Deer Creek Broadcasting, LLC

c/o Andrew S. Kersting, Esq.

Dickstein Shapiro, LLP

1825 Eye Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

Maverick Media of Santa Rosa License, LLC

c/o John C. Trent, Esq.

Putbrese, Hunsaker & Trent, PC

200 South Church Street

Woodstock, VA 22664

Results Radio of Chico Licensee, LLC

c/o William H. Fitz, Esq.

Covington & Burling, LLP

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20004

Davis Community Television

c/o Michael Couzens, Esq.

6536 Telegraph Ave., Suite B201

P.O. Box 3642

Oakland, CA 94609

In re: Deer Creek Broadcasting, LLC

KHHZ(FM), Oroville, California

Facility ID No. 50709

File No. BPH-20070126ADB

Maverick Media of Santa Rosa License, LLC

KXFX(FM), Santa Rosa, California

Facility ID No. 22890

File No. BPH-20070126ACZ

Results Radio of Chico Licensee, LLC

KMJE(FM), Gridley, California

Facility ID No. 52516

File No. BPH-20070126ACY

**Minor Change Applications**

**Informal Objections**

Dear Counsel:

This letter refers to the above-captioned applications to modify the
respective licenses of Station KMJE(FM), Channel 268A, Gridley,
California, (File No. BPH-20070126ACY), Station KXFX(FM),Channel 269A,
Santa Rosa, California, (File No. BPH-20070126ACZ), and Station
KHHZ(FM)Channel 249B1, Oroville, California (File No. BPH-20070126ADB)
(collectively, the "Applications"). Specifically, Results Radio of Chico
Licensee, LLC ("RRC"), licensee of Station KMJE(FM), proposes to
re-allot Channel 268A from Gridley to Woodland, California, and modify
the KMJE(FM) license to specify Woodland as the community of license. To
replace the loss of the sole local service at Gridley, Deer Creek
Broadcasting, LLC, licensee of Station KHHZ(FM), Oroville, proposes to
re-allot Channel 249B1 from Oroville to Gridley and modify the KHHZ(FM)
license to specify Gridley as the community of license. In order to
accommodate Channel 268A at Woodland, Maverick Media of Santa Rosa
License, LLC, licensee of Station KXFX(FM), Santa Rosa, proposes to
change its reference coordinates.

Davis Community Television ("Davis Community"), licensee of Low Power FM
("LPFM") Station KDRT-LP, Davis, California, filed an Informal Objection
("Objection") on May 29, 2007, against the proposed changes. On June 13,
2007, the three applicants (collectively "Joint Applicants") filed a
Joint Opposition to the Objection ("Joint Opposition"), to which Davis
Community replied ("Reply") on June 26, 2007.[^1] For the reasons
discussed below, we deny the Objection and grant the Applications.

**Background***.* These contingent applications were filed pursuant to
Sections 73.3517 and 73.3573(g) of the Commission's Rules (the
"Rules")[^2] which permits the modification of a station's authorization
to specify a new community of license without affording other interested
parties an opportunity to file a competing expression of interest. Any
re-allotment proposal must result in a preferential arrangement of
allotments.[^3] We make this determination using the FM allotment
priorities set forth in *Revision of FM Assignment Policies and
Procedures.*[^4] Grant of these applications would provide a second
local service to Woodland under Priority 4 while Gridley would continue
to receive local service from Station KHHZ(FM).

In its Objection, Davis Community claims that its Station KDRT-LP would
receive destructive interference and would be forced to either change
channels or terminate operations, which is contrary to the public
interest.[^5] With regard to the proposed re-allotment from Gridley to
Woodland, Davis Community and several individual listeners[^6] argue
that it is a "clear public detriment" to remove service from the larger
community of Oroville (with a population of 13,004 persons) to the
smaller community of Gridley (with a population of 5,382 persons) merely
to provide a second local service to "heavily served" Woodland.[^7]
Davis Community also argues that: (1) the Commission's practice since
2006 of allowing license relocations by filing minor change applications
violates the Administrative Procedure Act (the "APA"); (2) the
Commission's "other public interest factors" FM allotment priority,
Priority 4, should be set aside as not in the public interest; and (3)
KDRT-LP's "displacement application" should be considered as a "fourth,
contingent application" in this proceeding.[^8] The Listener Objections
voice strong support for the preservation of KDRT-LP which offers a wide
range of locally produced and locally focused programming. Several
listeners note that the City of Davis recognized KDRT-LP in 2006 with an
award for excellence in community involvement.

**Discussion.** Pursuant to Section 309(e) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (the "Act"), informal objections must provide properly
supported allegations of fact that, if true, would establish a
substantial and material question of fact that grant of the application
would be *prima facie* inconsistent with the public interest.[^9] We
will consider the Objection and the Listener Objections based on this
standard of review.

*KDRT-LP Displacement.* With respect to Davis Community's and the
Listener Objections' arguments concerning the potential displacement of
KDRT-LP, we recognize the strong support that KDRT-LP enjoys in the
Davis community. Nonetheless, the staff's treatment of the captioned
applications is legally independent of the outcome of the LPFM
"displacement application" process.[^10] However, in order to fully
resolve issues raised in this proceeding, the staff has expeditiously
reviewed Davis Community's "displacement application" under the
processing policies set forth by the Commission in its 2007 revision of
the Low Power FM Rules.[^11] We will be issuing simultaneously with the
release of this order an STA to Davis Community to permit continued
KDRT-LP operations. Finally, we wish to applaud RRC for its cooperative
efforts, which include providing Davis Community both financial and
technical assistance, to identify and realize a technical solution that
would avoid impacting current radio listening patterns.[^12]

Concerning Davis Community's contention that the Commission should
change its procedures regarding changes to the FM Table of Allotments
and applications proposing changes in community of license, we agree
with the Joint Applicants[^13] that Davis Community had ample time to
address its concerns on these matters during the appropriate rulemaking
proceeding.[^14] An adjudicatory proceeding involving a specific
application is not the proper forum for requesting changes in Commission
procedures and processing guidelines, or for seeking changes in
well-established FM allotment priorities.[^15] Moreover, we expressly
reject Davis Community's contention that the Commission's current
community change procedures violate the APA. Those procedures were
adopted pursuant to APA-mandated notice-and-comment rulemaking
procedures.

*The Reallotment Proposals*. Notwithstanding the arguments raised in the
Objection and the Listener Objections, we find that the re-allotment of
Channel 268A from Gridley to Woodland would, in fact, result in a
preferential arrangement of allotments as required by *Community of
License.* This would result in a competitive local service to the larger
community of Woodland (with a population of 49,151 persons) and a net
gain in service to 197,726 persons. As a result of the re-allotment of
Channel 249B1 from Oroville to Gridley, Gridley would continue to
receive local service from Station KHHZ(FM). As noted by Davis
Community, this removes the second local service from Oroville. This is
not fatal to the grant of the Applications. With respect to Oroville and
Woodland, it is a preferential arrangement of allotments to have a
competitive local service in the larger community of Woodland. In
addition to the fact that Station KHHZ(FM) is not changing its actual
facilities, we also note that all three communities would continue to
receive in excess of five aural services.[^16] Equally important, each
of the communities involved in the re-allotment proposals would continue
to have a local service.

**Conclusion/Actions**. We have examined each of the Applications and
find that they comply with all pertinent statutory and regulatory
requirements, including all of the Commission's spacing requirements. We
also find that grant of the Applications would further the public
interest, convenience, and necessity.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Informal Objection filed by Davis
Community Television and the Listener Objections against the contingent
applications of Dear Creek Broadcasting, LLC, Results Radio of Chico
Licensee, LLC, and Maverick Media of Santa Rosa License, LLC, ARE
DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the applications of Dear Creek Broadcasting,
LLC,

(File No. BPH-20070126ADB); Results Radio of Chico Licensee, LLC, (File
No. BPH-2007012ACY);

and Maverick Media of Santa Rosa License, LLC, (File No.
BPH-20070126ACZ) ARE GRANTED.

Sincerely,

Peter H. Doyle

Chief, Audio Division

Media Bureau

cc: Davis Community Television

Individual Objectors

[^1]: We note that on December 21, 2007, the Joint Applicants filed a
    Status Report and Supplement to which Davis Community filed a
    Response on January 17, 2008. In addition, in April and May of 2007,
    we received nine letters and one petition (collectively, the
    "Listener Objections") from listeners of KDRT-LP supporting the
    continued operation of Davis Community and generally objecting to
    grant of the captioned KMJE(FM) application on the ground that it
    would force KDRT-LP off the air. These comments were not served on
    the applicants or their counsel. We believe it appropriate to treat
    these comments as informal objections of individual listeners
    pursuant to Section 1.1204(a)(8) of the Rules. The authors of these
    comments do not become parties to this proceeding by virtue of their
    comments. *See* Note 4 to Paragraph (d) of Section 1.1202 of the
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1202.

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.3517, 73.3573(g).

[^3]: *See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New
    Community of License* ("*Community of License*"), Report and Order,
    4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989), *recon. granted in part,* Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990).

[^4]: *Revision of FM Assignment Policies and Procedures,* Second Report
    and Order, 90 FCC 2d 88 (1988). 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. Co-equal
    weight is given to Priorities (2) and (3).

[^5]: Davis Community has also filed a minor change, "displacement
    application" (File No. BPL-20080509ADB) requesting to move to
    channel 239L100 because it states that its current operation on
    channel 268L100 would be displaced by grant of the captioned KMJE
    application.

[^6]: *See, e.g., Letter from Diane Crumley, Ph.D., et al.* (rec'd May
    30, 2007).

[^7]: All populations are from the 2000 U.S. Census.

[^8]: *See* Objection at 1, 4, 9, and 18.

[^9]: [47 U.S.C. §
    309(e)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.05&referencepositiontype=T&referenceposition=SP%3B7fdd00001ca15&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=L&docname=47USCAS309&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw).
    *See also Area Christian Television, Inc.*, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, [60 RR 2d 862
    (1986)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?rs=WLW8.05&serialnum=1986028724&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=Y&tf=-1&db=265&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw)
    (informal objections, like petitions to deny, must contain adequate
    and specific factual allegations sufficient to warrant the relief
    requested).

[^10]: *See Creation of a Low Power Radio Service,* Report and Order, 15
    FCC Rcd 2205, 2231 (2000) ("\[W\]e do not believe that an LPFM
    station should be given an interference protection right that would
    prevent a full-service station from seeking to modify its
    transmission facilities or upgrade to a higher service class. Nor
    should LPFM stations foreclose opportunities to seek new
    full-service radio stations.").

[^11]: *See* in *Creation of a Low Power Service,* Third Report and
    Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, [22 FCC Rcd
    21912, 21928 ¶ 63
    (2007)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?rs=WLW8.05&serialnum=2014332744&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=Y&tf=-1&db=4493&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw)
    ("*Third Report and* *Order*").

[^12]: *Id.*

[^13]: Joint Opposition at 4.

[^14]: *See, e.g., Revision of Procedures Governing Amendments to FM
    Table of Allotments and Changes of Community of License in the Radio
    Broadcast Services,* Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd
    11169(2005).

[^15]: *See, e.g., Tri-State Broadcasting Company, Inc*., Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 3466, 3468 (1997) (Commission states
    that license renewal proceeding, unlike a rulemaking proceeding, is
    not the proper forum for requesting changes in Commission
    procedures).

[^16]: The Commission has considered five or more reception services to
    be "abundant." *Family Broadcasting Group,* 53 RR 2d 662 (Rev. Bd.
    1993), *rev. denied* FCC 83-559 (Comm'n Nov. 29, 1983); *see also
    LaGrange and Rollingwood, Texas,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10
    FCC Rcd 3337 (1995).