Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of Section 73.202(b), ) MM Docket No. 99-15 Table of Allotments, ) RM-9440 FM Broadcast Stations. ) (Neihart, Montana ) ) REPORT AND ORDER (Proceeding Terminated) Adopted: October 27, 1999 Released: November 5, 1999 By the Chief, Allocations Branch: 1. In response to a petition filed by Mountain West Broadcasting ("Mountain West"), the Commission has before it for consideration the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 2044 (1999), requesting the allotment of Channel 246C2 at Neihart, Montana. Mountain West filed supporting comments in which it reaffirmed its interest in Channel 246C2 at Neihart. No other comments were received in response to the Notice in this proceeding. 2. In the Notice Mountain West was requested to furnish sufficient information to support a finding that Neihart is a community for allotment purposes and to address the issue of site location as Neihart is located in the Lewis and Clark National Forest. With respect to community status, Mountain West was requested to provide specific information as to the social, economic, cultural or governmental indicia to determine whether Neihart is a community for allotment purposes and to show that these entities identify themselves with Neihart. In response, Mountain West states that Neihart has a mayor, town council and a town hall along with its own post office and zip code. Mountain West further states that Neihart has many retail businesses, a general store, churches and civic organizations, motel, tavern and the Showdown Ski Area. In response to site availability, Mountain West states that many potential antenna locations exist such as the Showdown Ski Area and there is plenty of privately owned land North of the community near the towns of Monarch and Raynesford which could be available for transmission uses. 3. Based on the totality of the evidence submitted by Mountain West, we believe it has failed to establish that Neihart qualifies as a community for allotment purposes and therefore it would not serve the public interest to allot a channel. See Mokelumme Hill, California, 4 FCC Rcd 7109 (1989). While Mountain West states that Neihart has a mayor and town council, a post office, numerous businesses, two churches and other civic organizations, it has not specifically identified these entities with addresses or shown that they are intended to serve Neihart, as opposed to an expanded rural area. This is a critical deficiency because, in past cases, we have rejected claims of community status where a nexus has not been shown between the political, social and commercial organizations and the community in question. See Gretna, Marianna, Quincy and Tallahassee, Florida, 6 FCC Rcd (1991), and cases cited therein. We do note that Neihard has a population of 53 people according to the 1990 U.S. Census and 91 people according to the 1980 U.S. Census. Although Neihart has some of the elements of a community, we believe that the record in this proceeding is insufficient to find that Neihart is a community for allotment purposes. Mountain West could have provided the following type of evidence which supports community status such as names of any businesses which contain "Neihart" in their names, excerpts from a telephone book showing Neihart's separate telephone exchange, a list of industries, specific names and addresses of churches in Neihart, affidavits from residents of Neihart, name and address of the mayor or council members, evidence that rural residents view Neihart as a center for shopping and medical services, but failed to do so. In response to the Commission’s concerns over site availability, Mountain West merely states that many potential antenna locations exist which are privately owned. MountainWest did not provide documentation such as coordinates, a map showing a transmitter site location, or permission from a local property owner for use of land for a transmitter, all things that would support its comments that a site is available. Here we point out that although the Commission’s concerns at the rule making stage do not generally require detailed showings concerning availability and suitability of a specific transmitter site, a showing is required demonstrating that such an area does exist. In this case, we do not believe that Mountain West has provided such information. Therefore, we will not allot Channel 246C2 to Neihart, Montana. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the Petition for Rule Making filed by Mountain West Broadcasting to allot Channel 246C2 to Neihart, Montana, IS DENIED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 6. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Chief, Allocations Branch Policy and Rules Division Mass Media Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2463 Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2463