Number range CHAPTER**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

**WASHINGTON, DC 20554**

**IN REPLY REFER TO:**

1800B3-DEB

September 26, 1994

Central Coast Communications, Inc.

296 H Street

Chula Vista, CA 91910

In re: KKLF(FM), Gonzales, CA

Central Coast Communications, Inc.

BPH-901211IG

Dear Licensee:

By letter dated October 10, 1991, the staff dismissed auxiliary facility
application BPH-901211IG for station KKLF (formerly KPUP-FM), Gonzales,
CA as unacceptable for filing. The application could not be approved
since the proposed auxiliary facility\'s 1 mV/m contour extended beyond
the licensed main facility\'s 1 mV/m contour, in violation of 47 CFR §
73.1675. On November 12, 1991 a petition for reconsideration of this
action was filed.[^1] This petition for reconsideration is the subject
of this letter.

The petition for reconsideration notes that the staff determined the 1
mV/m contours for the main and proposed auxiliary facilities using
radials spaced every 5 of azimuth. However, the petition states that
there is no requirement to employ more than eight radials spaced every
45. The petition references 47 CFR § 73.313(d), which requires
applicants for FM stations to compute the average height of 8 individual
radials evenly spaced every 45; these figures are then used in
determining the antenna height above average terrain. The petitioner
connected the points at which the 1 mV/m field strength is located along
each of these 8 eight radials with a smooth curve to show the location
of the contour. Although these results differ from the staff\'s
locations of the 1 mV/m contours, the petitioner believes that this
procedure remains valid and should be accepted. In addition, the
petitioner notes that in either case no interference will be caused to
another station.

Contrary to the petitioner\'s assertion, the Commission has indicated
that extra radials should be included where increased accuracy is
desirable for service and interference contour projections. [Digitized
Terrain Data]{.underline}, Docket 84-705, 57 RR 2d 415, 417 (1984),
paragraph 11. [See also]{.underline} [Short-Spaced Assignments by Using
Directional Antennas]{.underline}, MM Docket 87-121, 4 FCC Rcd 1681
(1989), paragraph 41, [recon. denied]{.underline}, 6 FCC Rcd 5356
(1991). Here, the additional radials are necessary to accurately
determine the location of the main and auxiliary facility 1 mV/m
contours \-- an accuracy which cannot be matched by the petitioner\'s
smooth curve method. The rule does not take into account potential
interference or lack thereof; thus the fact that interference would not
occur is not relevant to the application of the rule. Consequently, the
staff did not err when it found the violation of § 73.1675 and dismissed
the application on October 10, 1991, and the petition for
reconsideration will be denied.[^2]

The petition for reconsideration also contains an \"amendment\" to
specify a directional operation to eliminate the extension of the
auxiliary facility\'s 1 mV/m contour beyond the main facility\'s 1 mV/m
contour, in response to the staff\'s suggestion in Footnote 1 of the
October 10, 1991 letter. Dismissed auxiliary applications are not
subject to the Commission\'s \"hard look\" processing requirements and
may be reinstated [nunc pro tunc]{.underline} if a curative amendment is
submitted concurrent with a petition for reconsideration.
[See]{.underline} [Public Notice]{.underline}, \"Commission States
Future Policy on Incomplete and Patently Defective AM and FM
Construction Permit Applications\" \[47 CFR § 73.4015\], 56 RR 2d 776,
49 Fed. Reg. 47331 (1984). Accordingly, we have reviewed the amendment
submitted with the petition for reconsideration. However, we find that
while the amendment eliminates the defect for which the original
application was dismissed \-- the violation of § 73.1675 \-- the
amendment itself violates another rule section. The proposed directional
antenna pattern violates both the 15 dB maximum-to-minimum ratio and the
2 dB/10 rate-of-change limits imposed by 47 CFR § 73.316(a) and (b) and
therefore would be unacceptable for filing and subject to dismissal.
Pursuant to the [Public Notice]{.underline}, applications reinstated
once under this policy cannot be reinstated if dismissed a second time.
Consequently, the present amendment will be dismissed along with the
petition for reconsideration. Any new proposal for an auxiliary facility
must be submitted to the Commission in the context of a new minor change
application on FCC Form 301.

Accordingly, the petition for reconsideration filed on November 12, 1991
of the staff\'s dismissal of application BPH-901211IG IS HEREBY DENIED,
and the supplemental amendment filed on the same date IS HEREBY
DISMISSED. These actions are taken pursuant to 47 CFR § 0.283.

Sincerely,

Larry D. Eads

Chief, Audio Services Division

Mass Media Bureau

cc: Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth

: Robert A. Jones

[^1]: ^?^ Both application BPH-901211IG and the November 12, 1991
    petition for reconsideration were filed by the former licensee of
    KKLF, Jerry J. Collins.

[^2]: ^?^ As we indicated in our October 10, 1991 letter, the ERP would
    have to be reduced to 0.22 kW with the nondirectional facilities
    originally proposed in application BPH-901211MG to achieve
    compliance with § 73.1675.