Commission Reconsiders, Clarifies Certain Aspects of Rural Radio Order
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-127
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554In the Matter of
Policies to Promote Rural Radio Service and to
MB Docket No. 09-52
Streamline Allotment and
SECOND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted: October 11, 2012
Released: October 12, 2012By the Commission:
In this Second Order on Reconsideration, we grant in part certain Petitions for
Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order in this proceeding.1 In particular, we clarify certain
aspects of the new policies for evaluating mutually exclusive proposals for radio service, as well as for
considering applications to change a station’s community of license, under Section 307(b) of the
Communications Act.2 We also consider and deny a number of Petitions for Reconsideration that merely
repeat arguments raised in the comments in this proceeding, and that we rejected in the Second R&O.
On April 20, 2009, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (“Rural
NPRM”) in this proceeding.3 In the Rural NPRM the Commission proposed, among other things, changes
to the Commission’s allotment and assignment procedures, including the award of preferences to
applicants under the provisions of Section 307(b), which directs the Commission to provide a fair,
efficient, and equitable distribution of radio service among the States and communities.
In the Second R&O we adopted a number of measures designed to limit the use of
population as the principal metric when considering competing proposals for new radio stations. This
licensing standard has almost always favored proposals located in or near large urbanized areas, rather
1 Policies to Promote Rural Radio Service and to Streamline Allotment and Assignment Procedures, Second Report
and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 2556 (2011) (“Second R&O”). The Media Bureau complied with the Commission’s rules
by providing notice of the petitions for reconsideration and partial reconsideration filed, and an opportunity to
respond. Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding, Public Notice, Report No. 2940
(MB/CGB Dec. 12, 2011), 76 Fed. Reg. 79112 (Dec. 21, 2011).
2 47 U.S.C. § 307(b) (“Section 307(b)”).
3 Policies to Promote Rural Radio Service and to Streamline Allotment and Assignment Procedures, Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, 24 FCC Rcd 5239 (2009) (“Rural NPRM”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-127than those located in rural areas and smaller communities, which are typically less well served.4 As we
noted in the Rural NPRM, a disproportionate number of new AM stations were being awarded based on
dispositive Section 307(b) preferences rather than through competitive bidding.5
dispositive preferences were often being awarded for service at communities or to populations located in
or very near large urbanized areas.6 In the Second R&O, we adopted procedures to limit dispositive
Section 307(b) preferences for new AM construction permits, as well as new FM allotments, in already
well-served urbanized areas.7
We also, in the Second R&O, adopted procedures to forestall the movement of radio
service from rural areas to more urban areas absent a compelling showing of need.8 Among these
procedures was an urbanized area service presumption (“UASP”), under which a proposal for new or
relocated radio service that would constitute the first local transmission service at a specified community
is presumed to be a proposal to serve an entire urbanized area if the community is located within the
urbanized area, or if the proposal would place, or could be modified to place, a daytime principal
community signal over 50 percent or more of the urbanized area.9 The UASP can be rebutted by a
compelling showing (1) that the specified community is truly independent of the urbanized area, (2) that
the community has a specific need for an outlet for local expression separate from the urbanized area and
(3) that the proposed station is able to provide that outlet.10 The basis for such a rebuttal showing is the
longstanding test first set forth in Faye and Richard Tuck,11 although we noted that some of the Tuck
factors indicating independence of the proposed community from the larger urbanized area have become
outmoded and should be de-emphasized in analyzing rebuttal showings.12
The UASP applies to
applications for new AM stations, proposals for new FM allotments, and applications to change a
station’s community of license, and it applies differently according to the situation presented.13
We also limited the circumstances under which a mutually exclusive applicant for a new
AM station may receive a dispositive Section 307(b) preference under Priority (4), other public interest
matters.14 In the context of proposals for new FM allotments, raw reception population totals – of
whatever magnitude – will receive less weight under our new approach than other legitimate service-
based considerations, especially service to underserved populations.15 As for applications to change a
4 See generally Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2563-78.
5 Rural NPRM, 24 FCC Rcd at 5242-44.
7 Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2572-76.
8 Id. at 2576-77.
9 Id. at 2572-73.
11 Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 5374, 5376 (1988) (“Tuck”).
12 Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2573.
13 Id. at 2572-73, 2575-77.
14 Id. at 2573-74.
15 Id. at 2576.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-127station’s community of license, in addition to applying the UASP to such applications, we mandated
greater transparency in applicants’ Section 307(b) showings.16 Specifically, we required applicants to
submit more detailed showings demonstrating the populations gaining and losing radio service, and the
numbers of services those populations receive before and after the proposed move.17 We also introduced
other criteria to proposed community of license changes, for example, strongly disfavoring any change
that would result in the net loss of third, fourth, or fifth reception service to more than 15 percent of the
population in the station’s current protected contour, or loss of a second local transmission service to a
community with a population of 7,500 or greater.18 With two exceptions, we stated that the new
procedures would apply to all applications or proposals pending at the time we adopted the Second
Of the six Petitions for Reconsideration or Partial Reconsideration (“Petitions”) filed,
most repeated points from the comments filed in this proceeding that were considered and rejected in the
Second R&O. For the reasons set forth below, we deny these Petitions.20 However, we will address a
number of requests for clarification of certain issues. Specifically, we address a request for clarification
of our methodology for calculating reception service in Section 307(b) analyses under Priority (4), other
public interest matters, submitted by the Radio One Parties. Additionally, we discuss the Radio One
16 Id. at 2577-78.
19 Id. at 2575-76. We stated that the new procedures for deciding among mutually exclusive AM applications would
not apply to those applications filed during the 2004 AM Auction 84 filing window, and would not apply to any
non-final FM allotment proceeding, including “hybrid” coordinated application/allotment proceedings, in which the
Commission has modified a radio station license or granted a construction permit. Id.
20 Specifically, we deny the “Petition for Reconsideration & Comments Regarding the Following Matter” filed April
21, 2011, by Anthony V. Bono, Friendship Broadcasting, LLC (“Friendship Petition”); the Petition for Partial
Reconsideration filed May 6, 2011, by William B. Clay (“Clay”) (“Clay Petition”); the Petition for Partial
Reconsideration filed May 6, 2011, by M&M Broadcasters, Ltd. (“M&M Petition”); and the Petition for
Reconsideration filed May 6, 2011, by Educational Media Foundation and the Kent Frandsen Radio Companies
(“EMF/Frandsen Petition”). We deny in part and grant in part, as discussed below, the Petition for Reconsideration
and/or Clarification filed May 6, 2011, by Entravision Communications Corporation (“Entravision Petition”) and the
Petition for Partial Reconsideration filed May 6, 2011, by Radio One, Inc.; Minority Media and
Telecommunications Council; Ace Radio Corporation; Magnolia Radio Corporation; Auburn Network, Inc.;
Chisholm Trail Broadcasting Co.; Communications Technologies, Inc.; Radio K-T, Inc.; Great South Wireless,
LLC; Brantley Broadcast Associates, LLC; RAMS; Skytower Communications – E’town, Inc.; Heritage
Communications, Inc.; Anderson Associates; Holladay Broadcasting of Louisiana; Alatron Corp., Inc.; Legend
Communications of Wyoming, LLC; Border Media Business Trust; Music Ministries, Inc.; Mullaney Engineering,
Inc.; Mattox Broadcasting, Inc.; Multicultural Radio Broadcasting Licenses, LLC; Way Broadcasting Licensee,
LLC; Mississippi Broadcasters, LLC; Scott Communications, Inc.; Alexander Broadcasting Company, LLC;
Jackson Radio, LLC; Radiotechniques Engineering LLC; Signal Ventures LLC; Wagon Wheel Broadcasting, LLC;
WRNJ, Inc.; Dot Com Plus LLC; Independence Broadcast Services; Provident Broadcasting Company, Inc.; Radio
Training Network, Inc.; Sacred Heart University, Inc.; Horizon Broadcast Solutions; The Ridgefield Broadcasting
Corp.; Westport Broadcasting; Radio New England Broadcasting, LLC; Flinn Broadcasting Corporation; Arlington
Broadcast Company; Memphis First Ventures, LP; First Ventures Capital Partners, Inc.; and Autaugaville
Broadcasting, Inc. (collectively, the “Radio One Parties”) (“Radio One Petition”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-127Parties’ request to amend some of the factors used to determine whether a community is independent of
an urbanized area. We further clarify, at the request of Entravision Communications Corporation
(“Entravision”), the applicability of the UASP to intra-urbanized area station relocations. Finally, we
deny the request of petitioner M&M Broadcasters, Inc. (“M&M”) to exclude all pending community of
license change applications from the new policies, but grant Entravision’s request that the new policies
not apply to any pending community of license change application or FM allotment proceeding in which a
decision on the application, or allotment Report and Order, was released prior to the release date of the
Second R&O. We also, as discussed below, reconsider and modify the Second R&O by clarifying that the
new policies shall not apply to any application filed or FM allotment proceeding initiated prior to the
release date of the Rural NPRM.
As noted above, many of the arguments in the Petitions were considered and rejected in
the Second R&O. However, we believe it to be in the public interest to discuss the merits of these
arguments in light of our contrary determinations. Educational Media Foundation (“EMF”), petitioning
jointly with the Kent Frandsen Radio Companies (“Frandsen”), argues that the new procedures “ignore
current marketplace realities,”21 and that radio stations must relocate to more populous areas because
there is little or no money to be made in rural areas.22 As we stated in the Second R&O, however, new
stations are assigned or allotted on a demand basis,23 with the economic decision to locate a station in a
particular community resting solely with the applicant. If it makes no economic sense to propose a station
in a given area then there should be no applicants for that area.24 In the context of new AM applications
in particular (and FM allotment proposals to the extent they may be subject to counter-proposals), the
modified procedures we adopted apply only insofar as there are mutually exclusive applications or
proposals, and are designed to give proponents for needed service in small communities and rural areas a
fair chance vis-à-vis proponents for additional service to already well-served urban populations.25
21 EMF/Frandsen Petition at 3.
22 See also Friendship Petition at 1-3 (“Where there are more people to support more Stations, there should be more
Stations to serve that population.”).
23 Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2568-69.
25 Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2567. For example, prior to the adoption of our modified procedures, of the 26
Category II Mutually Exclusive (“MX”) groups in AM Auction 84 (those not allowed to eliminate their mutual
exclusivity through settlement or technical resolution) in which the applicants were compared under Priority (4), 17,
or over 65 percent, were resolved by granting a dispositive Section 307(b) preference to one of the applicants based
on superior population coverage. In nine of these groups (53 percent), the prevailing applicant proposed a
community in an urbanized area, while most or all of the other mutually exclusive applicants did not. See also
Green Valley Broadcasters, Inc., Nelson Multimedia, Inc., and Kemp Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 13341, 13349 (2004) (Joint Statement of Commissioners Michael J. Copps and Jonathan S.
Adelstein Concurring); Nelson Enterprises, Inc. and D&E Communications, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19
FCC Rcd 13350, 13355 (2004) ) (Joint Statement of Commissioners Michael J. Copps and Jonathan S. Adelstein
Concurring); Robert E. Combs, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 13421, 13431 (2004) ) (Joint
Statement of Commissioners Michael J. Copps and Jonathan S. Adelstein Concurring) (stating, in context of
Auction 32 applications, that Section 307(b) analysis under Priority (4) “has devolved into a raw population
comparison where the applicant seeking to serve the larger, more urban area nearly always wins irrespective of the
number of stations already serving each community. While service to a greater population is an important criterion
under our public interest examination, we have concerns when it becomes the sole criterion. As a general public
interest priority, an applicant should have a chance to convince us that there are other compelling reasons – beyond
mere population – to award its proposal a dispositive preference. . . It is vital that the Commission provide all
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-127Moreover, existing licensees seeking to change their communities of license presumably have, at one
time, determined the economic viability of service to their existing communities. To the extent that
changed circumstances render it an economic hardship to remain in the community of license, the new
procedures allow for such a showing.26 EMF also contends that FCC licensing policies protect listeners
in rural areas with a “base level” of over-the-air radio, as few as two services,27 and that listeners can
readily augment terrestrial broadcast radio service with satellite subscription services or other non-
broadcast media.28 We again reject the suggestion that rural residents should simply purchase any radio
service they desire above “basic” broadcast service,29 or that Section 307(b) obliges us only to assign
minimal free radio service to certain Americans, based solely on where they choose to live.
The Radio One Parties contend that the new procedures, particularly the UASP, are
arbitrary and capricious.30 They support this contention, however, largely by reiterating arguments made
in their comments, which are mostly confined to the context of community of license change applications.
For example, they state again that there is no problem warranting revised processing policies, citing their
own study showing that “only” 19 percent of community of license change applications filed since 2007
would trigger the UASP.31 We reject the suggestion that one in five applications constitutes a “relatively
small” percentage, and that this level of activity is insufficient to warrant remedial agency action.32
(Continued from previous page)
applicants – whether seeking to serve rural or urban America – an effective process to achieve the distribution goals
set forth by Congress”).
26 Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2578 (“Finally, as is and has always been the case, under Priority (4) applicants may
offer any other information they believe to be pertinent to a public interest showing, including the need for further
transmission service at the new community, a drop in population justifying the removal of transmission service at
the old community, population growth in areas surrounding the proposed new community that can best be met by a
centrally located service, or any other changes in circumstance believed relevant to our consideration.”).
27 See EMF/Frandsen Petition at 3-4 (“Many broadcasters, including EMF, argued in comments in this proceeding
that the needs of rural communities are already met through the base level of service that the FCC guarantees when
it essentially prohibits the movement of stations that are providing a first or second broadcast service to a geographic
28 Id. at 8 (“Given today's technology, listeners in even the most rural areas have access to satellite radio and
television, and other portable music and news sources, and often have access to the Internet in addition to broadcast
radio and TV. Moreover, service from translators and LPFM stations should count in analyzing any third, fourth, or
fifth service area loss. After the basic service has been provided by first and second full-power, local reception
services, additional additive service from secondary sources should suffice to provide the populations of these areas
with the programming choices the Commission seems to be encouraging.”).
29 Id. at 6-7. See Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2566 (rejecting same argument).
30 We decline to consider the supplemental arguments of the Radio One Parties in their “Comments in Response to
Petitions for Reconsideration” filed January 5, 2012 (“Radio One Comments in Response”). Under our Rules, no
supplement to a petition for reconsideration filed more than 30 days after public notice of the order for which
reconsideration is sought – in this case, the Second R&O – will be considered, except upon leave granted pursuant to
a separate pleading request that states the grounds for its acceptance. 47 C.F.R. §1.429(d); see Dismissal of All
Pending Pioneer’s Preference Requests, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11485, 11492 (1998).
31 Radio One Petition at 15-16; see also EMF/Frandsen Petition at 3.
32 Radio One Petition at 4. Radio One Parties’ own evidence shows that over 100 community of license change
applications since 2007 would be subject to the modified policies. More specifically, they assert that 110 out of 561
community of license change applications – 19.6 percent – included Tuck showings and, thus, arguably would be
subject to the UASP. While we recognize the Radio One Parties’ 19 percent figure for the sake of argument, we do
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-127Indeed, we think the strong interest of many radio broadcasters in relocating to more populated areas as
indicated in the record in this proceeding reflects the importance of the UASP as a Section 307(b)
licensing policy.33 For the reasons we set forth in the Second R&O, we do not believe that allowing such
migration in all cases comports with our statutory duty under Section 307(b).34 Our prior policies may
have promoted a surfeit of service to those in large urbanized areas and a deficit to residents of smaller
communities and rural areas,35 even when there were mutually exclusive applicants seeking to provide
such service, contrary to our statutory responsibilities under Section 307(b).36 Moreover, because the
UASP is a presumption, not a hard-and-fast rule, a licensee seeking to relocate its facilities due, for
example, to changed conditions in its current community of license may rebut the presumption.37
The Radio One Parties also assert the importance of providing radio service to suburban
communities, and argue that the UASP constitutes an improper attempt to divine an applicant’s service
intentions based on the fact that the population of the proposed community of license may constitute a
very small percentage of the overall coverage population.38 The UASP was not designed to divine an
applicant’s service intent, but rather to eliminate the undue, often dispositive advantage that our prior
Section 307(b) policies conferred on proposals to serve communities located in large urbanized areas,
especially in the context of selecting among mutually exclusive applications for new AM service.39 This
advantage was based largely on the fact that applicants would often designate as the community of license
a community lacking local transmission service but whose population constituted a small percentage of
the total audience to be served, to the detriment of mutually exclusive applicants proposing service to
smaller, non-urbanized communities that might benefit more from new service.40 The record, particularly
the data provided by commenter Clay, provides ample support for our conclusion that, in a substantial
(Continued from previous page)
not concede the accuracy of its study. Additionally, while the Radio One Parties focus on community of license
change applications, we note that this is not the only category of applications to which the UASP applies. For
example, in the filing window for AM Auction 84, out of 89 Category II MX groups (see supra note 25), 42, or 47
percent, included at least one applicant that was required to submit a Tuck showing and thus would be subject to the
UASP under the new procedures. Over a third of those groups included more than one application that would have
been subject to the UASP.
33 See, e.g., Comments of Miller Communications, Inc., et al. at 3; Comments of American Media Services, LLC at
3; Comments of Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper at 4. See also EMF/Frandsen Petition at 2.
34 Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2568.
35 Certain Petitioners also repeat the argument that large urbanized areas are actually underserved when viewed on a
per capita basis. See, e.g., EMF/Frandsen Petition at 4; Radio One Petition at 15. Based on data provided by certain
commenters (see Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2566 and n.50), these petitioners maintain that, for example,
Cheyenne, Wyoming, with 13 radio stations, is actually better served than New York City, with 80 stations, based
on the larger population-to-station ratio in Cheyenne. This argument is based on the faulty premise that radio
programming is a finite, depletable commodity like groceries or automobiles. A radio listener in Manhattan can
tune in six times as many stations as a listener in Cheyenne, irrespective of how many more people live in
Manhattan. Thus, the argument that the Cheyenne listener is “overserved” lacks merit.
36 Id. at 2568-69.
37 Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2570. See supra note 26.
38 Radio One Petition at 3, 5.
39 See, e.g., Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2573-74.
40 Id. at 2563-64. See also Rural NPRM, 24 FCC Rcd at 5242-44.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-127number of cases, the population actually covered by a station’s signal in an urbanized area is many times
that of the population of the community of license.41
We considered and rejected in the Second R&O the Radio One Parties’ argument that our
new procedures constitute a return to the policies eliminated in The Suburban Community Policy, the
Berwick Doctrine, and the De Facto Reallocation Policy.42
As we observed, the Commission
discontinued those policies based in part on application processes and procedural safeguards that now no
longer exist.43 We also noted the dissimilarities between our new procedures and the processes formerly
used to implement the policies that were discontinued in Suburban Community Policy.44 To the extent
that similarities exist, it is because both are grounded in fulfilling our Section 307(b) responsibilities. The
record in this case and our recent experience with broadcast auctions and community of license change
proposals filed as minor modification applications – both licensing processes that post-date Suburban
Community Policy by many years – convinced us that the new procedures are necessary.45
We decline the Radio One Parties’ invitation to revise the Tuck factors used to evaluate
the interdependence of the specified community with the larger metropolitan area.46 We disagree with the
Radio One Parties’ critiques of some of the Tuck factors of community independence. We believe that
the first factor, whether a significant number of local residents work in the community as opposed to the
urbanized area, may be a relevant indicator of independent community status, notwithstanding that the
Census Bureau measures this statistic by way of survey data rather than enumeration.47 However,
although we disagree with the Radio One Parties’ claim that the closing or consolidation of post office
facilities necessarily invalidates the use of the remaining ZIP code as an indicator of community
independence, we agree that the ubiquity of ZIP codes gives the presence of a dedicated ZIP code little
probative significance of itself in establishing a community’s independence. We therefore agree with the
Radio One Parties that this factor should be given little weight. Finally, we question the assertion that
Factor 8 – the extent to which the community relies on the larger metropolitan area for municipal services
41 Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2570.
42 Report and Order, 93 F.C.C.2d 436 (1983) (“Suburban Community Policy”). See Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at
45 See supra paragraph 9, notes 25, 32.
46 The eight factors set forth in Tuck are: (1) the extent to which the community residents work in the larger
metropolitan area, rather than the specified community; (2) whether the smaller community has its own newspaper
or other media that covers the community’s needs and interests; (3) whether community leaders and residents
perceive the specified community as being an integral part of or separate from, the larger metropolitan area; (4)
whether the specified community has its own local government and elected officials; (5) whether the smaller
community has its own local telephone book provided by the local telephone company or zip code; (6) whether the
community has its own commercial establishments, health facilities, and transportation systems; (7) the extent to
which the specified community and the central city are part of the same advertising market; and (8) the extent to
which the specified community relies on the larger metropolitan area for various municipal services. Tuck, 3 FCC
Rcd at 5378. In the Second R&O, we indicated that we would de-emphasize certain of those factors, based on
changed circumstances since the Tuck case’s release 23 years ago. Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2573.
47 See Radio One Petition at 17 and n.42. See also http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/ (accessed Apr. 20,
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-127– is duplicative of Factor 4, whether the community has its own local government and elected officials.
These factors are necessarily fact-specific, and must take into account the various ways in which
communities are structured. While both factors are often present in the same community, this is not
universally the case.48 We thus decline at this time to revise the Tuck factors. We will, however, provide
applicants seeking to rebut the UASP wide latitude to present whatever facts they deem appropriate to our
evaluation. While we will scrutinize such showings, we will be receptive to presentations that may in
some cases provide better and more reliable measures of community status than those set forth in Tuck.
We emphasize that the eight Tuck factors are merely potential indicators of independence or
interdependence and that the burden remains on the applicant to show that the presence of such factors
provides meaningful and relevant support for an “independent” community finding. We clarify, however,
that our analysis of showings rebutting the UASP will place primary emphasis on the first two prongs of
the Tuck test, namely, the degree to which the proposed station will provide coverage to the urbanized
area, and the size and proximity of the proposed community of license relative to the central city of the
The Radio One Parties also ask us to clarify the methodology for measuring “reception
service” for Priority (4) analyses of applications to change a station’s community of license, as discussed
in paragraph 39 of the Second R&O.50 Specifically, they ask, first, whether the contours of a non-reserved
band FM station, for purposes of gain/loss analysis of a community of license change, should be
calculated from the allotment coordinates at the proposed new community or from the transmitter
coordinates specified in the actual proposal; second, when evaluating gain and loss areas, and in particular
when determining the number of reception services to the gain and loss areas, which signal contour
should be used; and third, in assessing reception service, whether “potential services,” such as vacant FM
allotments or granted but unbuilt construction permits, should be counted. We clarify below the standards
for evaluating reception services in the gain and loss areas for applications to change community of
license, and thus grant the Radio One Petition in part.
First, when determining gain and loss areas for an FM station changing its community of
license, we agree with the Radio One Parties that the contours should be calculated using the authorized
transmitter coordinates for the current facility, and the transmitter coordinates specified for the proposed
new or modified facility. We recognize that this is a change from past practice, under which the staff
used allotment coordinates rather than the transmitter coordinates specified in the actual proposal. That
practice, however, was an artifact of our former licensing procedures, under which all community of
license changes for FM stations first involved a reallotment of the station’s channel at the new
community. As a result, the staff only had the allotment coordinates on which to base gain and loss area
calculations; the actual application for a new construction permit was filed only after reallotment. Since
the Commission changed its procedures in 2006 to permit the filing of community of license change
proposals by minor change applications,51 the staff can now evaluate the actual proposed transmitter site.
It is more appropriate to do so than to use allotment coordinates that, as the Radio One Parties point out,
48 For example, some communities with no local government nevertheless provide some municipal services, or may
receive them from a governmental unit other than that in which the larger urbanized area is centered.
49 See Tuck, 3 FCC Rcd at 5378.
50 Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2577-78.
51 Revision of Procedures Governing Amendments to FM Table of Allotments and Changes of Community of License
in the Radio Broadcast Services, Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14212, 14217-23 (2006), recon. pending
(“Community of License R&O”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-127may be miles from the actual transmitter site specified in the proposal. Moreover, this new approach is
consistent with our practice with regard to AM change of community applications, for which we calculate
contours from the applicants’ authorized and proposed transmitter sites.
Second, we clarify that, when determining the number of reception services in gain and
loss areas, the signal level to be evaluated for non-reserved band FM stations (including noncommercial
educational (“NCE”) stations in the non-reserved band) shall be the service contour originating at the
currently authorized and proposed transmitter coordinates. The service contour shall be calculated based
on the facility’s authorized and proposed effective radiated power (“ERP”) and height above average
terrain (“HAAT”) and shall, as described below, take into account actual terrain. We recognize that this
is a departure from the method previously used to determine the number of reception services in gain and
loss areas, which was based on maximum class facilities for all FM stations except for full Class C and
NCE stations, and did not take into account actual terrain.52 However, in the Second R&O, we required
applicants proposing to change a station’s community of license to provide detailed reports of populations
receiving service and the numbers of services received.53 This increased scrutiny of the current and
proposed reception service landscape demands a realistic picture of the populations receiving various
levels of service, overruling the considerations of “uniformity and certainty” in service area calculations
cited in Greenup to justify the use of maximum rather than actual facilities.54 Additionally, as the Radio
One Parties point out, many existing stations, for technical, economic, or other reasons, may never be able
to realize full class facilities.55 Thus, we believe it more appropriate to base an evaluation of the Section
307(b) merits of community of license change applications on the populations actually receiving service
from stations in an area, rather than on what may be, in many cases, merely a hypothetical level of
reception service. For purposes of these gain and loss area calculations, the FM service contour shall be
that set forth for the class of station in Section 73.215(a)(1) of the Rules,56 and shall be calculated using
actual terrain under the standard prediction methodology set forth in Section 73.313 of the Rules rather
52 See Greenup, Kentucky, and Athens, Ohio, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 1493, 1494 (1991)
(“Greenup”). See also, e.g., Sells, Willcox, and Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23
FCC Rcd 1242, 1247 n.32 (MB 2008), review pending.
53 See Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2577-78.
54 Greenup, 6 FCC Rcd at 1494. Furthermore, calculations of FM service contours based on currently authorized
facilities and actual terrain do not lack “certainty.” Section 73.313 of the Rules (47 C.F.R. § 73.313) clearly defines
our methodology for calculating FM contours, and the contours predicted using this methodology provide the basis
for all of the Commission's FM service and interference analyses.
55 Radio One Parties Petition at 21. See also du Treil, Lundin, & Rackley, Inc. Technical Statement Comments to
Petitions for Reconsideration in MB Docket 09-52 (“DLR Statement”), at second unnumbered page (contending that
most FM stations “have RF transmission facilities maximized as much as the applicable regulations (either FCC,
local and/or FAA limitations) would allow.”). Moreover, unlike an evaluation under the UASP, which includes any
rule-compliant facility modifications the applicant might implement, a community change applicant does not control
the implementation and timing of modifications to other stations that might provide service to the proposed gain and
56 47 C.F.R. § 73.215(a)(1). For Class A, C3, C2, C1, C0, and C stations, the protected contour is the 60 dBμ (1.0
mV/m) F(50,50) contour. For Class B stations, the protected contour is 54 dBμ (0.5 mV/m) F(50,50). For Class B1
stations, the protected contour is 57 dBμ (0.7 mV/m) F(50,50). For purposes of gain and loss area calculations in
applications to change community of license, we shall use these contours for non-reserved band commercial and
NCE stations in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, rather than the contours set forth in 47 C.F.R. §
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-127than assuming uniform terrain.57 For NCE reserved band stations, the service contours will be determined
in the same manner, using actual currently authorized and proposed facilities (including directional
patterns) and actual terrain. The service contour shall be the 60 dBμ contour, calculated as set forth in
Section 73.509(c)(1) of the Rules.58
For an AM station, the signal level to be evaluated for purposes of gain and loss
calculations in applications to change community of license shall be the predicted or measured daytime
2.0 mV/m groundwave contour, calculated from the current and proposed transmitter coordinates using
authorized facilities. When calculating AM reception services in gain and loss areas under Priority (4),
we agree with the Radio One Parties that “reception service” should not be limited to full-time reception
services, but should include all AM daytime reception services.59 In this regard, we note that the AM
primary service contours are set forth in Section 73.182(d) of the Rules, and are the daytime 0.5 mV/m
groundwave contour for communities under 2,500 population, and the daytime 2.0 mV/m groundwave
contour for communities over 2,500 population.60 The different primary service contours take into
account the higher level of environmental noise resulting from greater population density. However,
using different contours for communities of different sizes will often result in complicated calculations of
the number of services to certain areas lying between the daytime 2.0 mV/m and 0.5 mV/m groundwave
contours of an AM station. Because Section 73.182 implicitly recognizes that all areas, of whatever
population, receive primary service within an AM station’s daytime 2.0 mV/m groundwave contour, for
purposes of determining the number of AM services and populations in gain and loss areas, we shall use
the daytime 2.0 mV/m groundwave contour.61
Third, for purposes of the gain and loss calculations in Priority (4) analyses, as described
in paragraph 39 of the Second R&O,62 applicants shall count all full-service AM (including daytime-only
AM),63 FM, and NCE FM stations,64 including granted, but unbuilt, construction permits for new
57 47 C.F.R. § 73.313. All calculations must be made using the same terrain database. Similarly, all contour
calculations must be completed using the standard contour prediction method in 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.313(a)-(f), without
recourse to supplemental terrain showings or alternative contour prediction methods.
58 47 C.F.R. § 73.509(c)(1).
59 See Radio One Petition at 22. See also DLR Statement at second unnumbered page. Current staff practice in such
analyses is to consider only nighttime interference-free (“NIF”) reception service.
60 47 C.F.R. § 73.182(d).
61 Applicants for new commercial AM stations providing showings under Section 307(b) should, however, continue
to count populations to be served by using the primary service contours (0.5 mV/m for communities under 2,500
population, 2.0 mV/m for communities over 2,500) set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 73.182(d). See, e.g., Second R&O, 26
FCC Rcd at 2574. An applicant for a new AM station provides a Section 307(b) showing only after being directed
to do so by the staff (that is, after its application has been determined to be mutually exclusive with one or more
other AM proposals), and in such cases the staff typically directs the applicant to provide the populations receiving
both 0.5 mV/m and 2.0 mV/m daytime service from the proposed facilities. See, e.g., AM Auction 84 Mutually
Exclusive Applicants Subject to Auction, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 10563, 10565 (MB/WTB 2005).
62 Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2577-78.
63 For purposes of the prohibition against any facility change that would create white or gray area, however (see
Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2577), daytime-only AM stations will not count as providing full-time reception
service. See Policies to Encourage Interference Reduction Between AM Broadcast Stations, Report and Order, 5
FCC Rcd 4492, 4496 n.14 (1990) (“A ‘white’ area is an area that receives no full-time aural service. A ‘gray’ area
receives one full-time aural service.”). Full-time aural (reception) service means both day and night. While FM
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-127stations.65 However, for purposes of these calculations applicants should not count vacant FM allotments.
In other contexts we have curbed the use of vacant FM allotments, for example, when such allotments
were proposed to “backfill” for the removal of a sole local transmission service.66 Additionally, in recent
FM auctions a number of vacant allotments have gone unsold, calling into question whether such
allotments may realistically be considered as future service.67
Moreover, for the reasons cited in
paragraph 15, above, our increased scrutiny of reception service in gain and loss areas requires that we
evaluate actual, rather than hypothetical service. We therefore believe the better approach is to evaluate
the reception service as of the time of application, and to count only those facilities that have advanced to
the point of a granted construction permit. Accordingly, in conducting the remaining services analysis
and making a showing as described in paragraph 39 of the Second R&O,68 applicants should exclude
vacant FM allotments from counts of reception services.69
Applicants for changes to a station’s
community of license following release of this Second Order on Reconsideration shall use these clarified
(Continued from previous page)
service contours are consistent for all dayparts, AM service contours vary between daytime and nighttime operation.
AM full-time reception service areas are those receiving both daytime 2.0 mV/m groundwave service and NIF
service. For most stations, the daytime 2.0 mV/m groundwave contour completely encompasses the NIF contour,
thus the NIF contour constitutes the full-time service area for such stations. Where the daytime 2.0 mV/m
groundwave and NIF contours neither completely encompass nor are completely encompassed by the other, due to
changes in antenna pattern and/or transmitter site between daytime and nighttime operation, the full-time service
area is the common area within both contours.
64 We decline to adopt EMF/Frandsen’s suggestion that secondary services, such as FM translators and low-power
FM stations, be counted as reception services. EMF/Frandsen Petition at 8. Such secondary services are not
protected from interference by full-service stations.
65 In the case of stations with granted, but unbuilt construction permits for modifications to their currently licensed
or permitted facilities, the authorized but unbuilt modified facilities shall be used. In many such cases, the station
authorization is modified upon grant of the modification application.
66 See Pacific Broadcasting of Missouri, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10950, 10956 (2004)
(“Pacific Broadcasting”) (under the “new circumstances” in which FM construction permits are awarded through
competitive bidding, “the licensing of vacant allotments is too remote and too contingent to justify the filing of
move-out proposals premised on such replacement services.”).
67 At the end of FM Auction 91 in May of 2011, three dozen permits remained unsold, including many that had been
offered in previous auctions. We recognize that economic factors undoubtedly played a part in this outcome, and
moreover that certain recent policy changes (for example, requiring new allotment proponents simultaneously to file
Form 301 applications – see Community of License R&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 14223-25) may well alleviate this
situation. The number of unsold allotments nevertheless serves as a reminder that a vacant allotment, while
somewhat more than a mere promise of future service, is something short of a guarantee of such service.
68 See supra note 62.
69 We will, however, continue to count vacant FM allotments for purposes of Section 307(b) analyses under Priority
(3), provision of first local transmission service. This is because only one applicant or allotment proponent can
claim to provide “first” transmission service at a given community. It would be inappropriate to accept a claim by a
community of license change applicant to provide first local transmission service at the new community, if we had
already allotted a channel there based on a showing that the allotment would constitute the first local transmission
service. Of course, should the only channel allocated to a community be re-allotted to another community, a
subsequent applicant or allotment proponent could propose first local transmission service there.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-127procedures when determining the number of reception services to gain and loss areas, and the procedures
shall also apply to pending applications.70
Clay seeks reconsideration because he believes the Second R&O did not go far enough.71
He argues that our new procedures will still allow grant of most applications claiming to provide first
local transmission service while primarily serving communities and populations other than the proposed
community of license, because the majority of the proposed communities are not located in or near
urbanized areas and are thus not subject to the UASP.72 Clay further argues that the procedures set forth
in the Second R&O still fail to guarantee service to, and an outlet for self-expression of, the nominal
community of license rather than the greatest populations to be served by a proposal.73 He contends that
we should replace the UASP with “a universal policy that directly links grant of any ‘local service’
preference to the community or collection of communities most likely to benefit from the transmission
service provided by a facility proposed in any geographic area,” rather than just those in or near urbanized
In essence, Clay would take the choice of community of license – at least where first
transmission service is being claimed – away from the applicant, and have the Commission determine the
community or communities provided the greatest reception service under the proposed facilities, and so
designate the community of license.75 We reject Clay’s proposal as overbroad. While we share Clay’s
belief that localism is a fundamental attribute of broadcast service, our goal in this proceeding has been to
preserve existing service at, and provide greater opportunity for new service to, rural areas and smaller
communities. We believe our approach strikes an appropriate balance between encouraging the goals of
localism, allowing an applicant to propose to provide a chosen community with an outlet for expression,
and the economic reality that a broadcaster will and must also provide for the needs and interests of its
entire service area, of which the designated community of license may constitute a very small percentage.
The record and our experience has shown this problem to be most acute in the case of applications for
new and relocated radio service in and near urbanized areas. Accordingly, we limited the UASP to
situations in which a station is located in or will cover most of an urbanized area, rather than any situation
in which a proposed station’s service area might include communities more populous than the specified
community of license. Although Clay believes that our new procedures are not optimal, we believe that
they will promote the Commission’s goals under Section 307(b) in a reasonable manner.76
70 See Pacific Broadcasting, 19 FCC Rcd at 19056-57 and cases cited therein. Given that the Radio One Petition did
not constitute notice to applicants of the exact nature of any clarifications of procedure, however, we shall allow
parties with pending change of community applications as of the release date of this order the option of either
amending their application showings to conform to the clarified procedures we announce here, or proceeding based
on the reception service counts in their already-filed technical showings.
71 The Clay Petition was opposed by EMF and Bryan Broadcasting Corporation, filing a joint Opposition.
Additionally, the Radio One Parties Comments in Response includes a brief opposition to the Clay Petition. See
Radio One Parties Comments in Response at 5-6.
72 Clay Petition at 2-3, 5-6.
73 Id. at 3-5.
74 Id. at 8 (emphasis in original). See also Clay Comments at 22-27.
75 Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2567 and n.54.
76 See AT&T Corp. v. FCC, 220 F.3d 607, 621 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (“As long as the agency’s interpretation is
reasonable, we uphold it ‘regardless whether there may be other reasonable, or even more reasonable, views.’”
quoting Serono Lab, Inc. v. Shalala, 158 F.3d 1313, 1321 (D.C. Cir. 1998)).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-12719.
Entravision, in its Petition for Reconsideration and/or Clarification, raises issues
concerning two aspects of the modified procedures. Entravision notes that we have not typically required
a Tuck showing for community of license change applications where both the current and the proposed
communities of license are located in the same urbanized area,77 and asks that we clarify whether the
UASP will apply, and a Tuck showing be required, in such situations in the future. We clarify that
applicants will not be required to submit Tuck showings where both the current and proposed
communities are located in the same urbanized area, or the current facilities cover, and the proposed
facilities would or could be modified to cover, more than 50 percent of the same urbanized area with a
daytime principal community signal. However, in such community of license change cases, the UASP
presumption would apply to the new community, i.e., would presumptively prohibit treating the service at
the new community as a first local transmission service under Priority (3). Thus, an applicant proposing
such an intra-urbanized area move may not claim a Priority (3) preference, unless it also makes a showing
to rebut the UASP. Absent such a showing, the applicant must claim a preference under Priority (4),
other public interest matters, by demonstrating from which of the two communities the station would
provide service to a greater area and population within the urbanized area.78
Entravision and M&M also seek changes in the categories of cases subject to the new
procedures.79 In the Second R&O, we stated that the new procedures would apply to all pending
applications and allotment rulemaking proceedings, with two exceptions. The first was AM Auction 84
applications, which were filed in 2004 and the majority of which have been processed under the prior
procedures.80 The second was “any non-final FM allotment proceeding, including ‘hybrid’ coordinated
application/allotment proceedings, in which the Commission has modified a radio station license or
granted a construction permit.”81 M&M argues that the same equities we articulated to exempt these two
categories should apply equally to pending community of license change applications, especially those in
which other stations were required to make facility modifications.82 It concludes that our decision to
apply the new procedures to pending community of license change applications is arbitrary and capricious
because we did not treat the “similarly situated” new AM applications and FM allotment proceedings the
same.83 Entravision, for its part, suggests that we apply the prior procedures to any case in which there
has been an “initial decision” as of March 2, 2011, the day before release of the Second R&O, even if the
action is not final (i.e., if there is a pending petition for reconsideration or application for review).84
77 See East Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Frazier Park, California, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 2864, 2868
78 See, e.g., Gearhart, Madras, Manzanita, and Seaside, Oregon, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 10259 (MB 2011).
79 See also EMF/Frandsen Petition at 9.
80 Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2575.
81 Id. at 2576.
82 M&M Petition for Partial Reconsideration (“M&M Petition”) at 2-3. M&M points in particular to its own
application, File No. BPH-20091211AFR, which it asserts has been pending for nearly one and one-half years.
83 Id. at 4.
84 Entravision Petition at 2-3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-12721.
As we stated in the Second R&O, it is well settled that we may apply modified rules and
procedures to applications that are pending at the time of rule modification.85 Moreover, we question
whether applicants proposing community of license modification are “similarly situated” to those two
classes of applicants, permittees, and licensees that were exempted from the new policy. In the case of
AM Auction 84 filing window applicants in particular, those applicants were required to file their
applications during a filing window that antedated the Rural NPRM by over five years.86
applicants therefore had no reason to expect that their applications would be evaluated under a new
Section 307(b) standard. We recognize, however, that the same equities apply to those few pending
community of license change applicants, and petitioners seeking to amend the FM Table of Allotments,
that filed their applications or rulemaking petitions before release of the Rural NPRM. For this reason, on
reconsideration we determine that the new procedures should not apply to (1) applications for minor
modification of a station to specify a new community of license filed before April 20, 2009, the release
date of the Rural NPRM; or (2) FM allotment proceedings where the petition for rulemaking had been
filed, and the rulemaking proceeding thus initiated, prior to the release date of the Rural NPRM.
Entravision, in its Petition, states that the Commission did not “precisely answer the
question” as to those cases to which the new Section 307(b) procedures would apply.87 Both Entravision
and M&M suggest we establish a “bright line” to clarify the cases to which the new rules apply, and
would draw that line as of the release date of the Second R&O.88 Entravision requests that we continue to
apply the prior Section 307(b) procedures in any instance in which the Commission had rendered a
decision as of March 2, 2011, even if there is still a petition for reconsideration or application for review
pending.89 It urges this as an equitable solution that will keep parties from having to expend further time
and resources revising their Section 307(b) showings after having already obtained a favorable result from
the Commission under pre-Second R&O procedures.90 M&M goes a step further, requesting that we only
apply the new procedures to community of license change applications filed after release of the Second
We disagree with Entravision that the Commission was unclear, in the Second R&O, as to
when the new procedures would apply, and further disagree with M&M that all pending community of
license change applications are “similarly situated” to the categories of cases the Commission exempted
from the new procedures. As discussed above, the majority of pending community of license change
applications were filed after release of the Rural NPRM, and thus were on notice that the procedures
could change while their applications were pending.92
The Commission further carved out a limited
85 Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2576, citing Review of the Pioneer’s Preference Rules, First Report and Order, 9
FCC Rcd 605, 610 n.24 (1994).
86 The AM Auction 84 filing window was open from January 26 – 30, 2004.
87 Entravision Petition at 2.
88 Id.; M&M Petition at 5.
89 Entravision Petition at 2.
90 Id. at 2-3.
91 M&M Petition at 5.
92 For example, Truth Broadcasting Corporation (“Truth Broadcasting”), in its January 17, 2012, Reply Comments
in Response to [Radio One Comments in Response] (“Truth Reply Comments”), complains that its application for a
change in community of license of station KTIA-FM, File No. BPH-20100126AGR, should not be subject to the
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-127exception to the new procedures in FM allotment and hybrid proceedings where licenses were modified
or construction permits granted, based in part on the difficulty and expense of “unwinding” actions taken
subsequent to, and in reliance upon, such license modifications or authorization grants.93 To the extent
that similar equities may exist in the case of certain pending community of license change applications –
where, for example, the modification is contingent on a modification to another facility that cannot easily
be undone due to subsequent actions by other licensees – we will entertain requests for waiver of the
revised procedures on a case-by-case basis. We reject M&M’s attempt to analogize those pending
community of license change applications without such equities, however, and therefore reject M&M’s
request to apply the prior procedures to all such applications pending as of release of the Second R&O.
We are more persuaded, however, by Entravision’s equitable argument. One can
envision a situation in which, for example, two applications for change of community of license were
granted on the same day, but one would become final under the pre-Second R&O procedures while the
other would be subject to the new procedures merely because of a factor beyond the applicant’s control,
i.e., the filing of a petition for reconsideration or application for review of the application grant. There
seems no principled reason to apply different procedures to such otherwise similarly situated applications,
especially where, as Entravision notes, any applicant facing reconsideration or review would have to go to
the additional expense of revising its (previously successful) Section 307(b) showing, above and beyond
the expense of rebutting a reconsideration petition. We therefore, on reconsideration, revise our
determination as to the application of the new procedures. In addition to those categories of applications
and rulemaking proceedings listed in paragraph 21, above, and in the Second R&O,94 the revised Section
307(b) procedures shall not apply to any pending community of license change application or FM
allotment proceeding in which a decision on the application, or allotment Report and Order, was released
prior to March 3, 2011, the release date of the Second R&O. We therefore grant the Entravision Petition
to the extent set forth herein, and deny the M&M Petition.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES25.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i),
303, 307, and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 307, and
309(j), that this Second Order on Reconsideration IS ADOPTED.
(Continued from previous page)
new procedures because “it was filed with the FCC fourteen months prior to the Commission’s adoption [of the
Second R&O].” Truth Reply Comments at 2. However, its January 26, 2010, application was filed nine months
after the Rural NPRM proposing the new procedures was released on April 20, 2009. Accordingly, the Media
Bureau applied the new procedures to Truth Broadcasting’s application, requesting further information to rebut the
UASP. James P. Riley, Esq., Letter, 27 FCC Rcd 169 (MB 2012).
93 Id. at 2576.
94 Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2575-76.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-12726.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration & Comments
Regarding the Following Matter, filed by Anthony V. Bono, Friendship Broadcasting, LLC; the Petition
for Partial Reconsideration, filed by William B. Clay; the Petition for Partial Reconsideration, filed by
M&M Broadcasters, Ltd.; and the Petition for Reconsideration, filed by Educational Media Foundation
and the Kent Frandsen Radio Companies, ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition
for Reconsideration and/or Clarification, filed by Entravision Communications Corporation; and the
Petition for Partial Reconsideration, filed by Radio One, Inc., et al., ARE GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-127
Parties Filing Petitions for Reconsideration, Oppositions, and Replies
Parties Filing Petitions for Reconsideration or Partial ReconsiderationAnthony V. Bono, Friendship Broadcasting, LLC
Entravision Communications Corporation
William B. Clay
M&M Broadcasters, Ltd.
Radio One, Inc.; Minority Media and Telecommunications Council; Ace Radio Corporation; Magnolia
Radio Corporation; Auburn Network, Inc.; Chisholm Trail Broadcasting Co.; Communications
Technologies, Inc.; Radio K-T, Inc.; Great South Wireless, LLC; Brantley Broadcast Associates, LLC;
RAMS; Skytower Communications – E’town, Inc.; Heritage Communications, Inc.; Anderson
Associates; Holladay Broadcasting of Louisiana; Alatron Corp., Inc.; Legend Communications of
Wyoming, LLC; Border Media Business Trust; Music Ministries, Inc.; Mullaney Engineering, Inc.;
Mattox Broadcasting, Inc.; Multicultural Radio Broadcasting Licenses, LLC; Way Broadcasting
Licensee, LLC; Mississippi Broadcasters, LLC; Scott Communications, Inc.; Alexander Broadcasting
Company, LLC; Jackson Radio, LLC; Radiotechniques Engineering LLC; Signal Ventures LLC;
Wagon Wheel Broadcasting, LLC; WRNJ, Inc.; Dot Com Plus LLC; Independence Broadcast Services;
Provident Broadcasting Company, Inc.; Radio Training Network, Inc.; Sacred Heart University, Inc.;
Horizon Broadcast Solutions; The Ridgefield Broadcasting Corp.; Westport Broadcasting; Radio New
England Broadcasting, LLC; Flinn Broadcasting Corporation; Arlington Broadcast Company; Memphis
First Ventures, LP; First Ventures Capital Partners, Inc.; and Autaugaville Broadcasting, Inc. (“Radio
Educational Media Foundation and the Kent Frandsen Radio Companies
Parties Filing Oppositions to Petitionsdu Treil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc. (Technical Statement – Comments to Petitions for Reconsideration)
Radio One Parties (Comments in Response to Petitions for Reconsideration)
Educational Media Foundation and Bryan Broadcasting Corporation
Parties Filing RepliesWilliam B. Clay (2)
Truth Broadcasting Corporation
Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.