$// Amendment Section 73.202(b), Lafayette, La. MM 90-550 FCC 95-
91 //$
$/ 1.106 Petitions for Reconsideration /$



///newjob///
$///FCC 95-91,3/17/95///$




                           Before the                FCC 95-91
                     Federal Communications Commission
                          Washington, D.C. 20554

                                                  

                               
In the Matter of 

                                        MM Docket No. 90-550

Amendment of Section 73.202(b),         RM-7345
Table of Allotments,
FM Broadcast Stations.
(Lafayette, Louisiana)



                       MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted: February 28, 1995;   Released: March 22, 1995


By the Commission:


     1.  Before the Commission is a Petition for Reconsideration
filed by C.R. Crisler, d/b/a/ Crisler Communications, of the Mass
Media Bureau's Report and Order substituting Channel 238C2 for
Channel 238A, Lafayette, Louisiana, at the request of the
permittee for that channel, Lafayette FM Joint Venture.  For the
reasons set forth below, we deny Crisler's petition.

                                BACKGROUND

     2.  We have set forth Crisler's involvement in the licensing
of Channel 238 to Lafayette FM in our Memorandum Opinion and
Order in MM Docket 87-449 that we adopted today.  Briefly stated,
Crisler was among seventeen applicants to construct an FM station
in Lafayette.  His application was dismissed because he failed to
pay the hearing fee and his request for waiver of the fee was
denied.  He failed to seek either reconsideration or Commission
review of the dismissal of his application or the denial of the
fee waiver in a timely manner.  Accordingly, his right to pursue
his application lapsed.  He nonetheless thereafter filed various
petitions for reconsideration seeking to forestall the grant of
the construction permit.

     3.   In the meantime, the remaining parties to the licensing
proceeding reached a settlement by which the construction permit
was granted to Lafayette FM Joint Venture.  After its
construction permit was granted, Lafayette FM requested that its
channel be upgraded, initiating the proceeding now before us. 
Crisler opposed the request.  He made no claim that the upgrade
was technically deficient in any way.  Rather, he claimed that
action on the upgrade was precluded by the pendency of his
various challenges to the Commission's licensing decisions. 

     4.  The Bureau found that the matters Crisler raised did not
prevent favorable action and that there were no technical
impediments to a grant of the request.  Report and Order, 7 FCC
Rcd at 6255 n.1.  Accordingly, the Bureau granted the upgrade by
amending the Table of Allotments and conditionally modifying
Lafayette FM's construction permit.  Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd
at 6255 paras. 3-4.

     5.  Crisler has now petitioned for reconsideration of that
action.  Once again, he does not object on any technical grounds
to the upgrade of the channel.  Rather, he asserts that Lafayette
FM's construction permit may not be modified because of the
alleged pendency of the comparative proceeding.  Lafayette FM has
opposed the petition for reconsideration, and Crisler has
replied.

                                DISCUSSION

     6.   Crisler reasserts his claim that the Commission should
not proceed with the licensing of the FM channel so long as the
issues concerning his status as an applicant are unresolved, and
he incorporates by reference his earlier challenge to the
qualifications of Lafayette FM Joint Venture.  However, Docket
No. 90-550 is a frequency allocation rulemaking, not a licensing
proceeding.  The objections he seeks to raise are not cognizable
under the Commission's FM allocation rules or policy, and Crisler
fails to explain why, as an allocations matter, the Lafayette
channel should not be upgraded.  As mentioned, Crisler himself
once sought the upgrade.  See note 3 supra.  

     7.   Crisler had a full opportunity as a competing applicant
and as a private citizen to raise the licensing issues, but he
forfeited that opportunity by failing to adhere to the
Commission's procedural rules, as described in our companion
Order in MM Docket 87-449.  Moreover, to the extent that Crisler
is trying to assert his rights as a competing applicant, that
effort is moot because he is no longer an applicant.  

     8.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED That the Petition for
Reconsideration filed by C.R. Crisler IS DENIED.  

     9.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS
TERMINATED.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              William F. Caton
                              Acting Secretary