WPC} 2BVTZ 3|P)?xxxX>Xx6X@DQX@HP LaserJet 4/4M 565A LPT2onal)HPLAS4.WRSSx  @,, S{X@2@3P Z@3|PTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)HP LaserJet 4/4M 565A LPT2onal)HPLAS4.WRSSC\  P6Q,, S{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[SSSSSSS2@O@/ @o "5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#C\  P6QP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#XP\  P6Q DXP#"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddbecause of the engineering deficiency of the Cumberland Gap allotment. In this regard, the  X|- xReport and Order did note that had we made a comparison between first local services to  xCumberland Gap and Jonesville, a Jonesville allotment would be preferred because of the larger  xpopulation (927 versus 210 persons). We continue to believe that an engineering deficiency of  xthe Cumberland Gap proposal renders a comparative consideration of the two competing  x>proposals unnecessary and a Channel 256A allotment to Jonesville, Virginia, as a first local  xservice is the appropriate resolution of this proceeding. However, we would like to clarify the  X-comparative aspect of the Report and Order.   @x12. At the outset, we agree with the contention set forth by Govan & Cagle that any  xcomparative analysis in this proceeding would not have been limited to merely comparing the  X"- xjrespective populations of Cumberland Gap and Jonesville.&X" yO%- xԍConflicting sets of FM allotment proposals are comparatively considered under the guidelines set forth in  yO%-Revision of FM Assignment Policies and Procedures, 90 FCC 2d 88 (1982). The priorities are as follows: "&,-(-(&"Ԍx1) First fulltime aural service x2) Second fulltime aural service x3) First local service x4) Other public interest factors x(Coequal weight is given to priorities (2) and (3))& Had the Cumberland Gap proposal""@,-(-(ZZf!"  X- xbeen technically acceptable, a full comparative analysis, as required by priority (4) in FM  X- xAssignment Priorities and Policies, infra, would have included the fact that the proposed  xzreallotment to Cumberland Gap makes possible the companion aspect of the Govan & Cagle  X-  proposal for a Channel 257C2 upgrade at Elizabethon, Tennessee.@ yO - xԍAs noted by Govan & Cagle, a reallotment from Jefferson City to Cumberland Gap would have resulted would  xhave resulted in a net loss of service to 43,039 persons for Station WEZG. On the other hand, the proposed upgrade  xfor Station WAEZ at Elizabethon would have resulted in a gain of service to 93,766 persons. The overall net service  xgain from both proposals would have been 50,727 persons. In comparison, a new Channel 256A allotment at  xJonesville will serve 43,406 persons. Therefore, the two Govan & Cagle proposals would have served 7,321 more persons.       ^x13. However, in order to compare these proposals on an overall basis, we would first  xhave had to make a threshold finding that the reallotment of the Station WEZG channel from  xJefferson City to Cumberland Gap would have resulted in a preferential arrangement of  x=allotments. To make such a finding, we would compare the existing allotment at Jefferson City  X1- xversus the proposed allotment at Cumberland Gap in accordance with FM Assignment Priorities  X - xand Policies. See Modification of FM and TV Channels to Specify a New Community of License  X - xN("Community of License"), 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), recon, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990). In this  xjcase, we could not have made a finding that Cumberland Gap would be the preferred allotment,  xand we would, therefore, not have considered the population gain resulting from the upgrade at  xElizabethon. We would have removed the second local service from Jefferson City, a community  xof 5,494 persons, and reallotted the channel to Cumberland Gap, a community of 210 persons.  xThis would be inconsistent with previous actions in which we have not accorded a decisional  xksignificance as a first service to a community of such a size over a competing proposal for a  x"competitive voice" to a larger community. It is our view that in such a comparative proceeding,  xwe would have deemed Cumberland Gap to be a "quiet village" and therefore not entitled to a  X4- x[dispositive preference as a first local service. See Debra D. Carrigan, 58 RR2d 96 (1985); Santee  X- xCooper Broadcasting Co., 57 RR2d 662 (1992); Ruarch Associates, 101 FCC 2d 1358 (1985).  X-  Qx14. Such a decision would have been reinforced by Community of License. In  X- x<Community of License, the Commission observed that the public has a legitimate expectation that  x-existing service will continue and this expectation is a factor that must be weighed independently  xlagainst any service benefit that may result from reallotting a channel. 5 FCC Rcd at 7097.  xyRemoval of service from Jefferson City would have been warranted only if there were sufficient  xpublic interest factors to offset the expectation of continued service. The fact that the overall  xGovan & Cagle proposal would have served 7,321 more persons in an area already receiving  xabundant service is not sufficient to overcome the loss of a competitive service in Jefferson City"N ,-(-(ZZ|"  X-and the expectation that this service will continue.X yOy- xxԍThe Commission has considered 5 or more reception services as "abundant." Family Broadcasting Group, 53  yOA- xRR2d 662, 669 (Rev. Bd. 1983, rev. denied FCC 83559 (Comm'n Nov. 29, 1983); See also LaGrange and  yO -Rollingwood, Texas, 10 FCC Rcd 333& (1995).    {x15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the aforementioned Petition for Reconsideration filed by Eaton P.Govan,III and Berton B. Cagle, Jr. IS HEREBY DENIED. x16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED.   ^x17.. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Robert Hayne, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 4182177. x` `  hh@ x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@Charles W. Logan x` `  hh@Acting Chief, Policy and Rules Division  X-x` `  hh@Mass Media Bureau  xx