WPC 2BJ Z Courier#|x2x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oe@26HZXCourier New (TT)#|xHP LaserJet 4/4MtScript ROOM 224HPLAS4.WRSSx  @,,P@X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:CG TimesCG Times BoldC X    $// Amendment Section 73.202(b), Lafayette, La. MM 90550 FCC 9591 //$ $/ 1.106 Petitions for Reconsideration /$ ///newjob/// $///FCC 9591,3/17/95///$ Before the FCC 9591 0 Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554  In the Matter of MM Docket No. 90550  ?<Amendment of Section 73.202(b),hppRM7345 Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations. (Lafayette, Louisiana) \ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER  ?<Adopted: February 28, 1995;@Released: March 22, 1995 By the Commission:  ?x<x1. 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@ ~ ?`"<ԍ 7 FCC Rcd 6255 (1992).@ substituting Channel 238C2 for Channel 238A, Lafayette, Louisiana, at the request of the  ?!<permittee for that channel, Lafayette FM Joint Venture.!X~ ?%<ԍ Pursuant to Rule 1.106(a)(1), this matter has been referred by the Bureau to the Commission. For the reasons set forth below, we deny Crisler's petition. ,BACKGROUND  ?%<x2. We have set forth Crisler's involvement in the licensing  ?H&<of Channel 238 to Lafayette FM in our Memorandum Opinion and  ?'<Order in MM Docket 87449 that we adopted today. Briefly stated,"',,,XX." 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. x3. 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  C@was technically deficient in any way.! C@ԍ` ` Indeed, Crisler himself had earlier sought the upgrade in the course of the comparative proceeding, but his request was premature. The Commission declined to change the channel allotment while the application proceeding was still pending because if the allotment were upgraded at that time, all the applicants would have been required to amend their applications  ? @with attendant complications and delay. Amendment of Section  ? @73.202(b), Table of Allotments (Lafayette, Louisiana), 4 FCC Rcd  ?L @5073, 5075 para. 17 (1989), aff'd sub nom. Crisler v. FCC, 919 F.2d 182 (D.C. Cir. 1990)(table). Rather, he claimed that action on the upgrade was precluded by the pendency of his various challenges to the Commission's licensing decisions. x4. The Bureau found that the matters Crisler raised did not prevent favorable action and that there were no technical  ?d @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. 34. x5. 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 x6. 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. 90550 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.  ?D@x7.` ` Crisler had a full opportunity as a competing applicant and as a private citizen to raise the licensing issues, but he" d ,** )" forfeited that opportunity by failing to adhere to the Commission's procedural rules, as described in our companion Order in MM Docket 87449. 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. x8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED That the Petition for Reconsideration filed by C.R. Crisler IS DENIED. x9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@William F. Caton x` `  hh@Acting Secretary