WPC! 2HBEX@Z3|P (TT) yO-#X\  P6G;qP#"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[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 4/4Mom 565A_1 LPT2)HPLAS4.WRSSC\  P6Q,, vP2s Ez@X yO-#X\  P6G;-.P#Times New Roman (TT)Roman"5@^?(?SO_c(88?g(g(WOOOOOOOOOO((_g_GkOWSWSO[_,;WGc[WWWWOK_O_OSO888WO(OSKSK3KW,,S,WOSOCC;WG_OKG8 8_((((W,E(OWOOOOOOOOOOOwSKSKSKSKSK,,,,,,,,[WWOWOWOWO_W_W_W_W(KOOWSWOWOSKWOSSOOWWOOSKSKSKSKWWSK[K[O[[K[K_W_W,WWW,,,W;WSG,GE[W[WWW((WCWEOC((N((;S(GOOOS(OOOOKOOOOOO(((((((((((((((OOtOg[[GOee*,KO.wROOn[CfxKxWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((?(?SO_c(88?g(g(WOOOOOOOOOO((_g_GkOWSWSO[_,;WGc[WWWWOK_O_OSO888WO(OSKSK3KW,,S,WOSOCC;WG_OKG8 8_(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((KOOS,SWOOOOOOO,gOO(K;((OOOOOOGOOOOOOOSSSSS,,,,W[WWWWWOW____SSWOOOOOOwKKKKK,,,,OWOOOOOGOWWWWKSy.C8*XɄC\  P6QPxy.K8?XqK\  P@QPGT_@Tlv{SVU<wT=ȈWPCDLL2?BGDI SELECTOBJECTWPCSHAR1RXSELECTOBJECTKERNELUSERW20   @ 9 3|P݌"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[SSSSSSSTimes New Roman (TT)RomanTimes New Roman (Bold) (TT)2+ Zb  Z@HP LaserJet 4/4Mom 565A_1 LPT2)HPLAS4.WRSSC\  P6Q,, vP yO- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P6G;qP#y.C8*XC\  P6QPxy.K8?XqK\  P@QP7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.7UC2XxXU4  pQXW!0(X h0\  P6QhPI(!XI,(\  P6Q,P3YDBMFORCEPOPUPBUTJ:\ALLOCATE\PBLUMENT\LITTLE3WPCm 2"5@^?(?SO_c(88?g(g(WOOOOOOOOOO((_g_GkOWSWSO[_,;WGc[WWWWOK_O_OSO888WO(OSKSK3KW,,S,WOSOCC;WG_OKG8 8_((((W,E(OWOOOOOOOOOOOwSKSKSKSKSK,,,,,,,,[WWOWOWOWO_W_W_W_W(KOOWSWOWOSKWOSSOOWWOOSKSKSKSKWWSK[K[O[[K[K_W_W,WWW,,,W;WSG,GE[W[WWW((WCWEOC((N((;S(GOOOS(OOOOKOOOOOO(((((((((((((((OOtOg[[GOee*,KO.wROOn[CfxKxWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((?(?SO_c(88?g(g(WOOOOOOOOOO((_g_GkOWSWSO[_,;WGc[WWWWOK_O_OSO888WO(OSKSK3KW,,S,WOSOCC;WG_OKG8 8_(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((KOOS,SWOOOOOOO,gOO(K;((OOOOOOGOOOOOOOSSSSS,,,,W[WWWWWOW____SSWOOOOOOwKKKKK,,,,OWOOOOOGOWWWWKS2]!@]@@@"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddx6. Shubert filed comments opposing 21st Century's proposal and contends that Wolfforth  xshould not be awarded a first local service preference. He argues that Wolfforth is clearly  xinterdependent with Lubbock, which has a plethora of local broadcast outlets already. In this  xregard, he notes that the Commission has "consistently given little or no weight to claimed first  xLlocal service preferences if, given the facts and circumstances, the grant of a preference would  x[appear to allow an artificial or purely technical manipulation of the Commission's 307(b) related  X - xjpolicies" citing, Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM and TV  X - xAuthorizations to Specify a New Community of License ("Community of License R&O"), 4 FCC  X - xRcd 4870 (1989), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 7094, 7096 (1990) ("Community of License  X- xMO&O"). He contends that Wolfforth does not qualify as an independent community from the  Xy- x<Lubbock Urbanized Area using the factors for determining independence as enumerated in KFRC  Xb- xand Tuck. Shubert claims petitioner's proposed facility would place a l mV/m signal over the  xentirety of Lubbock. Second, Wolfforth is dwarfed by nearby Lubbock, a city almost one  xhundred times its size that is only three miles away. Shubert argues that Wolfforth is clearly an  xiintegral part of the Lubbock metropolitan area, noting that the community has no airport, hospital,  x[newspaper or local media that is distinct from Lubbock. He claims that Wolfforth's advertising  xmarket and political identity is indistinguishable from Lubbock. Shubert also advises that  xWolfforth city employees confirmed that at least half of its residents commute to Lubbock, that  xthere are not intracity transportation services, and commercial bus lines do not pick up passengers  xin Wolfforth. In contrast, Shubert describes Littlefield as an independent city with its own local  xgovernment, school district, police and fire department, municipal airport, post office, banks,  x<hospital, newspaper and many businesses. Shubert states the Commission should not allow 21st  xKCentury to abandon its commitment to construct a Littlefield station in search of a more populous  xmarket in the Lubbock suburbs. He maintains that 21st Century has filed for extension of its  x>Littlefield permit, claiming that circumstances beyond its control had delayed construction.  xHowever, Shubert believes these circumstances are simply 21st Century's own voluntary attempts  xto reallot its station to the Lubbock suburbs. Shubert maintains that the Commission should not  xendorse this "artificial or purely technical manipulation" of its rules and policies, citing  X- xCommunity of License MO&O. He further advises that in a case presently pending before the  x=Commission involving 21st Century, the Commission indicated that the "theoretical" nature of  xthe service lost to a small community may still offset the equally theoretical "gain" to an already  X"- xywellserved suburb of an urbanized area. See Sibley, Iowa and Brandon, South Dakota, 11 FCC  xRcd 3635 (1996). Shubert believes adoption of 21st Century's proposal is inconsistent with the  xprinciples of bringing service to outlying communities underlying Section 307(b) of the"h$0*%%ZZ(#" Communications Act.  X-  x7. Discussion At the outset, it is necessary to dismiss Macha's proposal to allot Channel  x^240C3 to Littlefield. In doing so, we recognize that the allotment of Channel 240C3 to  xLittlefield could replace some of the potential loss of service at Littlefield; however it is  x=Commission policy not to accept a proposal that is contingent upon final approval of changes  Xv- xzinvolving other broadcast facilities. See Cut and Shoot, Texas, 11 FCC Rcd 16383 (1996). In  xthis case, Channel 238C3 must be allotted to Wolfforth in order to accommodate Channel 240C3  xKat Littlefield. Furthermore, we find Macha's proposal is beyond the scope of this proceeding and,  xit would, therefore, violate the Administrative Procedure Act to allot Channel 240C3 to  xlLittlefield. While it is well established that a final rule may vary from what was originally  X - xproposed, see Cleveland and Ebenezer, Mississippi, 8 FCC Rcd 8654 (1993) recon. denied, 10  X - xFCC Rcd 8807 (1995), and Southampton, Bridgehampton, Westhampton and CalvertonRoanoke,  X - xmNew York, 7 FCC Rcd 4412 (1992), appl. for rev. denied, 10 FCC Rcd 11516, (1995), we  X - x[cannot allot Channel 240C3 when we explicitly stated in the Notice that we were not proposing to do so.   x8. Having made that decision, we can now address the merits of 21st Century's  xreallotment proposal. In doing so, we have confirmed 21st Century's engineering study that  xChannel 238C3 at Wolfforth will place a 70 dBu signal over less than 50% of the Lubbock,  x Texas, Urbanized Area. Thus, this case does not present the policy concerns expressed in  X- x Headland, supra. Nevertheless, an examination of the Tuck factors supports a finding that  xxWolfforth is sufficiently independent of Lubbock so that the transmission services licensed in the  x Lubbock Urbanized Area should not be attributed to Wolfforth. As already noted, Station  xKAIQ(FM) will place a 70 dBu signal over less than 50% of the Lubbock Urbanized Area. As  xfor size and proximity, Wolfforth has a 1990 census population of 1,941 persons and is about  X- xeight kilometers from the edge of the Lubbock Urbanized Area ("population 187,906)en5 yO#-ԍ All population figures are taken from the 1990 U.S. Census.e. As to  x<the third criteria of interdependence, we find that Wolfforth is not dependent upon the Urbanized  xArea for its existence. Wolfforth is an incorporated community with a mayor and city council.  x21st Century has provided a letter from Wolfforth's Mayor affirming that the city provides its  xown municipal services to its citizens such as police and fire protection, EMS medical service,  xMwater, trash, and sewer services. In addition, the mayor states the city has a new n"bmudicipa n"b municipal n"b  n"bl   xbuilding which houses the police department, municipal court, and the city library. The city also  xKhas it own independent school system and city park which includes a fourfield baseball complex,  xibasketball courts, a sand volleyball court, soccer and football areas, a lake, playground and picnic  xareas. The telephone listings for Wolfforth are published by the GTE Southwest Incorporated.  xWhile listings for other communities are included in the same telephone book, the listings for  xLWolfforth, are separate from the other communities and Lubbock is not a part of the telephone  xbook. Wolfforth also has its own post office and zip code, separate from that of Lubbock. ""X0*%%ZZ!"  xWolfforth also has numerous businesses, religious and civic organizations which identify  xthemselves with the community as is evidenced by the listings in the telephone. While Shubert  xipoints out that the community has no airport, hospital or newspaper, we find that on balance that Wolfforth should be treated as a separate community.  X-   x9. Next, we must determine whether the instant proposal would result in a preferential  Xv- xarrangement of allotments pursuant to the Commission's change of community procedures. See  X_- x<Community of License MO&O, supra, and Revision of FM Assignment Policies and Procedures. _n5 yO- xxԍ 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. [Coequal weight is given to priorities (2) and (3).]  xlBased on past precedent, we would normally favor a first local service to Wolfforth over  xretaining a second local service at Littlefield. However in this case, we find that the reallotment  x of Channel 238C3 from Littlefield to Wolfforth and the modification of Station KAIQ(FM)'s  x\authorization would not be in the public interest. In making this determination, we find that  xNretaining Channel 238C3 at Littlefield would trigger priority two of the Commission's FM  xallotment priorities because, based upon our engineering analysis, 3,113 persons would receive  X - x1a second fulltime aural service if the station were built.i X n5 yO- xKԍ We note that 21st Century's rulemaking petition acknowledges that 2,714 people in an area of 464 square  yOW- xxkilometers would receive a second aural reception service from Channel 238C3 at Wolfforth. See 21st Century's petition, Figure 9 of engineering exhibit.i By way of contrast, the proposed  xreallotment of Channel 238C3 from Littlefield to Wolfforth triggers priority 3 since Wolfforth  x(population 1,941) would be provided with its first local aural transmission service priorities 2  Xy- xand 3 are coequal, the tie breaking mechanism is population. y@n5 yOj-ԍ See Bowdon, Griffin, Hogansville, and Sparta, Georgia, 6 FCC Rcd 4863 (1991). Using this criterion, we note that  xNthe number of people that could receive a second aural service (3,113) is greater that the  xpopulation of Wolfforth (1,941), which would receive a first local transmission service. Under  x[these circumstances, we believe that the public interest is better served by providing a second  x?reception service to a larger population than providing a first local aural transmission to  x=Wolfforth. Moveover, all the residents of Wolfforth receive service from five or more fulltime  xaural services. Our view is further buttressed by the fact that 411 persons will receive a first  X- x[aural reception service, thereby eliminating a white area.} n5 yOY-ԍ A" white area" is an area in which there are presently no fulltime aural services.} Based on our decision, we need not  xjdelete Channel 237A, Tahoka, Texas, or in the alternative substitute Channel 278A for Channel  x=237A at Tahoka to accommodate 21st Century's reallotment proposal. We will serve a copy of  X- xthis Report and Order on the applicant for Channel 237A at Tahoka. We also find that the issue  xraised by Shubert concerning 21st Century's reason for not building a station at Littlefield is speculative and that there is no extrinsic evidence to support this allegation, which is now moot. "N` 0*%%ZZ"Ԍ  x10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the petition for rule making submitted by 21st  xCentury Radio Ventures, Inc., to reallot Channel 238C3 from Littlefield to Wolfforth, Texas, IS DENIED.  X-  ?x11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the Secretary shall send a copy of this Report and  X-Order by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to the following: x` ` Albert Benavides x` ` 4821 73rd Street x` ` Lubbock, Texas 79424 x` ` (Applicant for Channel 237A at Tahoka, Texas) x12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED.   x13. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 4182180.  Xy- x` ` hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  X- hhJohn A. Karousos  X- hhChief, Allocations Branch  X- hhPolicy and Rules Division  X- hhMass Media Bureau