Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Truth Broadcasting Corp. Boone, Iowa

Download Options

Released: October 11, 2012

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

October 11, 2012

DA 12-1622

In Reply Refer to:
Released: October 11, 2012
James P. Riley, Esq.
Fletcher, Heald and Hildreth
1300 N. 17th Street, 11th Floor
Arlington, VA 22209

Boone, Iowa
Facility ID Number: 6417
File No: BPH-20100126AGR
Dear Counsel:
This letter refers to the above-captioned minor change application (the “Application”) of Truth
Broadcasting Corp. (“Truth Broadcasting”), licensee of Station KTIA-FM, Channel 257A, Boone, Iowa.
The application proposes a city of license modification for Station KTIA-FM from Boone, Iowa, to
Johnston, Iowa. Des Moines Community Radio Foundation (“Community Radio”), licensee of Station
KFMG-LP, filed an Informal Objection.1 For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the Application.


The Application was filed pursuant to Section 73.3573(g) of the Commission’s Rules,2
which sets forth the requirements for modification of an FM Station license to specify a new community of
license without providing an opportunity for competing expressions of interest. Among other
requirements, an application for such a minor modification must demonstrate that the proposed change of
community constitutes a preferential arrangement of allotments in comparison to its current service.3 We
make this determination using the FM allotment priorities set forth in Revision of FM Assignment Policies
and Procedures.4
In its Application, Truth Broadcasting claimed that its proposal satisfies allotment Priority 3 because it
would provide a first local service to Johnston, Iowa. Johnston is adjacent to the Des Moines Urbanized
Area, and Station KTIA-FM would provide service to 78.5 percent of the Des Moines Urbanized Area
(“UA”). In situations such as this, where an application proposes a relocation under which the station
would or could serve at least 50 percent of an urbanized area, the Commission has established a rebuttable
presumption that the application should be treated as a proposal to serve the urbanized area rather the

1 There were also numerous Informal Objections filed against the proposed Johnston city of license modification by
local residents of Des Moines.
2 47 C.F.R. § 73.3573(g).
3 See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License (“Community of License”),
Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd
7094 (1990) (“Community of License Reconsideration Order”).
4 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).

named community of license.5 Accordingly, on January 6, 2012, the staff sent Truth Broadcasting a letter
requesting additional information to rebut the urbanized area presumption.6
On March 22, 2012, Truth Broadcasting submitted an amendment (“Amendment”) to its Application.
In its Amendment, Truth Broadcasting contends that the proposed move should be approved because it
constitutes a move from one urbanized area to another. Truth Broadcasting presents engineering evidence
purporting to show that, although Station KTIA-FM at Boone, Iowa, does not provide service to any
portion of any urbanized area, it would nonetheless be possible to relocate the station’s transmitter site to
provide service to more than fifty percent of the Ames, Iowa, Urbanized Area while also satisfying
community coverage requirements at Boone. Citing two recent decisions,7 Truth Broadcasting contends
that the rebuttable presumption established by the Commission in Rural Radio should be applied to KTIA-
FM’s current community of Boone. Applying the presumption, Truth Broadcasting states that KTIA-FM
at Boone should be characterized as currently serving the Ames Urbanized Area. Truth Broadcasting thus
concludes that the change of community proposed in its application would constitute a permissible move
within an Urbanized Area.


Truth Broadcasting’s reliance upon our recent decisions in Gearhart and Goleta is
misplaced. Those cases are distinguishable on their facts. Gearhart involved a relocation from one
community to another within the same Urbanized Area.8 Goleta involved both an intra-Urbanized Area
move and a second relocation from one Urbanized Area to another.9 Each of the licensed and proposed
communities is located in Urbanized Areas. The Urbanized Area service presumption is not relevant in
any of these contexts.

5 See Policies to Promote Rural Radio Service and to Streamline Allotment an Assignment Procedures (“Rural
, Second Report and Order, First Order On Reconsideration, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making, 26 FCC Rcd 2556, 2567 (2011), pet. for recon. pending (“Second R&O”)). The Commission further
provided that this presumption may be rebutted by a compelling showing of the independence of the community
from the urbanized area, the community’s specific need for an outlet for local expression, and the ability of the
proposed station to provide that outlet. Id. at 2572.
6 See Boone, Iowa, Letter from Peter H. Doyle to James P. Riley, 27 FCC Rcd 169 (MB 2012) (“Deficiency
7 See Gearhart, Oregon, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 10259 (MB 2011) (“Gearhart”), and Goleta, California,
Letter from Peter H. Doyle to Mark N. Lipp, 26 FCC Rcd 12496 (MB 2011) (“Goleta”).
8 In Gearhart, both the current and proposed community (Tualatin, Oregon, and Aloha, Oregon, respectively) are
located within the Portland, Oregon, Urbanized Area, and no change in transmitter site was proposed. Historically,
when a station proposes to move from one community inside an urbanized area to another community in the same
urbanized area, we have not required a Tuck showing to demonstrate independence of the proposed community of
license. See East Los Angeles, California, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 2864 (MMB 1995) (“East Los Angeles”)
(“first local service preference is not being used as a basis to enter the market”). See also Fishers, Indiana,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 2612 (MB 2009); Tullahoma, Tennessee, Report and Order, 19 FCC
Rcd 11000 (MB 2004), and Boulder, Colorado, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 583 (MMB 1997).
9 In Goleta, Station KRUZ(FM) was moving to Goleta from Santa Barbara. Both communities are located within the
Santa Barbara Urbanized Area, to which the station already provided 100 percent coverage, and no change in
transmitter site was proposed. Under East Los Angeles, no Tuck showing was necessary for that intra-urbanized area
move. The applicant also proposed to move Station KRRF(FM) from Goleta to Oak View, California, which is
within the Oxnard Urbanized Area. This move from one urbanized area to another also did not require a Tuck
showing. See Bon Air, Virginia, Second Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 6309 (MMB 1992).

Unlike the circumstances of Gearhart and Goleta, the move-out community, Boone, is located outside
any urbanized area and Station KTIA-FM does not currently provide service to any portion of an urbanized
area. In Rural Radio, the Commission emphasizes that the “would or could” showing that triggers the
service presumption applies only to proposed or potential service to the new community.10 The
Commission neither specifies nor suggests that the “would or could” test should be applied to the move-
out community. To the contrary, the Commission explicitly states that “the applicant must demonstrate
that the facility at the new community represents a preferential arrangement of allotments … over the
current facility
[emphasis added].”11 The use of the “would or could” standard for a proposal to relocate
at a new community of license is designed to prevent manipulation aimed at moving into more lucrative
urban markets,12 thereby promoting the goal of Section 307(b), “to ‘forestall’ the excessive concentration
of radio service in larger cities.”13 That concern is not, however relevant when analyzing existing service at
a move-out community. Accordingly, we decline to apply the Commission’s rebuttable presumption to
Boone, Iowa, based on the showing provided by Truth Broadcasting.
Analyzing the proposed move under Priority 4, “other public interest matters,” we affirm our tentative
conclusion that the public interest would be better served by retention of Station KTIA-FM as a fourth
transmission service at Boone, Iowa, rather than by the addition of at least a 17th local service to the Des
Moines Urbanized Area.


In view of the above, IT IS ORDERED that the application for change of community
submitted by Truth Broadcasting Corp., File No. BPH-20100126AGR, IS DISMISSED. In addition, IT IS
ORDERED that the Informal Objection filed by Des Moines Community Radio Foundation IS
DISMISSED as moot.
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau

10 Second R&O at 2567 (“when the community proposed is located in an urbanized area or could, through a minor
modification application, cover more than 50 percent of an urbanized area, we will treat the application, for Section
307(b) purposes, as proposing service to the entire urbanized area [emphasis added]”) and at 2571 (“First, the
presumption will apply to all proposals in which the community of license is located within the urbanized area.
Second, it applies to all proposals that could or would provide service to fifty percent of more of an urbanized area
[emphasis added]”).
11 Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2566.
12 In proposing the “would or could” test, the Commission expresses its intention “to ensure that applicants claiming
preference under Priority (3) are not using the streamlined [change of community] procedures as a way of relocating
from smaller communities to large urbanized areas, under the guise of providing first local transmission service to a
smaller community in or adjacent to an Urbanized Area.” Rural Radio, NPRM at 5247. See also Second R&O, 26
FCC Rcd at 2563.
13 Id. at 2568.

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.


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.