**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | MM Docket No. 01-120         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Amendment of Section 73.202(b),  | ) | RM-10126                     |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Table of Allotments,             | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| FM Broadcast Stations.           | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| (Lincoln and Sherman, Illinois)  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**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 Long
Nine, Inc. ("Long Nine") directed to the staff *Memorandum Opinion and
Order* in this proceeding.[^1] Saga Communications Inc. ("Saga
Communications") filed an Opposition to Application for Review and Long
Nine filed a Reply to Opposition to Application for Review. 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] Section 1.420(i) and the FM allotment priorities
were adopted to further the Commission's longstanding policy goal to
provide a fair and equitable distribution of radio service.[^4] 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.[^5] In evaluating these showings,
the Commission considers the extent 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.

3\. At the request of Saga Communications, licensee of Station WMHX,
Channel 230B1, Lincoln, Illinois, the Media Bureau reallotted Channel
230B1 from Lincoln to Sherman, Illinois, and modified the Station WMHX
license to specify Sherman as the community of license.[^6] In this
situation, the reallotment resulted in Sherman (with a population of
2,871 persons) gaining its first local service while Lincoln (with a
population of 15,369 persons) retained local service from AM Station
WLLM and noncommercial educational FM Station WLNX.[^7] Long Nine noted
the proximity of Sherman to the Springfield Urbanized Area and suggested
that the 2000 U.S. Census, that was released later in the year, may
establish that Sherman is now located within the Springfield Urbanized
Area. However, based on the Saga Communications representation that
Sherman was not located within the Springfield Urbanized Area and
because Saga Communications specified an allotment reference site from
which Station WMHX would not provide a 70 dBu signal to more than 50
percent of the Urbanized Area, the staff did not request a *Tuck*
showing.[^8] The *Report and Order* modified the city of license of
Station WMHX based on the staff's determination that Sherman was
entitled to a priority (3) preference.

4\. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Long Nine argued that the
reallotment proposal is not entitled to a preference as a first local
service because Sherman is interdependent with the Springfield Urbanized
Area.[^9] Long Nine also disputed the Saga Communications claim that
Sherman is not located within the Springfield Urbanized Area. It also
demonstrated that there are transmitter sites available that would
enable Station WMHX to provide a 70 dBu signal to more than 50 percent
of the Urbanized Area.

5\. In regard to this reallotment proposal, the 2000 U.S. Census became
available and confirmed the fact that Sherman is located in the
Springfield Urbanized Area. The staff noted that had it been aware of
the fact that Sherman is located within the Springfield Urbanized Area,
it would have required a *Tuck* showing.[^10] Accordingly, Saga
Communications was requested to submit a *Tuck* showing.[^11] After
evaluating the additional information submitted by Saga Communications,
the Bureau found that Sherman is independent of the Springfield
Urbanized Area, and determined that the Sherman reallotment proposal is
entitled to consideration as a first local service. Accordingly, the
Bureau denied Long Nine's Petition for Reconsideration.

6\. On review, Long Nine argues that the *Tuck* analysis in this
proceeding was erroneous. Based on its own analysis, Long Nine again
concludes that Sherman is dependent upon the Springfield Urbanized Area
and not entitled to consideration as a first local service. Long Nine
asserts that Saga Communications would "undoubtedly" relocate the
Station WMHX transmitter to a site that would provide a 70 dBu signal to
Springfield. Finally, Long Nine contends that the Bureau decision was
inconsistent with prior precedent.[^12]

**III. DISCUSSION**

7\. After careful consideration of the entire record in this proceeding,
we affirm the staff determination that a reallotment of Channel 230B1 to
Sherman is entitled to consideration as a first local service. Here, we
find that the staff correctly requested a *Tuck* showing once it was
determined that Sherman is located within the Springfield Urbanized
Area.

8\. In evaluating a proposal under *Tuck,* the first area of inquiry
concerns the extent a station will provide service to an entire
Urbanized Area. Although Station WMHX could specify a transmitter site
that would permit Station WMHX to serve most, if not all, of the
Springfield Urbanized Area, this does not compel us to find that Sherman
is not entitled to consideration as a first local service. As a Class B1
facility, Station WMHX will serve a large area. Any transmitter site
closer to Springfield will invariably serve a large portion of the
Springfield Urbanized Area. We see no public interest benefit in
downgrading an allotment or restricting the location of a transmitter
site merely to reduce coverage of an Urbanized Area.[^13] Our second
area of inquiry involves the relative populations of Sherman and
Springfield. The 2000 Sherman population of 2,871 persons is substantial
even though it is less than three percent of the 111,454 person
population of Springfield. However, a percentage of less than one per
cent has not precluded favorable consideration as a first local
service.[^14] Our third inquiry is the independence of the suburban
community. In *Faye and Richard Tuck,* we set forth eight factors in
assessing the independence of a suburban community.[^15] Long Nine
discusses each of the eight *Tuck* factors and concludes that only three
of these factors demonstrate that Sherman is independent of the
Springfield Urbanized Area. As discussed below, we find that the staff
correctly determined that a majority of the factors support the
conclusion that Sherman is independent of the Springfield Urbanized Area
and, therefore, entitled to consideration as a first local service.

9\. The first factor is the extent to which community residents work in
the larger community rather than the specified community. Saga
Communications identifies numerous businesses located in Sherman that
provide an opportunity for employment. It also estimates, based on data
in the 2000 U.S. Census regarding commuting times of the Sherman
workforce, that forty percent work in Sherman or its immediate environs
rather than in Springfield.[^16] Such a showing represents a significant
employment base in Sherman and thus a finding of independence on this
first factor under Commission precedent.[^17] In making this finding, we
reject the Long Nine contention that the substantial employment
opportunities in Sherman, and outside of Springfield, are insufficient
to support this finding. *Tuck* does not require that a majority of the
workforce be employed in the specified community. Employment of a
majority of the workforce in the specified community is not required to
demonstrate a significant employment base and the community's
independence under *Tuck.*

10\. The third factor, perception of community leaders and residents,
and the fourth factor, local government and elected officials, also
support a determination concerning the independence of Sherman. Saga
Communications has submitted a letter from the Mayor of Sherman
attesting to fact that Sherman was incorporated in 1959 and is a
separate and distinct community. Saga Communications has also submitted
54 Declarations from local residents stating that Sherman is a separate
and distinct community from Springfield. Sherman is governed by a mayor
and six elected trustees. According to the Mayor, Sherman has its own
businesses, churches and civic organizations and does not rely on
Springfield for police, fire protection, schools and libraries.

11\. The staff properly determined that Sherman has sufficient
commercial establishments and health facilities to support an
independence finding under factor six. Saga Communications has
identified numerous local businesses including banks, restaurants and a
public golf course. Under factor eight, Sherman does not rely on
Springfield for municipal services. Sherman has its own police and
volunteer fire department and, as stated earlier, does not rely on
Springfield for other municipal services. Finally, Saga Communications's
proposal merits a favorable finding regarding the fifth factor insofar
as Sherman has its own zip code. Full credit is not warranted, however,
given that Sherman does not have a separate phone book.

12\. While a majority of the factors supports a finding that Sherman is
independent of the Springfield Urbanized Area, two factors do not
support this finding. The second factor, whether the smaller community
has its own local newspaper or other media providing news and
advertising for Sherman, does not support an independent finding because
Sherman relies upon the State Journal Register and the Illinois Times.
Under the seventh factor, Sherman and Springfield are part of the same
advertising market.

13\. We disagree with Long Nine's contention that awarding Sherman a
preference as a first local service was inconsistent with either the
*Huntington* doctrine or the Commission's decision in *RKO.*[^18]
*Huntington* involved mutually exclusive applications for a five
kilowatt AM facility. The court affirmed the Commission decision not to
award dispositive Section 307(b) preferences for first local services to
applicants that proposed either Huntington Park or Monrovia as their
community of license over a third applicant that proposed Los Angeles,
where all three applicants would provide technically comparable service
to the Los Angeles metropolitan area and the applicants for Huntington
Park and Monrovia proposed power in excess of what was needed to serve
their proposed communities of license. Thus, *Huntington* is a limited
exception to the usual Section 307(b) presumption that every community
needs at least one local transmission service where competing
applications are filed for separate communities that are interdependent
with a central city. 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 renewal proceeding for AM spectrum long assigned to 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-Oakland Urbanized Area, were compelling reasons to apply
*Huntington* and award no Section 307(b) preference to the Richmond
applicants.[^19] 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."[^20] In
contrast, Saga Communications proposes to serve less than fifty percent
of Springfield and, as noted above, its proposal warrants favorable
findings on a majority of the *Tuck* factors.

14\. Long Nine's reliance on the Commission's decision in *Romar
Communications, Inc.*is also misplaced.[^21] That case involved mutually
exclusive AM applications that proposed new AM broadcast stations for
two suburbs of Ithaca, New York, Lansing and South Hill, New York. The
Commission found that, under *Tuck*, the proposed communities were
interdependent with the Ithaca Urbanized Area and that the Ithaca
Urbanized Area should be treated as a single community for purposes of
Section 307(b). Because the applicants for Lansing and South Hill
effectively proposed to serve the same community, the Commission
resolved the mutually exclusive AM license applications by auction
rathan than "blindly award a first local service preference to proposed
communities in well-served urbanized areas, or where granting the
preference would lead to an anomalous result."[^22] Contrary to Long
Nine's suggestion,[^23] the key consideration in *Romar Communications*
was the finding of interdependence under *Tuck*, not the proposed
communities' location in, or the applicants' proposed service to, the
Urbanized Area. In contrast to the subject proceeding, where a majority
of the *Tuck* factors demonstrates Sherman's independence from
Springfield, the staff in *Romar Communications* determined and the
Commission agreed that a majority of the eight *Tuck* factors did not
support a finding that either Lansing or South Hill is independent of
the Ithaca Urbanized Area. In this proceeding, Long Nine has not set
forth any basis to conclude that the staff's analysis of the eight
*Tuck* factors in *Romar Communications* undermines the staff's
determination in this case that a majority of the *Tuck* factors
supports a finding that Sherman is independent of the Springfield
Urbanized Area.

15\. Throughout this proceeding, Long Nine has argued that Saga
Communications intends to serve the Springfield Urbanized Area and not
provide a local service to Sherman. At this juncture, we cannot deny the
proposed reallotment on the basis of speculation that Station WMHX will
not provide a local service to Sherman. Notwithstanding the fact that as
a Class B1 facility, Station WMHX promotes itself as providing service
to a large area, Station WMHX is required to provide a local service to
Sherman.[^24] While we no longer require a licensee to adhere to
detailed ascertainment procedures, meet non-entertainment programming
guidelines or maintain detailed programming logs, various Commission
rules are designed to ensure that broadcast stations serve their
licensed communities. Each licensee is required to list in its public
inspection file the programs that have addressed the most significant
community issues during the previous three months.[^25] These lists are
retained in the public inspection file until final action on the
station's renewal application. This represents a significant and
meaningful requirement for Saga Communications to serve Sherman. This
also provides a tangible means for the residents of Sherman and the
Commission staff in considering a Station WMHX application for renewal
of license, to determine whether Station WMHX is, in fact, serving
Sherman and operating in the public interest.

16\. This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. The
Commission is, therefore, not required to submit a copy of this
*Memorandum Opinion and Order* to GAO, pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act, s*ee* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)A), because the petition for
reconsideration was denied.

**IV. ORDERING CLAUSES**

17\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the aforementioned Application for
Review filed by the Long Nine, Inc. IS DENIED.

18\. 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.[^26] 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.[^27]

*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*.[^28] 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.[^29] 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.[^30] 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]: *Lincoln and Sherman, Illinois,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19
    FCC Rcd 23581 (MB 2004) (*"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). *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.420(i).

[^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* 47 U.S.C. § 307(b). *See also Community of License, supra,*
    5 FCC Rcd at 7095.

[^5]: *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*").

[^6]: *Lincoln and Sherman, Illinois,* Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 5328
    (MB 2002) ("*Report and Order*").

[^7]: *Id.* at 5329.

[^8]: See *Headland, Alabama, and Chattahoochee, Florida,* Report and
    Order, 10 FCC Rcd 10352 (MMB 1995) (required a *Tuck* showing when a
    70 dBu signal of a station operating at the specified allotment
    reference site would cover more than 50 percent of the Urbanized
    Area).

[^9]: Petition for Reconsideration at 2.

[^10]: *Lincoln and Sherman, Illinois,* Request for Supplemental
    Information, 19 FCC Rcd 17446 (MB 2004).

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: *See* Long Nine Application for Review at 9 citing *RKO, supra,
    and* *Romar Communications, Inc.,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19
    FCC Rcd 23128 (2004).

[^13]: Providing a 70 dBu signal to an Urbanized Area, or promoting the
    fact that it serves an Urbanized Area, does not establish that a
    station will not meet its primary obligation to serve its community
    of license.

[^14]: *See Ada, Newcastle and Watonga, Oklahoma,* Report and Order, 11
    FCC Rcd 16896 (MMB 1996).

[^15]: 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; (6) whether the community has
    its own commercial establishments, health facilities, and
    transportation systems; (7) the extent to which the specified
    community and the 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
    a police, fire protection, schools, and libraries. We have
    considered a community as independent when a majority of these
    factors demonstrates 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).

[^16]: In its Response to Request for Supplemental Information, Saga
    Communications states that there is no published information
    regarding the extent to which Sherman residents work in Springfield
    rather than Sherman. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 7.8 percent
    of the Sherman residents work less than ten minutes from their
    homes, 31 percent work 15 to 19 minutes from their homes and 28.6
    percent work 20 to 24 minutes from their homes. Saga Communications
    notes that Sherman is 6.7 miles from Springfield, the commute is
    approximately 15 to 25 minutes, and that Springfield is the only
    major employment base in this radius. From this, Saga Communications
    states that 60 percent of the 1,411 working residents of Sherman may
    be working in Springfield, the remaining 40 percent work either in
    Sherman or its immediate environs.

[^17]: *See Anniston and Ashland, Alabama, and College Park, Covington,
    Milledgeville and Social Circle, Georgia,* 16 FCC Rcd 3411 (MMB
    2001), *recon. denied* 19 FCC Rcd 1603 (2004) (16 percent of
    workforce employed in community sufficient to support a favorable
    finding on this factor); *Chillicothe and Ashville, Ohio,* 18 FCC
    Rcd 2240 (MB 2003), *app for review pending* (39 percent of
    workforce employed in community sufficient to support a favorable
    finding on this factor).

[^18]: *Huntington, supra* note 5, and *RKO, supra* note 5.

[^19]: *RKO*, 5 FCC Rcd at 3223-24, ¶¶ 12-20.

[^20]: *Id.* at 3224, n. 13.

[^21]: *Romar Communications, Inc.,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19
    FCC Rcd 23128 (2004), *recon. denied*, 23 FCC Rcd 2512 (2008).

[^22]: *Romar Communications, Inc*., 19 FCC Rcd at 23130, ¶6 & n.13,
    *citing RKO,* 5 FCC Rcd at 3223.

[^23]: Long Nine Reply to Opposition, n. 2.

[^24]: *See, e.g., In the Matter of Broadcast Localism,* Notice of
    Inquiry, 19 FCC Rcd 12425 (2004).

[^25]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3526(e)(12). *See also Deregulation of
    Radio,* Report and Order, 84 FCC 2d 968 (1981), *recon. granted in
    part,* 87 FCC 2d 796 (1981), *aff'd in relevant part, Office of
    Communication of United Church of Christ v FCC,* 707 F.2d 1413, 1435
    (D.C. Cir. 1983).

[^26]: 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).

[^27]: 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).

[^28]: 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.

[^29]: *See* http://www.shermanil.org/images/village_map/VILLAGE_MAP.pdf

[^30]: *See Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,*
    23 FCC Rcd 5922 (2008), ¶ 98.