********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

In re Applications of           )
                                )
 BARBOUR COUNTY BOARD            )File No. BPLIF-920506DI
OF EDUCATION                    )
Ariton, Alabama                 )
                                )
 GENEVA COUNTY BOARD             )File No. BPLIF-930219EL)
OF EDUCATION                    )
Elba, Alabama                   )
                                )
 HOUSTON ACADEMY                 )File No. BPLIF-920214DN
Dothan, Alabama                 )
                                )
For Construction Permit and     )
License in the Instructional    )
Television Fixed Service        )
on Channels A1, A2, A3 and A4   )
                                 

                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

    Adopted: July 25, 1997Released:  July 31, 1997

By the Commission:

     1.  The Commission has before it for consideration a petition filed by Geneva County Board
of Education (Geneva), seeking reconsideration of our action in which we granted the mutually
exclusive application of Houston Academy (Houston) for a new Instructional Television Fixed
Service (ITFS) station in Dothan, Alabama, and denied the applications of Geneva and Barbour
County Board of Education (Barbour) for new ITFS stations in the areas of Elba and Ariton,
Alabama, respectively.  Barbour County Board of Education, 10 FCC Rcd 676 (1995).

                          I.  BACKGROUND

     2.  In evaluating the applicants pursuant to our ITFS selection process, we awarded each of
the three applicants ten points.  Because the ITFS comparative procedure resulted in a tie between
the applicants, we applied the tie-breaker mechanism adopted by the Commission.  By letter dated
January 7, 1994, the Chief, Video Services Division, notified the applicants that they were mutually
exclusive and entitled to an equal number of points, and gave them 30 days to reach an agreement
regarding division of the use of the channels, or submit a statement of the number of students
formally enrolled in classes for credit at the receive site locations proposed in their applications as
of the "B" cut-off date.  The applicants submitted their enrollment figures in February 1994.  Geneva
also requested reconsideration of the Division's determination that it was mutually exclusive with
Houston, which Houston opposed.  On October 17, 1994, Geneva amended its application to reduce
power and tower height, which, it claimed, removed its mutual exclusivity with Houston's
application.

     3.  In the Memorandum Opinion and Order under consideration here, we considered
Geneva's October 17, 1994 amendment and concluded that the applications remained mutually
exclusive, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  74.903, because "grant of Houston's application would cause
harmful interference to five of Geneva's seven receive sites."   We then credited Barbour with 1,920
students, Geneva with 2,840 students and Houston with 21,832 students.  Because the number of
students credited to Barbour and Geneva was less than 80 percent of the number of students credited
to Houston, we awarded the channels to Houston and denied the applications of Geneva and
Barbour.   On reconsideration, Geneva does not dispute our conclusion that the applicants are
mutually exclusive or our award of the channels to Houston.  Instead, Geneva submits a letter from
its Superintendent, dated February 15, 1995, stating that Geneva will accept the interference from
Houston to its receive sites, and asserts that under the circumstances, the Commission may grant
both ITFS applications, rather than just one, to provide educational programming to rural
communities in Alabama. 

                         II.  DISCUSSION

     4.  We believe that under the circumstances presented here, consideration of Geneva's
February 1995 statement that it is willing to accept interference from Houston would not serve the
public interest or otherwise warrant grant of Geneva's application.  First, Geneva does not dispute
that it would receive interference at five of its seven receive sites.  Thus, grant of Geneva's
application would result in many students and viewers being deprived of the quality reception that
the Commission has always held as a standard.  See Report and Order, Amendment of Part 74 of the
Commission's Rules with Regard to the Instructional Television Fixed Service, 10 FCC Rcd 2907,
2916-2917 (1995).  Houston also alleges that grant of Geneva's application would severely restrict
its ability to modify its facilities in response to future needs and would also preclude construction
of a second technically viable ITFS station on the A channel group in the southeast corner of
Alabama.  Accordingly, grant of Geneva's application would result in an inefficient use of the
spectrum allocated for ITFS use. 

     5.  Moreover, Section 1.106(c) of our rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106(c), provides that a petition for
reconsideration which relies on facts not previously presented to the Commission may be granted
only if the facts presented for the first time are new or previously unknown to the petitioner through
the exercise of ordinary diligence, or the Commission determines that consideration of the facts is
required in the public interest.  The purpose of the rule is to "encourage[] applicants and others to
provide complete information at an early stage, thereby minimizing the need for reconsideration
proceedings.  Our processes operate inefficiently at best when, as here, facts are presented
piecemeal."  Carolyn S. Hagedorn, 11 FCC Rcd 1695, 1696 (1996); see also Payne of Virginia, Inc.,
66 FCC 2d 633, 637 (1977) (The important public interest in "orderly adjudicative processes and
administrative finality . . .  should not be sacrificed to consider additional evidence which seeks only
to offset the party's oversight or lack of diligence . . .").  Geneva's request that denial of its
application be set aside is based solely on the statement of Geneva's Superintendent, first offered on
reconsideration, that Geneva is willing to accept interference from Houston.  All attempts to resolve
the mutual exclusivity between the applicants should have been taken before the Memorandum
Opinion and Order was adopted.  Indeed, under the tie-breaker mechanism applied in this case, the
applicants were given 30 days from the date of notification of the tie to negotiate an agreement
regarding the use of the channels.  Consistent with our rules and policy, we will not allow Geneva
to make a supplemental showing that its application should be granted when that showing could have
been made earlier in the proceeding.  See Payne of Virginia, 66 FCC 2d at 637, citing Fischer v.
FCC, 417 F.2d 551, 555 (D.C. Cir. 1969).   

     6.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the petition for reconsideration filed by Geneva
County Board of Education IS DENIED.

     7.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the staff of the Mass Media Bureau shall send copies
of this decision to the parties by certified mail, return receipt requested.

     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



     William F. Caton
     Acting Secretary