**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | MB Docket No. 04-219         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Amendment of Section 73.202(b),  | ) | RM-10986                     |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Table of Allotments,             | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| FM Broadcast Stations.           | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| (Evergreen, Alabama, and         | ) |                              |
| Shalimar, Florida)               | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**(Proceeding Terminated)**

**Adopted: September 5, 2008 Released: October 31, 2008**

By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Adelstein dissenting and
issuing a joint statement.

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1\. The Commission has before it an Application for Review filed by
Qantum of Fort Walton Beach License Company, LLC ("Qantum") directed to
the *Memorandum Opinion and Order* in this proceeding.[^1] Star
Broadcasting, Inc., successor in interest to Gulf Coast Broadcasting
Company, Inc. ("Petitioner"), filed an Opposition to Application for
Review and Qantum filed a Reply to Opposition. For the reasons discussed
below, we deny the Application for Review.

**II. BACKGROUND**

2\. Pursuant to Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules, a station
authorization may be modified to specify a new community of license
without affording other interested parties an opportunity to file a
competing expression of interest.[^2] Any reallotment proposal must
result in a preferential arrangement of allotments using the FM
allotment priorities set forth in *Revision of FM Assignment Policies
and Procedures*.[^3] A first local service under FM allotment priority
(3) will further this goal by providing a community with a local
broadcast voice. In awarding priority (3) preferences, the Commission is
concerned with the potential migration of stations from lesser-served
rural areas to well-served urban areas. For this reason, the Commission
will not blindly apply a first local service preference when a station
seeks to reallot its channel to a suburban community in or near an
Urbanized Area. In such circumstances, the Commission requires the city
of license modification proponent to submit a *Tuck* showing.[^4] In
evaluating these showings, the Commission considers the extent to which
the station will provide service to the entire Urbanized Area, the
relative populations of the suburban and central city, and, most
important, the extent to which the suburban community is independent of
the Urbanized Area. In considering a reallotment proposal, the
Commission takes into account the well established *Huntington* doctrine
which operates as a limited exception to the normal Section 307(b)[^5]
presumption that every separate community deserves at least one local
transmission service.[^6]

3\. At the request of Gulf Coast Broadcasting Company, former licensee
of Station WPGG, Channel 227C1, Evergreen, Alabama, the Media Bureau
substituted Channel 272C2 for Channel 272C1 at Evergreen, reallotted
Channel 272C2 to Shalimar, Florida, and modified the Station WPGG
license to specify operation on Channel 272C2 at Shalimar.[^7] In this
situation, the reallotment resulted in Shalimar (with a population of
718 persons according to the 2000 U.S. Census) having its first local
service while Evergreen (with a population of 3,630 persons according to
the 2000 U.S. Census) will continue to receive local service from AM
Station WIJK. Shalimar is located within the Fort Walton Beach Urbanized
Area. Consistent with the guidelines set forth in *Tuck,* the *Report
and Order* determined that Shalimar is independent of the Fort Walton
Beach Urbanized Area and entitled to consideration as a first local
service.[^8] The staff *Memorandum Opinion and Order* denied a Petition
for Reconsideration filed by Qantum directed against that *Report and
Order.*

4\. In its Application for Review, Qantum again argues that Shalimar is
dependent upon the Fort Walton Beach Urbanized Area and not entitled to
consideration as a first local service. In this regard, Qantum discusses
each of the eight factors set forth in *Tuck* used in assessing the
independence of a suburban community.[^9] In doing so, it contends that
the staff "failed to correctly apply" the *Tuck* criteria.[^10] Qantum
also states that this reallotment from a rural to an Urbanized Area
would result in the removal of a second local service from Evergreen and
a withdrawal of service to 97,195 persons with 9,062 of these potential
listeners receiving fewer than five aural services. In addition, Qantum
notes that the reallotment of Station WPGG to Shalimar would result in
Cumulus Media, Inc., the "largest broadcaster" in Fort Walton Beach,
having an additional outlet in the Fort Walton Beach Urbanized
Area.[^11] Finally, Qantum argues that the staff decision was
inconsistent with the Commission decision in *RKO* and the staff action
in *Green Valley Broadcasters, Inc.*[^12]

**III. DISCUSSION**

5\. We deny the Application for Review. The Shalimar reallotment will
result in a preferential arrangement of allotments as required under
*Community of License.*[^13] In reaching this determination, we compared
the existing versus the proposed arrangement of allotments using the FM
allotment priorities set forth in *Revision of FM Assignment Policies
and Procedures.* While we concur, in substantial part, with the data set
forth in the engineering exhibit included with the Qantum Application
for Review, we reject the Qantum argument that the reallotment proposal
is contrary to the public interest. Using the block centroid data
available from the 2000 U.S. Census, the Shalimar allotment will result
in a loss of service to 164,459 persons[^14] and provide new service to
227,324 persons. This results in a net gain in service to 62,865
persons. Except for 15,199 persons receiving four aural services and
5,538 persons receiving three aural services, the population losing
aural service will continue to be served by five or more aural
services.[^15] It is our view that a net gain in aural service to 62,865
persons coupled with a first local service to Shalimar (FM allotment
Priority 3) outweighs the loss of a fifth aural service to 15,199
persons and the loss of a fourth aural service to 5,538 persons, factors
that are considered under FM allotment Priority 4.[^16]

6\. After careful consideration of the entire record in this proceeding,
we affirm the Media Bureau determination that a reallotment of Channel
227C2 to Shalimar is entitled to consideration as a first local service.
We recognize that Shalimar is located in the Fort Walton Beach Urbanized
Area. In affirming the Media Bureau action, we apply the *Tuck* criteria
to this reallotment proposal.

7\. The first area of inquiry concerns the extent to which a station
will provide service to an entire Urbanized Area. As a Class C2
facility, Station WPGG would invariably serve a large area and a
significant portion of the Fort Walton Beach Urbanized Area. We see no
public interest benefit in downgrading any allotment merely to reduce
coverage to an Urbanized Area. Because Station WPGG is a Class C2
facility, this coverage does not preclude the proposed service to
Shalimar from entitlement to consideration as a first local service. Our
second area of inquiry involves the relative populations of Shalimar and
Fort Walton. The 2000 Shalimar population of 718 persons is less than
four percent of the 19,973 person population of Fort Walton Beach.
However, a percentage of less than one percent has not precluded
favorable consideration as a first local service.[^17] The third inquiry
is the independence of the suburban community. In *Tuck,* the Commission
set forth eight factors to assess the independence of a suburban
community.[^18] These are objective criteria that enable us to determine
the independence of a suburban community. As discussed below, we agree
with the staff that a majority of the factors supports a determination
that Shalimar is independent of the Fort Walton Beach Urbanized Area and
entitled to consideration as a first local service.

8\. The first factor is the work patterns of the Shalimar residents. The
purpose of this factor is to ensure that the residents of the suburban
community are not reliant upon the Urbanized Area for employment. In
this regard, the Petitioner notes that the Shalimar workforce consists
of 363 people and that Shalimar is a "net importer of workers" due to
the fact that a majority of the Shalimar residents are retired. While
there is no data on the percentage of Shalimar residents who work in
Shalimar, we do note that data from the 2000 U. S. Census indicates that
the mean commuting time for Shalimar workers is 16.3 minutes. From this,
we conclude that a significant number of Shalimar residents work in or
very near Shalimar and that there are significant employment
opportunities for these residents who would wish to work in Shalimar.
For these reasons, we find that the residents of Shalimar do not rely on
the Fort Walton Beach Urbanized Area for employment. We agree with the
staff that this is sufficient to support a favorable finding on this
factor.[^19] In regard to the second factor, whether the smaller
community has its own local newspaper or other media providing news and
advertising for Shalimar, we cannot make a finding that Shalimar is
independent.

9\. The third factor, perception of community leaders and residents, and
the fourth factor, local government and elected officials, clearly
support the staff determination concerning the independence of Shalimar.
Gulf Coast submitted a letter from the Shalimar Town Manager referring
to the "strong sense of community." Shalimar, incorporated in 1944, is
governed by a mayor and four commissioners. Shalimar also has a Special
Projects Commissioner, a Finance and Administration Commissioner, a Town
Attorney, a Town Manager, a Deputy Town Clerk, a Police Chief and a
Maintenance Supervisor. We also concur with a favorable finding under
the fifth factor because Shalimar has its own post office and zip code
(32579).

10\. We affirm the favorable finding under the sixth factor regarding
commercial establishments, health facilities and transportation system.
The Petitioner has identified numerous local businesses, medical offices
and a local bus service. On the other hand, we are unable to make a
favorable finding on the seventh factor because it appears that Fort
Walton Beach and Shalimar are part of the same advertising market.
Finally, we are unable to make favorable finding regarding the eighth
factor, the extent to which Shalimar relies on the larger metropolitan
area for municipal services. While Shalimar does have a Police Chief,
two town parks and a nearby library, a majority of municipal services
are not provided by the town of Shalimar.

11\. We disagree with Qantum's contention that awarding Shalimar a
preference as a first local service was inconsistent with the Commission
decision in *RKO.* Following the Commission's clarification of the
Huntington doctrine in Tuck, the Commission determined in RKO that
applicants proposing Richmond, California, were not entitled to
dispositive Section 307(b) preferences over the San Francisco applicants
in a comparative proceeding for the facilities of former AM Station
KFRC, San Francisco, California, where all of the applicants proposed
coverage and facilities identical to Station KFRC, San Francisco,
California, where all of the applicants proposed coverage and facilities
identical to Station KFRC and would serve the entire metropolitan area.
A marginal *Tuck* showing by the applicants designating Richmond as
their community of license, in which only two factors clearly supported
a finding of independence, was deemed insufficient to overcome the fact
that population and signal coverage, as well as the size and proximity
of Richmond to the San Francisco Urbanized Area, were compelling reasons
to apply Huntington and award no Section 307(b) preference to the
Richmond applicants.[^20] The Commission clarified that "an applicant
proposing to serve a lesser community within an urbanized area will not
be able to establish that community's independence merely by showing the
existence of a local government and ancillary municipal services."[^21]

12\. This action is also distinguishable from the staff action in *Green
Valley.* In that decision, the staff determined that, under Priority 4,
a 26^th^ local service to Las Vegas, Nevada, would not be preferred over
a second local service to Sahuarita, Arizona, even though the Las Vegas
proposal would have served substantially more persons. While we concur
that serving a larger number of persons is not always dispositive under
Priority 4, the *Green Valley* decision would not be applicable in this
proceeding because, as discussed above, we are reallotting Channel 227C2
to Shalimar as a first local service under Priority 3.

13\. Finally, Qantum notes that Star Broadcasting, Inc., immediately
after acquiring Station WPGG from Gulf Coast Broadcasting Company,
entered into a contract to sell Station WPGG to Cumulus Licensing, LLC
("Cumulus"). As a result, Cumulus would be the "largest broadcaster in
the Fort Walton Beach Urbanized Area, based either on revenue or
audience share." Qantum's arguments are prematurely raised. It remains
established policy not to consider such issues in conjunction with an
allotment rulemaking proceeding.[^22] Ownership issues relating to a
reallotment are considered in conjunction with the implementing
application.[^23] As the staff has previously stated, this policy is
intended "...to achieve an efficient and orderly transaction of both the
rulemaking and the application process" and recognizes that "a
rulemaking proceeding involves a technical and demographic analysis of
competing proposals in the context of Section 307(b) of the Act."[^24]

**IV. ORDERING CLAUSES**

14\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the aforementioned Application for
Review filed by Qantum of Fort Walton Beach License Company, LLC IS
DENIED.

15\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**JOINT DISSENTING STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

**AND**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

 

**Re:       *Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM
Broadcast Stations (Evergreen, Alabama and Shalimar, Florida), MB Docket
No. 04-219; In the Matter of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM
Broadcast Stations (Lincoln and Sherman, Illinois), MM Docket No.
01-120.***

One of the more tangible ways in which the Commission's arcane allotment
policies have an impact on localism is how we address the migration of
radio stations from rural to urban markets.

Not to make light of a serious matter, but this has almost become a
parlor game. The goal of the game---whether you're applying for a new
station or a station currently licensed to a rural area---is to move as
close to a big market as possible. The closer you get to a big market,
the more potential listeners you can reach and hence the more
advertising dollars you can attract.

But there's a catch---at least there's supposed to be. The Commission is
required by Section 307(b) of the Communications Act "to provide a fair,
efficient, and equitable distribution of radio service" to "the several
States and communities." The FCC cannot simply permit radio stations to
relocate from rural areas to well-served urban markets without violating
that mandate.

That's when the game gets interesting. Under our FM allotment rules, the
Commission will give a preference to any applicant that proposes to
serve a community with ***no*** current licensees---*i.e.*, not that the
community doesn't receive radio service (it could receive service from
dozens of stations) but that no station lists that particular community
as its "community of license." That's where a good atlas comes in handy.
The next step is to scour the maps to find a community near an urban
area that doesn't yet have any stations licensed to it. You win the game
if you get the FCC to grant you a preference for providing "first
service" to a close-in suburban community while being able to cover the
larger market.

On their face, these cases certainly seem to fit that pattern. Why else
would Saga want to change its community of license from Lincoln,
Illinois (population 15,369) to the much smaller Sherman, Illinois
(population 2,871)---other than Sherman's adjacency to the Springfield
urban market? Similarly, why else would Gulf Coast seek to change its
community of license from Evergreen, Alabama (population 3,630) to tiny
Shalimar, Florida (population 718)---other than Shalimar's proximity to
the Ft. Walton urban market?

The Commission is supposed to keep the game honest by declining to grant
"first service" preferences for communities that are not truly
independent of the nearby urban market. This determination is made by
applying the three-pronged *Tuck* test.[^25] It is not so much the
*Tuck* test itself but the majority's lax application that causes me
concern. As described below, the majority's *Tuck* analysis is so feeble
that it scarcely amounts to a test at all.[^26]

*The Coverage Factor.* The majority finds that the Sherman station could
serve most, if not all, of the Springfield Urbanized Area, and that the
Shalimar station would "invariably" serve a significant portion of the
Ft. Walton Urbanized Area. Nevertheless, the majority "sees no public
benefit" in encouraging stations to reduce their coverage areas in order
to satisfy *Tuck*, and thus simply ignores this factor. The majority
misses the point. To some extent, we are trying to assess the intent of
the stations involved. Are they primarily interested in serving the
smaller community or the broader urban market? Signal coverage may not
be determinative on that question, but it is not irrelevant.

*The Relative Size and Distance Factor.* Sherman is 6.7 miles from the
center of Springfield with a population less than 3% of Springfield's
size (2,871 vs. 111,454). Shalimar is less than 1.5 miles from Ft.
Walton Beach---the communities actually are separated by only six-tenths
of a mile across Choctawhatchee Bay---and its population is less than 4%
its size (718 vs. 19,973). In light of *RKO*---in which the Commission
made an unfavorable finding based on a smaller community that was 16
miles from the urban market and 11% of its size---one would think that
the majority would make an unfavorable finding here. But the majority
ignores the distance factor altogether and relies on a staff decision
for the astonishing proposition that a community with ***less than 1%***
of the relative population of the larger market is not enough to justify
an unfavorable finding. If that is true, the second *Tuck* factor may as
well be eliminated entirely.

*The Independence Factor.* In both of these cases the majority concludes
that a majority of the eight indicia of "independence" support a
favorable finding---5 1/2 out of 8 favorable in *Sherman*, and 5 out of
8 favorable in *Shalimar*.[^27] But these findings do not withstand
scrutiny.

One indicia is work patterns: do the residents of the smaller community
remain in the community for work or do they commute to the larger
market? The majority speculates that up to 40% of Sherman residents work
in Sherman "or its immediate environs" based on the fact that (1) the
driving time from Sherman to the center of Springfield is approximately
15-25 minutes, and (2) census data shows that 40% of Sherman residents
commute 15 minutes or less to work. But there's no reason to suppose
that all Springfield jobs are located in the center of the city. The
Springfield airport, for instance, is closer to Sherman than the city
center. Moreover, Sherman is only about 3 miles long and 3.1 square
miles in total area.[^28] Given its size, any Sherman resident with a
commute longer than ten minutes is unlikely to work in the community,
thus making the likely number of residents who work in Sherman closer to
7.8% (the Census Bureau estimate of Sherman residents who work less than
ten minutes from home).

The Shalimar facts are even more compelling. Shalimar is only about one
mile long. At 30 miles per hour, it would take only two minutes to drive
the length of the community. The average commute time for Shalimar
residents is 16.3 minutes. Somehow, the majority concludes from these
facts "that a significant number of Shalimar residents work in or very
near Shalimar." This astonishing assertion is unsupported in the record
and contrary to common sense.

Another indicia is the "perception of community leaders and residents."
The majority makes a favorable finding in *Shalimar* based on a letter
from the Town Manager referring to "the strong sense of community." If
this is sufficient, we may as well just permanently assign this factor
to the favorable column and save the postage.

A third indicia is whether the smaller community has its own commercial
establishments, health facilities, and transportation systems. The idea
is to assess whether the community is self-sufficient or whether it
relies on the larger community to meet its basic needs. Here, neither of
these communities has the types of businesses one would expect to find
in a truly independent community. For instance, there is no indication
that either community has a grocery store, a hospital, a department
store, a dry cleaner, or a drugstore. Nevertheless, the majority finds
this factor is met in both cases based on a hodgepodge of "local
businesses" that just about any community could satisfy.

Thus, it appears that neither of these applications should have passed
muster under *Tuck* (although Sherman is a somewhat closer case). If the
majority wants to change the *Tuck* standard, it should do so openly
rather than maintaining the pretense of a test but draining it of any
practical effect. I am not proposing that we eliminate *Tuck*, only that
we enforce it. At the same time, I recognize that we have sought comment
on a proposal to authorize a station to change its community of license
to any community within the same market, provided that if the community
being vacated is left without a radio station, the vacating licensee
must underwrite the cost of a new LPFM station in the vacated community
for the period of one year.[^29] I express no view on that proposal, but
believe strongly that whatever rules we adopt in this area must actually
be enforced. Creating rules without adequate enforcement only invites
cynicism about the Commission's processes and unduly favors Washington
insiders who understand the way the game is played.

In the end, of course, this is no game. The residents of Lincoln,
Illinois have lost one of their three local stations (and only
commercial FM station), and the residents of Evergreen, Alabama have
lost one of only two local stations (and their only FM station). Those
stations were allowed to pack up and leave because the Commission no
longer provides a meaningful check under Section 307(b). The pay-off for
station owners can be swift. Gulf Coast Broadcasting has already sold
its Shalimar station to radio giant Cumulus and the station is now part
of Cumulus's four-station cluster in the Ft. Walton market. So Gulf
Coast won a big payday and Cumulus was able to further consolidate its
holdings in Ft. Walton.

Game over.

[^1]: *Evergreen, Alabama, and Shalimar, Florida,* Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 1636 (MB 2005) ("*Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*").

[^2]: *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).

[^3]: *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).

[^4]: *See Faye and Richard Tuck,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC
    Rcd 5374 (1988) (*"Tuck"*); *see also Huntington Broadcasting Co. v.
    FCC,* 192 F. 2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1951) (*"Huntington"*); *RKO General,
    Inc. (KFRC),* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3222 (1990)
    (*"RKO"*).

[^5]: 47 U.S.C. § 307(b).

[^6]: *Huntington, supra* note 4. (entire metropolitan area treated as
    one community, when specified community is dependent on central
    city, the applicant proposes to serve metropolitan area and other
    conditions are met). *See also Tuck, supra* note 4, at 5376.

[^7]: *Evergreen, Alabama, and Shalimar, Florida,* Report and Order, 20
    FCC Rcd 6300 (MB 2005).

[^8]: *Id*. at 6301-03, citing *Tuck, supra* note 4.

[^9]: *Tuck, supra* note 4, at 5378, ¶ 36. The eight factors are: (1)
    the extent to which the community residents work in the larger
    metropolitan area, rather than the specified community; (2) whether
    the smaller community has its own newspaper or other media that
    covers the community's needs and interests; (3) whether community
    leaders and residents perceive the specified community as being an
    integral part of, or separate from, the larger metropolitan area;
    (4) whether the specified community has its own local government and
    elected officials; (5) whether the smaller community has its own
    local telephone book provided by the local telephone company or zip
    code; (whether the community has its own commercial establishments,
    health facilities, and transportation systems; (7) the extent to
    which the specified community and central city are part of the same
    advertising market; and (8) the extent to which the specified
    community relies on the larger metropolitan area for various
    municipal services such as police, fire protection, schools and
    libraries. We have considered a community as independent when a
    majority of these factors demonstrate that the community is distinct
    from the Urbanized Area. *Parker and St. Joe, Florida,* Report and
    Order, 11 FCC Rcd 1095 (MMB 1996); *Jupiter and Hobe Sound,
    Florida,* Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 3570 (MMB 1997).

[^10]: Application for Review at 5.

[^11]: *Id.* at 4.

[^12]: *Green Valley Broadcasters, Inc.,* Memorandum Opinion and Order,
    20 FCC Rcd 19411 (MB 2005), *app. for review pending ("Green
    Valley").*

[^13]: *Community of License*, supra note 2.

[^14]: In its engineering exhibit, Qantum states that 97,195 persons
    would lose service instead of the 164,459 persons noted above.
    Qantum derives this population total on the basis of the licensed
    Station WPGG facilities. In determining the overall net population
    gain, we assume maximum facilities for both the existing allotment
    at Evergreen and the proposed allotment at Shalimar. *See Greenup,
    Kentucky, Athens, Ohio,* Report and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 4319 (MMB
    1987), *recon.,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 3843 (MMB
    1989), *aff'd in relevant part*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC
    Rcd 1493 (1991), *aff'd in relevant part,* Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 6 FCC Rcd 1841 (1991), *appeal dismissed sub nom. WATH, Inc.
    v. FCC,* D.C. Cir. No. 91-1268 (Sept. 26, 1991).

[^15]: The Commission has considered five or more reception services to
    be "abundant." *Family Broadcasting Group,* 53 RR 2d 662 (Rev. Bd.
    1983), *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).

[^16]: *Cf. Cross Plains, Allen, Benbrook, Brownwood, et al.,* Report
    and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5506 (MMB 2000) (approving a city of license
    modification based on a first local service and net population gain
    notwithstanding loss of third aural service to 63 persons, a fourth
    aural service to 176 persons, and a fifth aural service to 3,727
    persons); *Arlington, The Dalles, Moro, et al.,* Report and Order,
    19 FCC Rcd 12803 (MB 2004), *app. for review* and *petition for
    recon. pending,* (approving a first local service to Gladstone,
    Oregon, with a net gain in aural service notwithstanding the loss of
    a third aural service to 132 persons and a fifth aural service to
    4,510 persons); *Wallace, Idaho, and Bigfork, Montana,* Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 15267 (MB 2004) (approving a first
    local service to Bigfork, Montana, with a net gain in aural service
    even though 25 percent of the 19,094 persons losing service would
    receive fewer than five aural services).

[^17]: *See Ada, Newcastle and Watonga, Oklahoma,* Report and Order, 11
    FCC Rcd 16896 (MMB 1996).

[^18]: *See* n.9, *supra.*

[^19]: *See Anniston and Ashland, Alabama, and College Park, Covington,
    Milledgeville and Social Circle, Georgia,* Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 16 FCC Rcd 3411 (MMB 2001) (16% of workforce employed in
    community sufficient to support a favorable finding on this factor).

[^20]: *RKO, supra* note 4, at 3223-24, ¶¶ 12-20.

[^21]: *Id*. at 3224, n.13.

[^22]: *See Chillicothe and Ashville, Ohio,* Report and Order, 17 FCC
    Rcd 20418, 20420 (MB 2002), *recon. denied,* Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 18 FCC Rcd 22410 (MB 2003), *app. for rev. pending; see also
    Detroit Lakes and Barnesville, Minnesota, and Enderlin, North
    Dakota,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 22581 (MMB 2001),
    recon., Memorandum Opinion and Order, Detroit Lakes and Barnesville,
    Minnesota, and Enderlin, North Dakota, 17 FCC Rcd 25055 (MB 2002);
    and *Letter from Peter H. Doyle, Acting Chief, Audio Services
    Division, to Paul A. Cuelski, Esq. et al.,* File No.
    BAPH-20011001ABD (May 24, 2001).

[^23]: In this regard, Qantum filed a Petition to Deny raising these
    arguments directed against the application to assign the Station
    WPGG license to Cumulus Licensing (File No. BALH-20050503AAW). On
    March 23, 2006, the staff denied the Qantum Petition to Deny.
    *Letter from Peter H. Doyle, Chief, Audio Division, to Qantum of
    Fort Walton Beach License Company, LLC, et al.,* 21 FCC Rcd 2998 (MB
    2006), *app. for rev. pending.*

[^24]: *Detroit Lakes and Barnesville, Minnesota, and Enderlin, North
    Dakota, supra* note 21, 17 FCC Rcd at 25059-60.

[^25]: The *Tuck* standard examines: (1) the station's proposed signal
    coverage over the urbanized area (the "Coverage Factor"); (2) the
    relative population size and distance between the suburban community
    and the urban market (the "Relative Size and Distance Factor"); and
    (3) the independence of the suburban community, based on various
    factors that would indicate self-sufficiency (the "Independence
    Factor"). *See Faye and Richard Tuck*, 3 FCC Rcd 5374 (1988).

[^26]: At one time, the Commission took the *Tuck* standard seriously.
    In *RKO General*, 5 FCC Rcd 3222 (1990), the Commission refused to
    give an applicant credit for providing "first local service" to
    Richmond, California, a community of 74,676 residents located 16
    miles northeast of San Francisco across the San Francisco Bay. The
    Commission found that the three *Tuck* factors weighed against a
    granting a Section 307(b) preference to Richmond because of its
    interdependence with the San Francisco urban market. First, the
    Commission found that the proposed Richmond facilities were
    identical to facilities other applicants had proposed to serve the
    broader San Francisco market. Second, the Commission found that
    Richmond was located only 16 miles from San Francisco and only had
    11% of the population. Finally, applying the eight indicia of
    independent communities set forth in *Tuck*, the Commission found
    that there was insufficient evidence that Richmond was truly
    independent of San Francisco (*e.g.*, only 35.1% of Richmond
    residents worked in Richmond, Richmond did not have a major public
    hospital or a local public transportation system, and Richmond was
    served by 25 other radio stations licensed to San Francisco).

[^27]: The majority does not give full credit for one of the indicia in
    *Sherman* because while Sherman has its own zip code it does not
    have its own phone book.

[^28]: *See* http://www.shermanil.org/images/village_map/VILLAGE_MAP.pdf

[^29]: *See Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,*
    23 FCC Rcd 5922 (2008), ¶ 98.