WPC 2BJZ Courier3|jBx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4M (PCL) (Additional)HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\;pX@26 ZFK3|jHP LaserJet 4M (PCL) (Additional)HL4MPCAD.PRSC\  P6Q\;pP"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""purpose of delaying the implementation of service to the public. Orchon contends that the  xCommission did address petitioner's opposition to its counterproposal in this proceeding, noting  X - x=the Commission's analysis in paragraphs seven and eight of the R&O. Orchon concludes that  x-petitioner has raised no new arguments in its petition that have not been considered and rejected  xby the Commission. Orchon also notes that, to the extent petitioner would propose the upgrade  xyof Channel 223 to Douglas rather than Tifton, the deadline for filing counterproposals has long  xjpassed. Orchon contends that the Commission has fully complied with its allotment standards  XK- xin this proceeding, citing Blanchard, Louisiana and Stephen, Arkansas, FCC 95327, released  x>September 11, 1995. In reply, petitioner reiterates the arguments set forth in the petition for reconsideration.  X-  x5. Discussion. After careful consideration of the pleadings filed in this proceeding, we  xzcontinue to believe that Orchon's counterproposal constitutes a preferential arrangement of  X- xallotments and that TBC'c petition for reconsideration should be denied.  However, we would  X- xlike to clarify the basis for this conclusion. As we noted in the R&O, Orchon's proposal would  xnot result in either the provision of a first or second reception service or a first local transmission  xservice under the Commission's FM allotment priorities. Therefore, the proposal to upgrade and  xreallot Channel 223C3 to Tifton was properly considered under priority four other public  xinterest matters. In comparing the two communities under priority four, we note that both  xDouglas and Tifton receive more than five aural reception services and are thus considered well  x[served from a reception service standpoint. As a result, we believe that this case turns upon a  xcomparison of the number of transmission services in the two communities. In this regard, if  xChannel 223 were retained in Douglas as either a Class A or Class C3 channel, Douglas  X- x(population 10,464)a yOT"-ԍ Population figures are taken from the 1990 U.S. Census.a would continue to have five aural transmission services,X yO#- xԍ The Douglas transmission services are Stations WDMGAM, WDMGFM, WOKAAM, WOKAFM, and Orchon's Station WKZZ(FM). and Tifton",N(N(ZZ"  X- x<(population 14,215) would have three aural transmission services.@ yOy- xԍ The Tifton, GA, transmission services are commercial Stations WTIF(AM) and WOBB(FM) and  xnoncommercial educational Station WABR(FM). We also note that Class D Station WPLH(FM) operates  xnoncommercially on commercial Channel 276D by the Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College, Tifton, Georgia.  x,However, we will not count this station for transmission service analysis because, pursuant to Section 73.512 of the  xCommission's Rules, this is a secondary service and is permitted to continue to operate only if it does not interfere  xwith any television or commercial FM broadcast stations. We likewise do not count FM translators, which are  xsecondary services, as transmission services. Further, we note that Station WPLH operates with an effective radiated power of only 29 watts and places a city grade signal over less than half of Tifton.  However, by way  xof contrast, upgrading and reallotting Channel 223C3 to Tifton would equalize the number of  xKtransmission services between the communities. Given the difference in populations between the  x-communities, we believe that this latter arrangement of allotments is preferable because the larger  xkcommunity of Tifton will now have the same number of transmission services as the smaller  X-community of Douglas. Moreover, such an approach is consistent with precedent.`  yO- xԍ See Conway and Myrtle Beach, SC, MM Docket No. 9175, DA 96989, released June 21, 1996, summarized,  xh61 F.R. 34377 (July 2, 1996) (reallotment and change of community of license from Conway [population 9,819] to  xMyrtle Beach [population 24,848] granted because it equalized the number of transmission services between the  yOf-communities). However, as we observed in Conway and Myrtle Beach, x` ` . . . in reaching this result, we would like to point out that we are not embracing a populationratio basis for analyzing change of community cases. Rather, we are merely recognizing that where a significantly larger community has fewer transmission services than a smaller community, a reallotment of transmission service may be warranted.  yO-Id. at para. 5.   X_-  1x6. Our conclusion that the counterproposal constitutes a preferential arrangement of  xxallotments is further buttressed by the fact that Station WKZZ(FM) cannot upgrade on its current  xchannel or on an adjacent channel in Douglas and that the reallotment enables the station to  xyupgrade. As a result, there will be a net gain of service of 50,578 persons. While we recognize  x.that there will be a loss of service to 29,537 persons, our engineering analysis confirms that all of these people still have at least five reception services and are considered well served.  X -  x7. To the extent that petitioner contends that the R&O did not explicitly address some  xLof its arguments, we consider this to be harmless error that does not affect the outcome of this  x=proceeding. Specifically, petitioner's argument that Orchon does not intend to serve Tifton is  Xy- xspeculative and is not supported by any extrinsic evidence. Further, petitioner is incorrect in  xasserting that there is no reason for the reallotment of Station WKZZ(FM). As we indicated  xZabove, the station cannot upgrade at Douglas; and the upgrade and reallotment of the station will  x.not only result in a preferential arrangement of transmission services but also will create a net  xgain in service. Finally, we disagree with petitioner's argument that the Commission should  xhave compared the allotment of Channel 223C3 at Douglas with the reallotment of Channel  x223C3 to Tifton. The Commission was under no obligation to make that comparison since the",N(N(ZZs"  xxretention of an upgraded channel at Douglas was not an issue before the Commission. Moreover,  xfrom a technical standpoint the upgrading of Channel 223A on a cochannel or adjacent channel at Douglas would have been in violation of the Commissions current spacing requirements.  X-  x8. In view of the above, IT IS ORDERED, That the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Tifton Broadcasting Corporation IS DENIED.  X_-x9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED.  X1-  x 10. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Arthur D. Scrutchins, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 4182180. x` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  Douglas W. Webbink x` `  Policy and Rules Division x` `  Mass Media Bureau