, we will use the call letters WABZ-FM throughout this letter. 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587. Albemarle and Indian Trial, North Carolina, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 10524 (MMB 1999). Petitioner filed its request pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to specify a new community of license without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file competing expressions of interest. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989),
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4308A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4308A1.pdf
  • at Mineral Point, Wisconsin, as its first local service; substitution of Channel *254A for vacant Channel *238A at Asbury, Iowa; and substitution of Channel 237A for Channel 236A at Maquoketa, Iowa and modification of the Station KMAQ-FM license to faciliticate the community of license application, proposing the reallotment of Station KQMG-FM from Independence to Solon, Iowa in compliance with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''). To accommodate the proposed Maquoketa channel substitution and Solon community of license application, Petitioner requests the reclassification of Station KGGO(FM), Channel 235C, to specify operation on Channel 235C0. Station KGGO(FM) currently operates on Channel 235C with an effective radiated power (``ERP'') of 100 kilowatts at 325 meters height above average terrain (``HAAT''). As such,
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4945A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4945A1.pdf
  • of Stair's Weaverville counterproposal, and the withdrawal of McCoy's comments in MB Docket No. 05-191, in order to allow expeditious resolution of a long-pending rulemaking proceeding. The Joint Parties settled the proceeding pursuant to the rulemaking settlement window, announced by the Media Bureau (``Bureau''), as directed by the Commission, and the Bureau appropriately waived the reimbursement limitation provisions of Section 1.420(j) of the Rules. On October 24, 2005, Willsyr also filed a petition for reconsideration of the Glenville Report and Order, based upon the interrelated nature of the two settlements (``Willsyr Glenville Report and Order Reconsideration''). On August 27, 2007, the Estate of David T. Murray (``Estate'') withdrew its Section 1.41 Request, which had been filed in connection with the Station
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-806A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-806A1.pdf
  • Broadcasting, LLC (``Chisolm''), licensee of Station KREO(FM), Pine Bluffs, Wyoming, directed to the letter dismissal of a Petition for Rule Making filed by Laramie Mountain Broadcasting, Inc. The original Petition for Rule Making was filed by Chisolm's predecessor-in-interest, Laramie Mountain Broadcasting, Inc., former licensee of Station KREO(FM). Chisolm now requests that the Petition for Reconsideration be dismissed. Pursuant to Section 1.420(j) of the Rules, it certifies that it has not and will not receive any compensation for this withdrawal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the above-referenced Petition for Reconsideration filed by Chisolm Trail Broadcasting, LLC IS DISMISSED as requested. This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act because it makes no change to the Rules. The Commission, is, therefore,
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1404A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1404A1.pdf
  • Accountability Office, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the proposed rule was dismissed. 7. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Deborah Dupont, Media Bureau, (202) 418-7072. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau See Crowell, Texas, Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 10,686 (MB 2006). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1404 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1404 �@��� � � ... �
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1405A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1405A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-408A1.pdf
  • whether grant of an application would serve the public interest. To the extent that they are used for other than their intended purpose, e.g., for private financial gain, to settle personal claims, or as an emotional outlet, the public interest is disserved. Beyond the costs to licensees and the public, consideration of meritless challenges wastes Commission resources." Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3912 (1990), recon. denied,6 FCC Rcd 3380 (1991). 13See supra n.9. The statement that D.B. Zwirn & Co. investors are "citizensof New York" was made to support diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. � 1332 which provides, inter alia,that U.S. District
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1103A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1103A1.pdf
  • institute any proceeding, formal or informal, or take any action against Tama Broadcasting, Inc., D.B. Zwirn & Co., L.P., or their affiliates, with respect to their basic qualifications, including character qualifications, to be a Commission licensee.'' Tama Broadcasting, Inc., 24 FCC Rcd at 1618-19. 47 C.F.R. � 1.65(a). DFW-to-Bernard Decision, 23 FCC Rcd at 2644 n.12 (citing Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3912 (1990), recon. denied, 6 FCC Rcd 3380 (1991). This admonishment applies only to the Petitioners, not to their counsel. Attorney misconduct associated with frivolous pleadings is referred to the Office of General Counsel under seal. Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C.
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-688A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-688A1.pdf
  • FCC Rcd 4870, 4873 � 24 (1989) (``New Community R&O''), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990) (``New Community MO&O'') (``We believe the public interest, convenience, and necessity would best be served by allowing permittees and licensees to change their community in the circumstances set forth herein without being subject to competing applications.''). See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(i). The Commission has affirmed the propriety of using the FM allotment priorities in community of license changes for AM stations. See Alvin Lou Media, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 806 (2004); and Kidd Communications, 15 FCC Rcd 22 (2000). See, e.g., Old Forge and Black River, New York, Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 2470 (MB 2006) (granting a rulemaking request
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1072A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1072A1.pdf
  • we grant the Reconsideration Petition and the Rule Making Petition. 2. Background. At the request of East Kentucky, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposed the upgrade of Station WPKE-FM, Coal Run, Kentucky, from Channel 276A to Channel 221C3 at a new transmitter site and the modification of its license to specify operation on non-adjacent Channel 221C3, pursuant to Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''). In order to accommodate this upgrade, we issued an Order to Show Cause (``OSC'') to Dickenson County as to why its license for Station WDIC-FM should not be modified from Channel 221A to Channel 276A. In response to the OSC, Dickenson County argued that there was a major terrain obstruction between Coal Run and
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1460A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1460A1.pdf
  • Area, while Oak View is located in the Oxnard Urbanized. Area. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recons. granted in part, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990) (``Community of License MO&O''). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420(i) and 73.3573(g)(1). See, e.g., Headland, Alabama, and Chattahoochee, Florida, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 10352, 10354 (1995) (requiring proponents seeking to relocate to a community adjacent to an Urbanized Area that would place a city grade signal over 50 percent6 or more of an Urbanized Area to submit a Tuck showing; Powell Meredith Communications, Co., et al., Memorandum Opinion
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1711A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1711A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1853A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1853A1.pdf
  • issued to Bee Broadcasting, Inc., licensee of Station KBBZ(FM), Kalispell, Montana, as to why its license should not be modified from Channel 253C to Channel 296C. Thereafter, SPB concurrently filed the Channel 296C Petition and the Second Amendment to the Application. The Channel 296 Petition proposes an upgrade at Charlo from Channel 251C3 to non-adjacent Channel 296C pursuant to Section 1.420(g)(2). The Second Amendment seeks to modify the First Amendment to the Application by abandoning the previously proposed change in community of license from Charlo to Woods Bay. Instead, SPB proposes to amend its Application to specify upgraded, non-adjacent Channel 296C at Charlo at a different transmitter site in lieu of Channel 251C3. As a result of the Second Amendment, SPB
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-2058A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-2058A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-2062A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-2062A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-1008A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-1008A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-325A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-325A1.pdf
  • file may lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules). (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-326A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-326A1.pdf
  • For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nazifa Sawez Assistant Chief Audio Division Media Bureau See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 21,649 (2000) (``Second Report and Order''), and 47 C.F.R. �� 1.420(g), note 2, and 73.3573, note 4. 47 U.S.C. � 316(a). See Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Second Report and Order, supra, and 47 C.F.R. � 1.420, n.2. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3573, n. 4 and 1.420(g), n.2. See also Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-328A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-328A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-551A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-551A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-670A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-670A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-907A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-907A1.pdf
  • lead to denial of the request. 3. Cut-off protection. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding. (a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments (see 47 C.F.R. Section 1.420(d).) (b) Petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposals in this Notice will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DOC-259489A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DOC-259489A1.pdf
  • ) ) ) ) ) MM Docket No. 05-210 RM-10960 ERRATUM Released: June 22, 2005 By the Chief, Audio Division: On June 14, 2005, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC 05-120 in the above captioned proceeding. This Erratum corrects the fifth sentence of paragraph 52 to read: The Bureau is to waive the provisions of Section 1.420(j) of our rules, and must accept settlements that involve payments to petitioners in excess of their reasonable and prudent expenses. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Peter H. Doyle Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau 47 C.F.R. � 1420(j). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 05-XX Federal Communications Commission �@��� h F �@ �b w ]' �
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-01-317A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-01-317A1.pdf
  • Archer City instead of Olney, in some fashion cancelled or terminated the outstanding Olney permit. It is further mistaken in asserting that the staff's subsequent modification of the Olney construction permit to specify Archer City is treated under the Commission's rules as a new ``original'' construction permit. Community of license changes are modifications of outstanding authorizations. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(i) (permit's community of license may be modified in a rulemaking proceeding if the amended allotment would be mutually exclusive with the present assignment). Pursuant to the rules governing such changes, the staff properly considered Texas Grace's request to change KRZB's community of license as a modification of the station's existing permit, and not as a new original permit. Significantly, Texas
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-05-120A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-05-120A1.pdf
  • proposed new community of license change procedures. We anticipate that we would publish the Table by some means, for example, as a continually updated list of FM allotments in the Media Bureau's publicly accessible Consolidated Data Base System. Furthermore, under this approach we would add new allotments to the Table using procedures similar to those currently set forth in Section 1.420 of the Commission's rules, and we would continue to apply the same substantive Section 307(b) policies when comparing competing allotment proposals. Specifically, we would adopt in Part 73 procedures analogous to those contained in Section 1.420, to permit the filing of ``petitions to amend the FM Table of Allotments.'' In the case of new allotments, these procedures efficiently populate FM
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-06-163A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-06-163A1.pdf
  • class modifications have been made under our ``one-step'' procedures). However, we will permit an FM non-reserved band permittee or licensee to use notice and comment procedures to modify its current assignment to specify a non-adjacent class upgrade or downgrade in the same community of license. We take this action to preserve the facility improvement options now set forth at Section 1.420(g)(1) and (2). We will retain the Table for vacant allotments and will continue to use rule making procedures to establish new channel allotments, as the procedures for new allotments allow for efficient consideration of all proposals and counterproposals in keeping with our Section 307(b) obligations. While Section 307(b) considerations enter into community of license changes to authorized facilities as well,
• http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/90-374.pdf
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit FCC90-374 IntheMatterof Beforethe FederalCommunicationsCommission Washington,D.C.20554 MMDocketNo.88-526 AmendmentoftheCommission's RM-6122 RulesRegardingModificationof FMandTVAuthorizationstoSpecify aNewCommunityofLicense MEMORANDUMOPINIONANDORDER (ProceedingTerminated) Adopted:November8,1990;Released:November30,1990 BytheCommission:CommissionerQuelloissuinga separatestatement. 1.TheCommissionhasbeforeitthreepetitionsfor reconsiderationoftheReportandOrder(R&O),4FCC Rcd4870(1989).whichamendedSection1.420ofthe Commission'srulestoprovideaprocedurewherebythe CommissionmaymodifytelevisionandFMauthorizations tospecifyadifferentcommunityoflicenseinthe courseofarulemakingproceeding.TheNationalAssociation ofBroadcasters("NAB"),SinclairTeleCable.Inc. ("Sinclair"),andHarronCommunicationsCorporation ("Harron")filedpetitionsforreconsideration.2Brantley BroadcastAssociates("Brantley")filedreplycomments. WordofGodFellowship.Inc.("WordofGod")and KudzuBroadcastingPartnership("Kudzu")filedreply commentstotheSinclairandNABpetitions.3 2.TheR&OnotedthatpastCommissionpolicy workedtodiscouragethefilingofproposalstochangea station'scommunityoflicensebecause,ifsuchaproposal wereadoptedandtheallotmentchanged.thirdparties wouldthenhaveanopportunitytofilecompetingapplications forthenewallotment.TheR&Ostatedthat thepossibilityofsuchapplicationsbeingfiled.andthe attendantriskthattheincumbentstationwouldloseany authorizationtobroadcast,actedaspowerfuldisincentives tothefilingofsuchproposals.TheCommissionobserved. however,thatchangesinastation'scommunityoflicense wouldservethepublicinterestinsomecircumstances. Therefore.thenewrulewasdesignedtoremoveanunnecessary barriertotheimprovementofservicebyexist- inglicenseesandpermittees.Inordertoinsurethatthe newsubsectionservedthispurpose,theR&Ostatedthe Commission'spolicythatpetitionsrequestingachangein communityoflicensefiledpursuanttoCommissionrule l.420(1)wouldbeapprovedifanallotmenttothenew communitywouldservetheCommission'sallotment prioritiesandpolicies�betterthantheallotmentinthe oldcommunity.andifthechangewouldnothavethe effectofdeprivingacommunityofanexistingservice representingitssolelocaltransmissionoutlet.Westated thatwewoulddeterminewhetheraproposedchange wouldbetterservetheallotmentprioritiesthantheexist- FederalCommunicationsCommissionRecord 5 FCCRcdNo.24 ingallotmentbycomparingtheproposedallotmentplan totheexistingallotmentplanforthecommunitiesinvolved .Ifadoptionoftheproposedallotmentplanwould resultinanetservicebenefitforthecommunitiesinvolved (thatis,iftheplanwouldresultinapreferential arrangementofallotments),wewouldadopttheproposal. Threepartiesfiledpetitionsforreconsiderationinresponse totheR&O.Nonechallengesourcoredetermination thattheruleremovesanunnecessaryand artificialbarriertoserviceimprovements.Instead.the partiesfocusonquestionsconcerningthescopeandapplicability ofthenewrule.Inafurtherefforttoinsure thatSection1.420(1)servesitsintendedpurpose.this MemorandumOpinionandOrder(MO&O)grantsreconsideration insomerespects.deniesitinothers.and clarifiestheapplicabilityofSection307(b)oftheCommunications ActtoproceedingstoamendtheFMandTV TablesofAllotments. PETITIONSFORRECONSIDERATION 3.Initspetitionforreconsideration.NABfirstargues
• http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/97-226.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/97-226.pdf
  • band in the absence of TV Channel 6 interference or preclusion by a foreign allotment. SUNY filed a Petition for Reconsideration directed to that Report and Order. 5. The Memorandum Opinion and Order in this proceeding denied that Petition for Reconsideration. In that decision, the staff determined that contrary to SUNY's contention, the Report and Order did not contravene Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules regarding the modification of a commercial FM license through the rulemaking process. The staff reaffirmed its determination that the proposed modification would have been inconsistent with our policy regarding assignment of a noncommercial educational FM station to the commercial band. 6. The Memorandum Opinion and Order recognized that Station WFNP currently operates on a shared-time basis
• http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/98-18.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/98-18.pdf
  • Rosendale and opened a filing window. SUNY filed a Petition for Reconsideration directed to Report and Order. In a subsequent Memorandum Opinion and Order, we denied that Petition for Reconsideration. 11 FCC Rcd 3607 (1996). Thereafter, the Commission denied an Application for Review directed to that staff action. In doing so, the Commission determined that SUNY could not use Section 1.420(g) of the Rules to modify a noncommercial educational license. The Commission also determined that allotting Channel 273A to Rosendale and opening a filing window was consistent with an earlier action in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 51 FR 4169, February 3, 1986, and provided the greatest public interest benefit. 4. On August 1, 1997, SUNY filed this Petition for Reconsideration with
• http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/da97-1334.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/da97-1334.pdf
  • by Sapphire Broadcasting, Inc.IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 10. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Robert Hayne, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2177. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas W.Webbink Chief, Policy and Rules Division Mass Media Bureau The proposed reallotment from Anniston to Sandy Springs was filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules which provides for the reallotment of a channel to a new community and modification of a station license or construction permit to reflect the new community without competition from other interested parties for the allotment. See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Community of License"), 4 FCC Rcd 4870
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/pdf/fr03au05-37.pdf
  • It is anticipated that the Commission would publish the FM Table of allotments by some means, for example, as a continually updated list of FM allotments in the Media Bureau's publicly accessible Consolidated Data Base System. Furthermore, under this approach new allotments would be added to the FM Table of Allotments using procedures similar to those currently set forth in �1.420 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.420), and the Commission would continue to apply the same substantive policies of section 307(b) of the Communications Act when comparing competing allotment proposals. Specifically, the Commission would adopt in part 73 procedures analogous to those contained in �1.420 of the Commission's rules, to permit the filing of petitions to amend the FM Table
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/sangre.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/sangre.wp
  • Kreisman, Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Thomas Aube, University of Southern Colorado 2 (Feb. 28, 1991) (Kreisman Letter).[ ] In September 1992 USC (which had yet to begin construction on Cheyenne Mountain) and appellant Sangre de Cristo, the licensee of commercial television station KOAA-TV, Channel 5,[4]^(4) sought to exchange channels pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.420(h).[5]^(5) Under their proposal, the petitioners would exchange channels and USC would transfer its Cheyenne Mountain construction permit to Sangre de Cristo. In return, Sangre de Cristo would provide financial support to USC, donate a translator station to USC and transfer the existing licensed facilities of station KOAA-TV to USC.[ ] In July 1993 the MMB released a Notice of Proposed
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1253.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1253.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1253.pdf
  • exchanges. To address this concern, it adopted in 1986 a rule expressly permitting a commercial and a noncommercial broadcaster to petition to exchange channels without facing competing applications for the licenses. See In re Amendments to the Television Table of Assignments to Change Noncommercial Educational Reservations, 59 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1455 (1986); see also 47 CFR � 1.420(h). The Association operates two noncommercial television stations in Buffalo, New York--WNEQ-TV on Channel 23, which was reserved for noncommercial educational use, and WNED-TV on Channel 17, which was unreserved. In May 1998, the Association petitioned for a rulemaking to amend the Table of Allotments to switch the two channels' status. See Petition for Rule Making, Joint Appendix ("J.A.") at 1.
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2005/04-1031-080505.pdf
  • FM Table of Allotments. Second, a prospective broadcaster may then apply for a license or construction permit for that frequency in that community. The Table of Allotments can be amended only by rule. See Amendment of Part 1, Subpart C (Rulemaking Proceedings), Rules of Practice and Procedure, 39 Fed. Reg. 44,020, 44,020 (Dec. 20, 1974); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.420. The process begins with an FCC notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), often in response to a broadcaster's petition. The notice sets forth the proposed change -- for instance, "allot channel 229C at Houston" -- and announces periods for initial comments and reply comments.1 During the initial comment period, the FCC 3 class designation signifying maximum and minimum signal strengths and