Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

KBRS(FM), Belle Rose, Louisiana Reconsideration Denied.

Download Options

Released: May 6, 2014

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

May 6, 2014
DA 14-616
In Reply Refer to:
1800B3-DD/NS
Evan Carb, Esq.
Law Offices of Evan D. Carb, PLLC
1200 New Hampshire Ave., N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20036
Aaron P. Shainis, Esq.
Shainis & Peltzman, Chartered
1850 M Street, N.W., Suite 240
Washington, D.C. 20036

Re: KBRS(FM), Belle Rose, Louisiana
Facility ID No: 190402
File No: BNPH-20120515ABA
Petition for Reconsideration
Dear Counsel:
This letter addresses the January 7, 2013, petition for reconsideration (the “Petition”), submitted
by Guaranty Broadcasting Company of Baton Rouge, LLC1 (“Guaranty”) regarding of the grant of the
above-referenced new station application (the “Application”) of Alex Media Inc. (“Alex Media”), at
Belle Rose, Louisiana.2 Alex Media submitted an Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration (the
“Opposition”).3 For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the Petition.

Background.

Alex Media was the winning bidder in Auction 93 for Channel 295C3 at Franklin,
Louisiana. To implement its winning bid, the Application requested a channel downgrade and change of
community of license, from Channel 295C3 at Franklin to Channel 295A at Belle Rose, Louisiana, as the
community’s first local service.
Guaranty submitted an Informal Objection4 to the Application. Although Guaranty conceded that
grant of the Application would not allow the new station to provide service to the majority of the Baton
Rouge Urbanized Area (“UA”), it argued that the station could later relocate its transmitter site to an area
from which a majority of the UA could be served. Guaranty contended that Alex Media’s true intention


1 Guaranty is the licensee of radio stations WDGL(FM) and WTGE(FM), Baton Rouge, Louisiana; WBRP(FM),
Baker, Louisiana; KYPY(FM), Donaldsonville, Louisiana; and WNXX(FM), Jackson, Louisiana. In its initial filing
in this proceeding, the Informal Objection, Guaranty stated that all of these stations serve the Baton Rouge radio
market, and that they would be competitors to the new proposed Belle Rose station. Guaranty further stated that
these stations would be affected adversely by grant of the Application.
2 See Letter to Evan Carb, Esq., and Aaron P. Shainis, Esq., from Nazifa Sawez (Dec. 4, 2012) (“Letter Decision”).
3 The Opposition was filed on January 18, 2013.
4 Comments and Opposition (Aug. 12, 2012) (“Informal Objection”).

is to serve the Baton Rouge UA, and that the Application is inconsistent with the policy goals of Rural
Radio
.5 Guaranty further criticized the Application for failure to demonstrate that Belle Rose is
independent from the Baton Rouge UA or that Belle Rose satisfies any of the Tuck factors.6
On December 4, 2012, the staff denied the Informal Objection and granted the Application under
Priority 3, finding that a first local service to Belle Rose is preferred over a potential second local service
at Franklin.7 The staff noted that the urbanized area service presumption (“UASP”) would not apply to
the Application, and there were no rule-compliant transmitter sites available from which the new FM
station could be modified to cover fifty percent or more of the Baton Rouge UA. 8
In its Petition, Guaranty reiterates its claim that the Application is an attempt to “manipulate the
Commission’s processes” in order to serve “the more lucrative market of Baton Rouge.” Guaranty again
states that the station should not be considered a first local service at Belle Rose,9 arguing that Alex
Media could relocate its transmitter site to serve a majority of the Baton Rouge UA.10 In the alternative,
Guaranty argues that, even if the station could not cover fifty percent of the Baton Rouge UA, “the
proposal nonetheless should be treated as one to serve the urbanized area rather than the specified
community of license,” if the majority of the proposed principal community contour would be within the
urbanized area.11 Guaranty urges us to reconsider the Letter Decision and rescind our grant of the
Application.
In its Opposition, Alex Media contends that the Petition should be dismissed without
consideration pursuant to Section 1.106(p),12 because it relies on arguments that were fully considered
and rejected in the Letter Decision. Alex Media points out, as it did in the initial proceedings, that
Guaranty does not refute the engineering analysis of Alex Media and the independent evaluation by
Commission staff, both of which showed that the there is no available tower from which the new station
could cover fifty percent or more of the Baton Rouge UA, while maintaining the required city-grade
coverage at Belle Rose. Finally, Alex Media notes that the Petition fails to demonstrate error in our
conclusion that the Application satisfies Priority 3 of the allotment priorities.


5 Policies to Promote Rural Radio Service and to Streamline Allotment and Assignment Procedures, Second Report
and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 2556 (2011), and Second Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 12829 (2012) (“Rural
Radio
”).
6 Faye and Richard Tuck, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 5374 (1978) (“Tuck”) (establishing
eight factors to determine whether a suburban community is independent of a nearby central city).
7 Letter Decision at 3. See also Revision of FM Assignment Policies and Procedures, Second Report and Order, 90
FCC 2d 88 (1982). The FM allotment priorities are: (1) First fulltime aural service, (2) Second fulltime aural service,
(3) First local service, and (4) Other public interest matters. Co-equal weight is given to Priorities (2) and (3).
8 Under the UASP adopted by the Commission in Rural Radio, a facility that would or could cover 50 percent or
more of an UA is presumed to serve the UA, rather than the named community of license. Rural Radio, Second
Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 2572, ¶ 30.
9 See Informal Objection at 4 and Petition at 4.
10 See Informal Objection at 3-4 and 6, and Petition at 3-4 and 6.
11 See Informal Objection at 5 and Petition at 5, both citing Rural Radio, 26 FCC Rcd at 2572, n.78.
12 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(p).
2

Discussion.

The Commission will consider a petition for reconsideration only when the petitioner
shows either a material error in the Commission's original order, or raises additional facts, not known or
existing at the time of the petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters.13 Guaranty has not met this
burden. Guaranty’s Petition merely repeats arguments raised in its Informal Objection. In fact, the text of
the Reconsideration Petition is essentially identical to the text of Guaranty’s Informal Objection.14
We will not further consider Guaranty’s arguments that the UASP should apply to the Application
and that Alex Media should be required to submit a Tuck showing. It is settled Commission policy that
petitions for reconsideration are not to be used for the mere re-argument of points previously advanced and
rejected.15 Accordingly, we decline to consider these arguments again. With respect to Guaranty’s claim
that the Application should be deemed a proposal to serve the Baton Rouge UA because the majority of the
principal community contour would cover the urbanized area, we hereby clarify our holding in one respect.
The Commission has stated that it would consider such challenges to an application or allotment under one
specific set of circumstances, i.e., where “the majority of a proposed station's contour … cover[s] part of
an urbanized area without … triggering the … presumption.”16 We disagree with Guaranty’s claim. Our
independent engineering analysis shows that only 2.5 percent of the principal community signal is within
the Baton Rouge UA. Guaranty presented neither evidence nor adequate and specific factual allegations
regarding the circumstances specified by the Commission.17 We therefore will not consider this argument
further.

Conclusion/Actions

. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED, that the
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Guaranty Broadcasting Company of Baton Rouge, LLC IS
DISMISSED.
Sincerely,
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau


13 See 47 C.F.R. sec. 1.106(c), (d). See also WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964),
aff'd sub nom. Lorain Journal Co. V. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C.Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 967 (1966).
14 Compare Petition at 2-7 with Informal Objection at 2-7.
15 See Regents of the University of California, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 12891, 12892 (WTB 2002) (“Regents”) (citing
Mandeville Broadcasting Corp. and Infinity Broadcasting of Los Angeles, Order, 3 FCC Rcd 1667 (1988)); and
M&M Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 5100 (1987).
16 See Rural Radio, 26 FCC Rcd at 2572, n.78.
17 See, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 193, 197 n.10 (1990), aff'd sub nom.
Garden State Broadcasting L.P. v. FCC
, 996 F.2d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rehearing denied (Sep. 10, 1993); Area
Christian Television, Inc.
, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 RR 2d 862, 864 (1986) (holding that informal
objection must contain adequate and specific factual allegations sufficient to warrant the relief requested).
3

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

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

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