WPC  2EB;U@Z3|x'T) yO-#C\  P6QP#"5@^.7O]]x(77Aa.7..]]]]]]]]]]77aaafxxxxofx.]xfxoxofxooof7.7a]7]f]f]7ff..].ffffA]7f]]]SA/Aa.7777CE7\fx]x]x]x]x]x]o]o]o]o]........xfffffxfxfxfxfo]x]xfffo]xfofx]x]x]x]x]x]o]o]o]ffffxfxfCf7f77.f]x]f.fExfxffxAxEo]o]N:.]]7f]]]]]>=]7{{]7..SS]77]].S77t7\[[\aee*C`a.wR]]n[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}.7O]]x(77Aa.7..]]]]]]]]]]77aaafxxxxofx.]xfxoxofxooof7.7a]7]f]f]7ff..].ffffA]7f]]]SA/Aa}}}.]S]]7o7}}}}..SS:]7]7}}o.7]]]]/]7{>]a7{\C\777`].77=]fxxxxxxxoooo....xxaxxxxoof]]]]]]]]]]]....fffffff\fffff]fHP LaserJet 4/4MtScript ROOM 224HPLAS4.WRSSP2p NQ,,P2s ;w)@X yO-#C\  P6QP#Arial (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (TT)"5@^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSS>#'P8.XP2p NQy.C8*XC\  P6QP.Current Windows Form'3 a6~9nnnXN2@2D  Z   + 3|x'HP LaserJet 4/4MtScript ROOM 224HPLAS4.WRSSx  @,,PX@Courier New (TT)Courier New (Bold) (TT)2Xv R ?xxxX/Xx6X@DQX@6?xxxXXx `NQXR&HHHX,hH6X@DQh@ _ylx^   Њ$// R. Donnie Goodale, Lenoir, NC, MO&O, FCC 94333 //$ $/ 1/106 Petition for Reconsideration, Denied /$ $/ 73.3573(g) FM "Hard Look" Rules, Procedural /$ ///newjob/// $///FCC 94333 123094///$  ?<[ Before The  ?<c FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 94333  ?x<  Washington, D.C. 20554 Đ(#\  ?<#x6X@`7/X@#  ?<In re Application ofhhCq) ` `  hhCq)  ?` <R. DONNIE GOODALEhhCq)File No. BPH890615MF ` `  hhCq)  ? <For Construction Permit For Aq) New FM Station on Channel 277A)  ? <Lenoir, North CarolinahhCq)  ?< #x `7X#MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER \  ?<#x6X@`7/X@# Adopted: December 22, 1994;qReleased: January 6 %R , 1995  ?0<By the Commission: 1. The Commission has under consideration the petition for reconsideration filed on December 22, 1992 by R. Donnie Goodale ("Goodale"). 2. Previously, the staff dismissed Goodale's abovecaptioned application pursuant to the FM "hard look" processing  ?p<rulesY pv ?< d(#<ԍProcessing of FM and TV Broadcast Applications, 50 Fed. Reg.  ?< d(#<19936 (May 13, 1985), recon. denied, 50 Fed. Reg. 43157 (October  ?X< d(#x<25, 1985), aff'd sub nom. Hilding v. FCC, 835 F.2d 1435 (9th Cir. 1987)(table).Y because Goodale had provided inconsistent geographic coordinates for his proposed transmitter site and that inconsistency could not be resolved confidently and reliably by  ?<information available in the application. Sundown  ?<Communications, 5 FCC Rcd 7079 (MM Bur. 1990). On December 31, 1990, Goodale filed a petition for reconsideration of the dismissal. That petition, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  1.104(b), was  ?<referred to the Commission and was denied. R. Donnie Goodale, 7  ?<FCC Rcd 1495 (1992) ("Goodale I"). On March 23, 1992, Goodale filed a petition for reconsideration of that action with the  ?@<Commission. Again, reconsideration was denied. R. Donnie  ? <Goodale, 7 FCC Rcd 7672 (1992) ("Goodale II").  ?!< 3. In the instant petition for reconsideration, Goodale  ?`"<cites National Family Planning v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 227 (D.C. Cir. 1992), a court decision decided the day after the Commission  ?#<adopted Goodale II. That decision, Goodale contends, "strongly suggests" that the Commission erred in adopting the FM "hard"$0*0*0*," look" processing rules without first undertaking a notice and  ?<comment rulemaking. 4. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently held that challenges to the "procedural lineage" of the "hard look" rules are governed by the sixtyday period  ?<provision in 28 U.S.C.  2344 (1988). JEM Broadcasting Company,  ?x<Inc. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 325326 (D.C. Cir. 1994), aff'g JEM  ?@<Broadcasting Company, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 77 (1992). @sY ?<ԍ28 U.S.C.  2344 (1988) provides that any party "aggrieved" by a "final [agency] order may, within 60 days after its entry, file a petition to review the order in the court of appeals wherein venue lies." Thus we reject Goodale's procedural argument concerning the 1985 "hard look"  ?<rules as untimely.xsY ?<ԍThe "hard look" rules became effective on June 12, 1985. 50 Fed. Reg. at 19936.x In any event, as the court in JEM also held, the "hard look" rules are procedural in nature and were properly  ?` <adopted without a notice and comment rulemaking. 22 F.3d at 326 ?( <328. Moreover, the National Family Planning case, cited by Goodale, is inapposite because it does not concern procedural rules. Rather, it concerns the distinction between legislative and interpretative rules, a distinction not pertinent here.  ? < 5. Goodale's remaining arguments repeat contentions which  ? <he made and which we rejected in Goodale I and Goodale II and  ?H <therefore do not warrant reconsideration. See WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC  ?<685 (1965), aff'd sub nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d  ?<824 (D.C. Cir. 1965); Fresno FM Ltd. P'ship, 7 FCC Rcd 4339 (1992). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That the petition for reconsideration filed on December 22, 1992 by R. Donnie Goodale IS DENIED.   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary