**DA 08-1743**

**Released: July 28, 2008**

Gregory L. Masters, Esq.

Wiley, Rein and Fielding, LLP

1776 K Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

Re: KSFV-LP, San Fernando Valley, CA

Applications for Analog Low Power

Television Displacement Relief,

Class A Eligibility and License

File Nos. BPTVL-20021018AAZ,

BLTVA-20021125ABK and

BLTVA-20041104AKL

Fac Id: 49704

Dear Counsel:

This concerns the above-referenced applications of Venture Technologies
Group, LLC (Venture) for analog low power displacement relief, Class A
eligibility and license for KSFV-LP, San Fernando Valley, California. On
February 5, 2004, the Video Division of the Media Bureau granted the
displacement relief and Class A eligibility applications and denied
informal objections filed by the University of Southern California
(USC), KTLA, Inc. (KTLA) and Radio Television S.A. de C.V. (RT).[^1] USC
filed an "Application for Review" of the Video Division's decision. The
Video Division decision inadvertently did not consider issues raised in
a petition to deny filed by Pasadena Area Community College District
(Pasadena) and comments filed by National Public Radio (NPR). For the
reasons set forth below, we consider the Pasadena and NPR pleadings as
petitions for reconsideration, treat the USC "Application for Review" as
a petition for reconsideration, deny all of those petitions, affirm the
Video Division's decision and grant the license application covering the
construction of KSFV-LP's displacement facilities.

Background. KSFV-LP is a Class A low power television station operating
on Channel 26 at San Fernando Valley, California. In its displacement
application, KSFV-LP sought to operate on channel 6. USC objected to the
application because KSFV-LP proposed to mount its antenna on the same
tower that houses USC's station -- KUSC-FM, Los Angeles, California. USC
argued that such collocation would cause interference to KUSC-FM. In its
decision, the Video Division denied USC's objection noting that Venture
had amended its application to propose another transmitter site 61
meters away from the current co-located site, changed the antenna model
for its proposed facility, and changed the height above mean sea level.
The Video Division concluded that these changes resolved USC's
interference concerns.

KTLA is the licensee of KTLA-TV, Channel 5, Los Angeles, California, and
objected to the KSFV-LP channel 6 displacement application because it
calculated that 97.4% of KSFV-LP's population would receive interference
from KTLA-TV and would be unable to view the station. KTLA also argued
that KSFV-LP's operation on channel 6 could limit KTLA's ability to make
future modifications to KTLA-TV. The Video Division denied KTLA's
objection noting that the Commission's rules do not require a low power
station to serve any certain percentage of population in its community
of license. Although low power stations are not permitted to cause
interference to full power stations, the Commission's rules do not
prohibit a low power station from receiving interference from existing
stations. Furthermore, the Video Division found that, as a Class A
eligible station, KSFV-LP is entitled to interference protection from
KTLA-TV as to future modifications of the KTLA-TV facility.

RT is the licensee of XETV, Tijuana, Mexico, and argued that KSFV-LP's
operation on channel 6 would cause interference to nearly one-quarter
million potential XETV viewers in violation of U.S./Mexico treaties and
FCC rules. The Video Division decision denied RT's objection concluding
that the VHF LPTV Agreement in force between the United States and
Mexico specifies that LPTV assignments may be authorized without
coordination if certain conditions regarding power, antenna height above
average terrain, and distance from the border are met. The Video
Division found that Venture had amended its application for KSFV-LP to a
site, power and height that met the limits set forth in the Agreement.
Therefore, the Video Division found that KSFV-LP's application did not
require Mexican approval.

At the time of the Video Division's decision, there were pending the
"petition to deny" by Pasadena and NPR's comments.[^2] In its pleading,
Pasadena argues that "permitting a Channel 6 television station to
operate anywhere in \[the Los Angeles area\] is a veritable recipe for
disaster." Pasadena states that grant of KSFV-LP's application would
"adversely affect noncommercial radio policies established for reserved
band FM radio stations throughout Greater Los Angeles." Because of the
immediate adjacency of reserved band FM stations and Channel 6 stations,
Pasadena argues that "a significant potential for destructive
interference exists." In its comments, NPR similarly argued that grant
of KSFV-LP's application could negatively affect noncommercial
educational radio broadcasting in the Los Angeles market. Not only would
KSFV-LP's operation on channel 6 cause interference to FM stations, NPR
also argues that it could preclude future modifications by noncommercial
educational radio stations.

*Discussion.* Due to an oversight, the channel 6 interference issue
raised in the Pasadena and NPR pleadings was not previously considered
in this proceeding. Therefore, we shall treat these pleadings as
petitions for reconsideration of the Video Division decision. In
addition, because there is an unresolved question of fact or law raised
in the Pasadena and NPR pleadings, pursuant to Section 1.115(c) of the
rules, we will consider USC's Application for Review as a petition for
reconsideration as well.[^3]

We conclude that Pasadena and NPR have failed to demonstrate that grant
of the KSFV-LP displacement application for channel 6 was a violation of
the Commission rules. The staff analyzed the channel 6 application,
including possible interference to other stations, and determined that
the application complied with Commission rules. Neither Pasadena nor NPR
provide any evidence that actual interference will occur to any
noncommercial educational radio stations in the Los Angeles area. Should
actual interference occur, it shall be Venture's responsibility to
correct at its expense any condition of interference.[^4] Venture
acknowledged this fact, but noted that the unsupported allegation of
such interference cannot form the basis for denying its application.
Furthermore, KSFV-LP cannot be denied displacement relief because of the
speculative possibility that a grant of its application may preclude
future modifications by Los Angeles area NCE radio stations. Channel 6
is an eligible channel for KSFV-LP to seek for displacement relief and
Venture has demonstrated that its operation on this channel complies
with all Commission rules.

In its Application for Review, USC: (1) raises the channel 6
interference issue first raised by Pasadena and NPR in their pleadings,
(2) rehashes the early argument concerning compliance with the U.S. -
Mexican treaty and (3) rehashes the argument about interference to
KSFV-LP's channel 6 operation from KTLA-TV. With respect to the channel
6 interference issue, we conclude above that the grant of the KSFV-LP
displacement application was consistent with the Commission's rules
including those concerning protection of noncommercial educational radio
facilities. USC fails to raise any new or compelling argument or
evidence to cause us to find otherwise.

USC once again argues that the grant of the KSFV-LP application was
contrary to the VHF LPTV Agreement in force between the United States
and Mexico. This issue was thoroughly briefed and considered in the
Video Division's decision. The Video Division correctly found that
Venture had amended its application for KSFV-LP to a site, power and
height that met the limits set forth in the Agreement. Therefore, the
Video Division correctly concluded that KSFV-LP's application did not
require Mexican approval. We find no reason to reverse that decision.

Finally, USC once again argues that KSFV-LP's operation on channel 6
will result in 97.4% of KSFV-LP's population receiving interference from
KTLA-TV and not being able to view the station. USC argues this is not
efficient use of spectrum. The Video Division previously denied this
argument finding that the Commission's rules do not require a low power
station to serve any certain percentage of population in its community
of license. Although low power stations are not permitted to cause
interference to full power stations, the Commission's rules do not
prohibit a low power station from receiving interference from existing
stations. USC's Application for Review merely recites this argument
again. Once again, we find no reason to reverse the Video Division's
decision.[^5]

While its Application for Review was pending, USC entered into a
Settlement Agreement with Venture. The Agreement provides that Venture
shall "accept a condition upon the KSFV-LP channel 6 license -- such
condition to run permanently with the license regardless of whoever is
or may henceforth become the Station licensee." The condition provides
that Venture must accept interference from KUSC-FM and that KUSC-FM will
not be subject to the interference provisions in Section 73.525 of the
rules should it file an application for modification in the future. In
addition, the Agreement provides that USC will dismiss its objection to
the KSFV-LP channel 6 application and will not object to future
modification applications filed by Venture. However, should a
modification application for KSFV-LP be filed in the future and USC and
Venture disagree on whether the proposed facilities would interfere with
KUSC-FM's facilities or otherwise degrade the signal or operation of
KUSC-FM, USC maintains the right to protest the modification.

We deny the Joint Request for Approval of Settlement Agreement between
USC and Venture. The Agreement provides that Venture will forfeit its
right to challenge future modifications to KUSC-FM's facilities, while
USC will retain the right to challenge future modifications to KSFV-LP.
Should the parties disagree as to the effect a modification to KSFV-LP's
facilities would have upon the operation of KUSC-FM, USC will continue
to have the right to protest the KSFV-LP modification. Approval of this
Agreement would not serve the public interest because it gives USC
interference protection and modification rights to which its station is
not entitled under the Commission's rules. In addition, it unfairly
limits Venture's right to modify the KSFV-LP facilities in compliance
with the Commission's rules in order to serve the public. Furthermore,
these conditions would be placed on the KSFV-LP license and bind any
successor. We disfavor agreements that include restrictions with
"potential public interest detriment."[^6] Accordingly, we deny the
joint request and the proposed settlement between USC and Venture.

WHEREFORE, the above facts considered, IT IS ORDERED, That the
"Application for Review" of the University of Southern California IS
DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the Petition to Deny of the Pasadena Area
Community College District IS DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the comments filed by National Public Radio
ARE DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the Joint Request for Approval of Settlement
Agreement of the University of Southern California and Venture
Technologies Group, LLC, IS DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the Motion for Stay of the University of
Southern California IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the application (File No. BLTVA-20041104AKL)
of Venture Technologies Group, LLC for license for KSFV-LP IS GRANTED.

Sincerely,

Barbara A. Kreisman

Chief, Video Division

Media Bureau

cc: Lawrence Bernstein, Esq. -- Counsel for USC

Neil Jackson, Esq. -- Counsel for National Public Radio, Inc.

Barbara K. Gardner, Esq. -- Counsel for RT

John Crigler, Esq. -- Counsel for Pasadena

Thomas Van Wazer, Esq. -- Counsel for KTLA

[^1]: Venture subsequently filed the license application to cover the
    construction of the channel 6 facility.

[^2]: Section 73.3584(a) of the rules states that petitions to deny will
    not be entertained against low power displacement applications*.
    See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3584(a). Petitions to deny that are filed
    against these applications are instead treated as informal
    objections. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3587*.* Also pending at the time of
    the release of the Video Division's decision were "petitions to
    deny" filed by RT and USC that repeat the arguments in their earlier
    informal objections. Although these pleadings were not specifically
    mentioned in its decision, the arguments raised by RT and USC in
    their petitions were considered and rejected by the Video Division.

[^3]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(c).

[^4]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.703.

[^5]: Also before us is a Motion for Stay filed by USC and related
    pleadings. Given our action today, the Motion for Stay is now moot.

[^6]: *See, e.g.,* *Nirvana Broadcasting Corp.*, 4 FCC Rcd 2778, 2779
    (Rev. Bd. 1989) *citing Intercontinental Radio, Inc.*, 62 RR 2d
    1565, 1567 (1985).