WPC 2MB%RK Z3|jTimes New RomanTimes New Roman Bold P6G;XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4M ROOM 228 LPT1HPLA4MP0.PRSXj\  P6G;\ifXP2> <K3|jTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic P6G;\ vOXP"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""-ARGONIA UNIFIED SCHOOLR)hFile No. BPLIF911227DT DISTRICT #359R) Zenda, KansasR) R)  X -BUFFALO PUBLIC SCHOOLSR)hFile No. BPLIF920204DC Alva, OklahomaR) R) For Construction Permit and LicenseR) in the Instructional Television FixedR) Service on Channels C1, C2, C3 and C4R)  X-  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TP  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:cultural development in aural and visual form, to students enrolled in accredited public and  xprivate schools, colleges and universities." 47 C.F.R.  74.931(a). The rules recognize our  xistrong preference for locally based educational entities as ITFS licensees, based upon our finding that:  XxLocally based educational entities have been convincingly demonstrated . . . to be  the best authorities for evaluating their educational needs and the needs of others  they propose to serve in their communities, for designing courses to suit those  _needs, and for scheduling courses during the school year. They best understand  the educational needs and academic standards of their communities and are the  most appropriate bodies to produce educational programming or select such  programming from the sources available. . . . Locally based curriculum  development, instructor involvement, supplementary (print) material development,  $student feedback, and assistance to participating students all provide critical contributions to the most effective use of instruction via television.   XN- xSecond Report and Order, 101 FCC 2d at 56. Thus, under our comparative selection process for  X9- xITFS applicants, we award four points to local applicants. Id. at 59, 69; see also 47 C.F.R.   X$-74.913, 74.932, Note 1. $|) yOQ$- xhԍ In addition, applicants which do not propose to provide formal educational programming to their own students  xmust establish their eligibility to be an ITFS licensee by submitting "documentation from proposed receive sites  xdemonstrating they will receive and use the applicant's formal educational programming," and must further  x"demonstrate the establishment of a local programming committee in each community." 47 C.F.R.  74.932(a)(4)"&,-(-(&"  yO- xhand (5).  The documentation required from each receive site proposed by a nonlocal applicant must include a letter  xJfrom the administrator or appropriate curriculum planning authority indicating that the proffered programming will  xbe incorporated in the site's curriculum and that a member of the receive site's staff will serve on the local  {O- xiprogramming committee. 47 C.F.R.  74.932, Notes 2 and 3; see also Second Report and Order, 101 FCC 2d at 6062. "$z,-(-(ZZ>"Ԍ  x5. Note 1 to Section 74.932 of the Commission's rules defines a "local" ITFS applicant  xas "an institution or organization that is physically located in the community, or metropolitan  xzarea, where service is proposed . . . ." BPS is located in Buffalo, Oklahoma, in the northwest  xcorner of Oklahoma. In its application, BPS identified seven schools in three neighboring  xycounties as receiving locations, each located between 30 and 70 miles from Buffalo. Thus, BPS  x is not physically located in the area it proposes to serve. BPS contends, however, that the  xCommission incorrectly interpreted the definition of a "local" entity when it refused to consider  x[BPS as local for comparative purposes. In support, BPS states that Note 1 to Section 74.932 of  xthe rules gives several examples of "local" entities and provides that "[a]n entity created by a state  xMor local government for the purpose of serving formal educational needs will be considered  x local throughout the area within the government's jurisdiction over which its authority is  x<intended to extend." According to BPS, because it is an educational institution accredited by the  xState of Oklahoma, it is "local" throughout the entire state. Petitioner's interpretation, however,  xLis contrary to the plain language of the rule, which states that a governmentally created entity,  xsuch as a school district, is only local within the area "over which its authority is intended to  x<extend." BPS has presented no evidence that the State of Oklahoma has granted BPS jurisdiction  x=or authority over the curriculum of schools located in neighboring school districts, which BPS  xhas proposed to serve. Moreover, BPS's interpretation that it is "local" throughout the entire  xjState of Oklahoma is also inconsistent with our basis for awarding comparative merit to "local"  xLapplicants that educational entities physically located in the community to be served are the  xbest authorities for evaluating their educational needs and the needs of others they propose to  X- xserve in their communities. Thus, we affirm our conclusion that BPS was not "local" to Alva and was not entitled to an award of four merit points based on this criterion.   {x6. BPS also asserts, for the first time on reconsideration, that it should be accorded local  xstatus for comparative purposes because it is a member of a consortium of school districts in  xnorthwestern Oklahoma serving formal educational needs, and has firsthand knowledge of the  X- xeducational needs of the Alva schools through its association with the consortium.TXz) yO- x<ԍ As proof of its membership in a consortium, BPS refers to an attachment filed in connection with another  xapplication on November 2, 1992. The file number given by BPS, however, has never been assigned to an application in the Instructional Television Fixed Service.T We need not,  x=and do not, reach Petitioner's argument that its membership in a consortium of school districts  xwould support the award of merit points, for the following reasons. Where, as here, a petitioner  x[relies on new facts on reconsideration, Section 1.106(c) of the Commission's rules requires that  xit show that the events occurred or circumstances changed since the last opportunity to present  xsuch matters; that the facts relied on were unknown until after the Commission acted, and could  x>not have been learned through the exercise of ordinary diligence prior to the action; or that" ,-(-(ZZ"  xjconsideration of the facts relied on is required in the public interest. 47 C.F.R.  1.106(c)(1)(3);  X- x.see also RCA American Communications, Inc., 3 FCC Rcd 1184 (1988). BPS makes no attempt  xyto demonstrate that any of these circumstances is present here, nor could it, given the fact that  xit was always within the power of BPS to inform the Commission of its membership in a  xconsortium. We also note that when the Distribution Services Branch informed BPS, by letter  xdated February 5, 1993, that it was not a local applicant because it was not proposing to serve  xits own students, and would be required to perfect its eligibility by demonstrating the creation of  xia local program committee consisting of representatives of each of its proposed receive sites, BPS  xydid not dispute the finding that it was not "local," and submitted the required information. Our  xprocedural rules do not allow an applicant to "sit back and hope that a decision will be in its  X - xifavor and then, when it isn't, parry with an offer of more evidence." Colorado Radio Corporation  X -v. FCC, 118 F.2d 24, 26 (D.C. Cir. 1941).  X -  x7. Accreditation. BPS also asserts that it is entitled to three merit points because it is  xaccredited by the Oklahoma Department of Education and proposes to serve accredited entities  xkwhich are members of the same consortium of schools with which it is affiliated. While BPS  xyproposed to serve accredited institutions, thus satisfying its basic eligibility requirement, it did  x.not propose to serve its own students, the factor necessary for earning merit points under the  Xh- xLaccreditation criterion. See Second Report and Order, 101 FCC 2d at 69; Ouachita Academy of  XS- xjArts and Sciences, 9 FCC Rcd 7903 (1994); Unified School District #511, 8 FCC Rcd 7060, 7061 (1993). Accordingly, BPS was not entitled to an award of merit points for being accredited.   x8. In view of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED, That the petition for reconsideration filed by Buffalo Public Schools IS DENIED.   x9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the staff of the Mass Media Bureau shall send copies of this decision to the applicants by certified mail, return receipt requested. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton x` `  hhActing Secretary