> **Before the**
>
> **Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

**CALVARY CHAPEL LAKE CITY** ) File No. BNPL-20010122AGW

) Facility ID No. 132369

Application for a Construction Permit for a New )

LPFM Station at Lake City, Idaho )

)

> )

**HAYDEN CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING** ) File No. BNPL-20010119ADW

**CORPORATION** ) Facility ID No. 132087

> )

Application for a Construction Permit for a New )

LPFM Station at Hayden, Idaho )

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: February 6, 2008 Released: February 8, 2008**

By the Commission:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1\. The Commission has before it the captioned applications of Calvary
Chapel Lake City ("Lake City") for a new Low Power FM ("LPFM") station
at Lake City (Coeur d'Alene), Idaho[^1] and Hayden Christian
Broadcasting Corporation ("Hayden") for a new LPFM station at Hayden,
Idaho. The Hayden and Lake City applications were accepted for filing,
and each applicant claimed two points under the selection procedure set
forth in Section 73.872 of the Commission's Rules (the "Rules"). In
accordance with our procedures,[^2] the staff tallied the comparative
point totals claimed by each applicant and listed those point totals in
a Public Notice accepting the applications for filing, establishing a
petition to deny period, and specifying the applications' tentative
selectee status.[^3] Therein, both were designated tentative selectees
for the subject authorization.[^4] The Public Notice accepting the
applications also announced a 30-day period for filing petitions to deny
the listed applications. Lake City timely filed a Petition to Deny the
Hayden application on February 26, 2004 (the "Lake City Petition"),[^5]
and WTL Communications, Inc. ("WTL") filed an Informal Objection to the
Hayden application on May 19, 2004 (the "WTL Objection").[^6] Hayden
filed a Petition to Deny the Lake City application on February 27, 2004
(the "Hayden Petition").[^7] For the following reasons, we: (1) grant
the Lake City Petition and WTL Objection to the extent indicated; (2)
deny the Hayden Petition; (3) dismiss the Hayden application; and (4)
grant the Lake City application.

**II. DISCUSSION**

2\. Lake City timely filed its Petition on February 26, 2004. Because
WTL submitted its Objection after the petition period, its pleading will
be considered as an informal objection under Section 73.3587 of the
Rules.[^8] We have evaluated the merits of Lake City's Petition and
Hayden's Opposition and conclude that Hayden is not entitled to the
comparative point that it claimed for "established community presence."
Accordingly, we will disallow that point and reevaluate the applications
on a comparative basis.

4\. Section III, Item 1 of the LPFM construction permit application
form, FCC Form 318, requests that the applicant demonstrate that it has
an "established community presence" by certifying that "\[the
applicant\], for a period of at least two years prior to application,
has been physically headquartered, has had a campus, or has had
seventy-five percent of its board members residing within 10 miles of
the coordinates of the proposed transmitting antenna." Hayden indicated
"Yes" to that certification, attaching a supporting exhibit "certifying"
that three of its four directors have lived within 10 miles of the
proposed antenna site at least two years before the application was
filed.

5\. In its Petition, Lake City maintains that Hayden "overstated its
comparative position" under the Commission's point system by certifying
that it had an "established community presence." Specifically, Lake City
argues that Hayden did not exist as an entity for two years prior to
filing its application, as required by the Rules, but rather based its
certification on the two-year residence of the members of its governing
board, which by itself, is not sufficient to establish a community
presence under Section 73.872(b)(1) of the Rules. In support, Lake City
refers to Exhibit 2 of the Hayden application wherein Hayden states it
was organized under the laws of the state of Idaho "in 2001," the same
year it filed its application.

6\. In its Opposition to the Lake City Petition, Hayden maintains that
Section 73.872 is silent as to the requirement that an applicant be in
existence for at least two years prior to filing its application, and
that there "is no logical reason" that the language in the *LPFM Report
and Order* should not apply also to individuals. In this regard, Hayden
submits that community presence can only be attained by the actions of
the individuals that comprise the corporation, not the corporate entity
itself, and concludes that the residence of its governing board, alone,
is sufficient to demonstrate "established community presence." We
disagree.

7\. Section 73.872 of the Rules, entitled "Selection Procedure for
Mutually Exclusive LPFM Applications," provides, in pertinent part,
that:

> \[e\]ach mutually exclusive application will be awarded one point for
> each of the following criteria, based on application certification
> that the qualifying conditions are met: (1) *Established community
> presence*. An applicant must, for a period of at least two years prior
> to application, have been physically headquartered, have had a campus,
> or have had seventy-five percent of its board members residing within
> 10 miles of the coordinates of the proposed transmitting antenna. . .
> . [^9]

8\. The language of the Rule requires that a LPFM applicant must be in
existence for at least two years prior to filing its application in
order to claim a point for established community presence. Further, in
the proceeding establishing the low power FM service,[^10] the
Commission discussed the underpinning for its requirement that an
applicant must make a threshold showing that it existed two years prior
to filing its application. Therein, the Commission contemplated that the
organization filing the application would have been in existence and
based in the community for at least two years at the time of filing. For
example, the Commission stated that the criterion for demonstrating
established community presence favors *organizations* that have been
operating in the communities where they propose to construct an LPFM
station and thus have \"track records\" of community service and
established constituencies within their communities. The Commission
believed that such applicants, because of their "longstanding
organizational ties" to their communities, are likely to be more attuned
to, and have "organizational experience" addressing, the needs and
interests of their communities.[^11] Further, the Commission stated that
"preferring organizations that have been in existence and physically
present in the community for two years" would "help prevent maneuvering
of the point system by those who might otherwise establish multiple
organizations to file the LPFM applications."[^12]

9\. Further, the Instructions to FCC Form 318, regarding claiming the
point for established community presence, expressly provide that:

> To qualify for a point under this criterion, the applicant must have
> an established community presence of at least two years duration in
> the community it proposes to serve. Educational institution and
> organization applicants must be able to certify that, during the two
> years prior to application, (a) it has been in existence as a
> nonprofit educational institution or organization, **and** (b) has
> been physically headquartered, has had a campus, or has had
> seventy-five percent of its governing board members residing within 10
> miles of the coordinates of the proposed transmitting antenna. [^13]

10\. The Rule language, the Commission's decision adopting the Rule, and
the instructions to the application for an LPFM construction permit all
contradict Hayden's position that Section 73.872 is silent regarding the
two-year prior existence prescription for applicants. If an applicant
desires to claim the point for establishment of a community presence, it
must meet the threshold requirement of existing as an entity for at
least two years prior to filing its application. Hayden's incorporation
during the same year that it filed its application does not demonstrate
the "longstanding organizational ties" to Hayden envisioned by the
rule.[^14] Although the information Hayden submits regarding the local
residence of the members of its governing board is sufficient to
demonstrate that Hayden is "community-based" for purposes of fulfilling
the basic eligibility requirement under Section 73.853(b),[^15] it is
not sufficient to demonstrate that it had an "established community
presence" for two years prior to the filing of the application,
entitling it to claim the comparative point for the criterion set forth
in Section 73.872(b)(1).

11\. Finally, Hayden's contention that a corporation, as a legal entity,
is incapable of establishing a community presence, as opposed to the
actions of individuals composing the corporation, is devoid of merit.
Many LPFM applicants have established such presence. The point claimed
by and tentatively awarded to Hayden for "established community
presence" will be disallowed.

12\. *WTL Objection.* In its Objection, WTL asserts, as did Lake City,
that Hayden improperly claimed a comparative point for "established
community presence" because it did not exist for at least two years
prior to filing the application. WTL also argues that: (1) Hayden failed
to prove that it is a nonprofit legal entity because the application did
not provide "a document showing its articles of incorporation or the
status of its incorporation as of the filing date, and does not give an
exact date of its incorporation;" and (2) Hayden "appears" to be
controlled by a central organization and "will not" serve Hayden, based
on the similarity of the language and generic references, found in
Hayden's and other applications.[^16]

13\. For the reasons stated above, we agree with WTL that Hayden is not
entitled to comparative credit for "established community presence."
Accordingly, WTL's additional arguments as to this point are
non-decisional, and in any event, without merit. We note, however, that
pursuant to the applicable Rules and procedures, an applicant for an
LPFM station must certify its eligibility to own and operate such
station at the time it files its application.[^17] Section 73.853(a)(1)
of the Rules states that an LPFM station may be licensed to a
noncommercial educational ("NCE") organization for the advancement of an
educational program.[^18] Because individuals are not eligible to own
and operate LPFM stations,[^19] the certification requires that the
applicant be a noncommercial educational institution, corporation, or
entity that is recognized under state law.[^20] Thus, an LPFM applicant
must be incorporated, registered, or otherwise organized as a nonprofit
entity under state law at the time its application is submitted.[^21]
However, there is no requirement that LPFM applicants submit
documentation of their corporate status with their original
applications. Furthermore, mere allegations are insufficient to rebut
such a certification. WTL's claim that Hayden failed to demonstrate its
corporate status is incorrect because Hayden's application specifies
that it was "organized under the laws of the state of Idaho in
2001."[^22] Moreover, WTL offers no evidence beyond mere allegation that
Hayden fails to comply with Section 73.853(a)(1), and thus, its
objection is without merit. To the extent that Hayden's failure to
provide the exact date of its incorporation renders the application not
grantable, that minor defect can be corrected by the applicant by
amendment.[^23] This omission is not the type of defect that would cause
dismissal of an LPFM application.[^24] Finally, WTL's unsupported
allegation that it "appears" that Hayden is controlled by a central
organization amounts to mere speculation. WTL identifies neither this
"central organization" nor an alleged rule violation that would warrant
dismissal of the application.[^25]

14\. *Hayden Petition*. In its Petition, Hayden maintains that Lake
City's originally-filed application specifies "Lake City, Idaho" as the
proposed community of license, but "Lake City" does not have any of the
indicia of a "community" typically required for the allotment of an FM
channel under established precedent. Hayden argues that: (1) there is no
community by that name recognized by local residents; (2) there is no
United States post office with that name; and (3) there is no
concentration of businesses, churches, or other institutions seeking to
identify themselves with such a place by including it in their own
corporate or institutional names. Thus, argues Hayden, because "Lake
City, Idaho" does not exist as a *bona fide* community, the Commission
should dismiss Lake City's application.[^26]

15\. In its Opposition, Lake City explains that "Lake City" is actually
an unofficial name for Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, given its proximity to Lake
Coeur d'Alene, and "many local businesses" include the words "Lake City"
in their names.[^27] Nevertheless, it acknowledges that "Coeur d'Alene"
is the more accurate name for the community, and it has proffered an
amendment to its application filed pursuant to Section 73.871(c)(4) of
the Rules[^28] to specify Coeur d'Alene as its proposed community of
license. Lake City claims that this would be a minor amendment to its
pending proposal under Section 73.871.

16\. Although Lake City filed the amendment to its application to
specify Coeur d'Alene as the proposed community of license, we will
dismiss this amendment as moot for the reasons set forth below. The
specification of "Lake City" provides an identifiable geographic
population grouping sufficient for LPFM purposes. Where a proposed
location is neither an incorporated area nor listed in the census
reports, the proponent of a filing proposing that location is required
to supply the Commission with information adequate to establish that
such place is a geographically identifiable population grouping, and
thus, a "community."[^29] Typically, in determining whether or not there
exists such a population grouping, the Commission seeks to determine
whether or not the location has sufficient attributes of a "community,"
such as political, commercial, social, and religious organizations and
services serving the community, or whether there is a sense of unity and
involvement in community concerns shown by evidence that "the residents
function as and conceive of themselves as a community around which their
interests coalesce."[^30]

17\. Although Coeur d' Alene is an incorporated area, we believe that
some flexibility should be accorded LPFM applicants in the specification
of communities. One hundred-watt, and particularly, 10-watt LPFM
stations when that service has commenced, are designed to provide
service to communities and neighborhoods, such as Lake City, not to an
entire city of license, such as Coeur d'Alene.[^31] Indeed, in
establishing the LPFM service, we stated that, "\[g\]iven the very small
nature of LPFM service contours and prospective audiences, we \[did\]
not expect LPFM service areas to be coincident with traditional
political boundaries that we use to define communities in other
contexts. . . ."[^32] Although we will not as a general rule accept an
unofficial community nickname as a valid community of license, there are
numerous civic and business entities, as well as churches and schools,
bearing the name "Lake City."[^33] In this case, therefore, "Lake City"
has sufficient attributes of a "community" in the Coeur d'Alene area to
permit that application specifying Lake City as the proposed community
of license to be processed.

18\. *LPFM Selection Process*. Before applying the LPFM mutually
exclusive selection procedure preferences to determine the number of
merit points to be awarded to each applicant, we first ascertain the
basic eligibility of the applicants. In order to further our diversity
goals and foster local, community-based service, we do not allow any
broadcaster or other media entity subject to our ownership rules to
control or to hold an attributable ownership interest in an LPFM station
or enter broadcast-related operating agreements with an LPFM
licensee.[^34] Additionally, to foster the local nature of LPFM service,
we have limited eligibility to local entities during the first two years
that LPFM licenses are available.[^35] Based on the record before us, we
conclude that Lake City and Hayden are each qualified to hold an LPFM
authorization.

19\. Mutually exclusive LPFM applications filed by qualified applicants
are subject to the comparative selection procedures set forth in Section
73.872 of the Rules.[^36] This procedure awards a maximum of three
points based on three criteria deemed to be most relevant to predicting
the applicant best qualified to provide the service for which LPFM
spectrum has been allocated, with the applicant with the highest points
awarded named the tentative selectee:[^37]

-   Each applicant that certified that it has had an *established
    community presence* *of at least two years\'* *duration* is awarded
    one point. An applicant is deemed to have an established community
    presence if, for a period of at least two years prior to
    application, the *applicant* has been physically headquartered, has
    had a campus, or has had 75 percent of its board members residing
    within 10 miles of the reference coordinates of the proposed
    transmitting antenna.

-   An applicant that has *pledged to operate at least 12 hours per day*
    is awarded one point.

-   An applicant that has *pledged to originate locally at least eight
    hours of programming per day* is awarded one point. For purposes of
    this criterion, local origination is defined as the production of
    programming within 10 miles of the reference coordinates of the
    proposed transmitting antenna.[^38]

20\. Under this comparative selection process, the applicants here are
awarded the following points:

-   *Established Community Presence.* Lake City is not entitled to a
    point because it did not certify that, for a period of at least two
    years prior to the filing date of its application, it has existed as
    an educational institution or organization and has been physically
    headquartered, has had a campus, or has had 75 percent of its board
    members residing within 10 miles of the coordinates of the proposed
    transmitting antenna.[^39] Hayden is not entitled to a point
    because, as discussed above, it did not exist for at least two years
    prior to filing its application.

-   *Proposed Operating Hours.* Lake City and Hayden are each entitled
    to a point because they each pledge to operate at least 12 hours per
    day.[^40]

-   *Local Program Origination.* Lake City is entitled to a point
    because it pledges to originate at least eight hours of local
    programming per day.[^41] Hayden is not entitled to one point
    because it has not so pledged.[^42]

*Total Points*. Accordingly, Lake City is entitled to two points, and
Hayden is entitled to one point. Thus, Lake City is the prevailing
tentative selectee in LPFM Mutually Exclusive Group No. 38. We conclude
that grant of Lake City's application would serve the public interest,
convenience and necessity.

**III. ORDERING CLAUSES**

21\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the Petition to Deny the
application of Hayden Christian Broadcasting Corporation (File No.
BNPL-20010119ADW) filed by Calvary Chapel Lake City IS GRANTED to the
extent indicated, and is otherwise DENIED.

22\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Informal Objection to the
application of Hayden Christian Broadcasting Corporation filed by WTL
Communications, Inc. IS GRANTED to the extent indicated, and is
otherwise DENIED.

23\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Petition to Deny the application of
the application of Calvary Chapel Lake City (File No. BNPL-20010122AGW)
filed by Hayden Christian Broadcasting Corporation IS DENIED.

24\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the application of Hayden Christian
Broadcasting Corporation IS DISMISSED.

25\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the application of Calvary Chapel Lake
City

IS GRANTED, and the amendment to that application filed March 18, 2004,
IS DISMISSED as moot.

26\. Finally, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this *Memorandum
Opinion and Order* shall be sent, by First Class and Certified Mail,
Return Receipt Requested, to Calvary Chapel Lake City, 180 West Clayton
Street, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83815, and to its counsel Harry C. Martin,
Esq., Fletcher, Heald, and Hildreth, PLC, 1300 North 17^th^ Street,
11^th^ Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22209; and to Hayden Christian
Broadcasting Corporation, P.O. Box 2197, Hayden, Idaho 83835, and to its
counsel Donald E.

Martin, Esq., P.O. Box 8433, Falls Church, Virginia 22041, and WTL
Communications, Inc., P.O. Box 1199, Merlin, Oregon 97532, and to its
counsel Dan J. Alpert, Esq., 2120 N. 21^st^ Rd., Arlington, Virginia
22201.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

[^1]: The Lake City application was dismissed by the staff on March 16,
    2004, for failing to distinguish Lake City from other Calvary Chapel
    applicants that had filed similar applications for LPFM stations, or
    national Calvary Chapel radio companies such as CSN International
    and Calvary Chapel of Twin Falls that own numerous full-service and
    FM translator radio stations throughout the country. *Letter to
    Listed Applicants*, Ref. 1800B3-GDG/SW (MB Mar. 16, 2004). The staff
    subsequently granted Lake City's Petition for Reconsideration and
    reinstated its application on July 20, 2005. *Letter to Harry C.
    Martin, Esq.*, Ref. 1800B3-MW (MB Jul. 20, 2005).

[^2]: *See Creation of a Low Power Radio Service,* Report and Order, 15
    FCC Rcd 2205 (2000) ("*LPFM Report and Order*"); *recon. generally
    denied,* Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd
    19208 (2000); *regulation modification granted by* *Second* Report
    and Order*,* 16 FCC Rcd 8026 (2001); Third Report and Order and
    Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07-204 (rel. Dec.
    11, 2007) ("*Third Report and Order*").

[^3]: *See Closed Groups of Pending Low Power FM Mutually Exclusive
    Applications Accepted for Filing*, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 1034
    (MB Jan. 28, 2004).

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.872(a) and (b) require that, following the close of
    each window for new LPFM stations and for modifications in the
    facilities of authorized LPFM stations, the Commission is to issue a
    public notice identifying all groups of mutually exclusive
    applications. Such applications will be awarded points to determine
    the tentative selectee. Unless resolved by settlement, the tentative
    selectee will be the applicant within each group with the highest
    point total. Each mutually exclusive application is awarded one
    point, based on application certification, for: (1) established
    community presence (*see* discussion *infra*); (2) proposed
    operating hours (if the applicant proposes operation for at least 12
    hours per day); and (3) local program origination (if the applicant
    pledges to originate locally at least eight hours of programming per
    day).

[^5]: Hayden filed an Opposition to the Lake City Petition on March 17,
    2004.

[^6]: WTL, an applicant for a new LPFM facility in Grants Pass, Oregon
    (File No. BNPL-20010615BDF), claims to have discovered flaws in a
    number of pending LPFM applications to which it has filed
    objections, including that of Hayden here.

[^7]: Lake City filed an Opposition to Hayden's Petition on March 19,
    2004, to which Hayden filed a Reply on April 7, 2004.

[^8]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3587.

[^9]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.872(b)(1).

[^10]: *LPFM* *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 2205.

[^11]: *Id.* (emphasis added).

[^12]: *Id*. at 2260 ¶ 140.

[^13]: Page 8, A. Question 1: Established Community Presence (emphasis
    added).

[^14]: *Id*. We do not question whether Hayden's listed principals have
    lived in Hayden for more than two years. However, the Commission
    does not license LPFM stations to individuals, and the Hayden
    principals' individual ties to the community do not provide the
    established "organizational ties" for which the comparative credit
    is awarded.

[^15]: *Id*. at ¶ 33. *See also* 47 CFR § 73.853.

[^16]: In support of its allegation, WTL states that, while doing
    research against an application mutually exclusive with its LPFM
    application for a facility in Grants Pass, Oregon, it discovered
    that the applicant there used "almost the identical text to state
    their educational purpose" and used the same rationale and text to
    claim a comparative point for established community presence. WTL
    observes that there is nothing in the statement to demonstrate any
    connection to Hayden, only to "the proposed service area." WTL
    charges that it cannot be a coincidence that the same text and
    "flawed reasoning" could be used in multiple applications unless it
    was directed by a "central organization." WTL does not identify that
    "central organization."

[^17]: *See* Instructions for FCC Form 318, Section II, Question 2. *See
    also* FCC Form 318, Section II, Question 2.

[^18]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.853(a)(1).

[^19]: ^?^ *LPFM Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 2205 at paragraph 20,
    footnote 40. *See also* Instructions for FCC Form 318, Section II,
    Question 2(b).

[^20]: ^?^ *Id.* at ¶¶ 18 and 19. *See also* 47 U.S.C. § 397(6)(A).

[^21]: The Commission restricted the initial LPFM filing windows to
    "local" applicants. 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.853(b). *See also, LPFM Report
    and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 2215.

[^22]: *See* captioned Hayden application at Exhibit 2.

[^23]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.781(c)(4).

[^24]: *Cf. Superior Broadcasting Of California,* Decision, 94 FCC 2d
    904 (1983) (light comparative demerit imposed for failure to report
    information already on public file with FCC) and *Post-Newsweek
    Stations, Florida, Inc*., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 49 FCC 2d 92
    (1974) (supplemental filings falling within certain parameters were
    properly accepted and considered by the Bureau).

[^25]: *See, e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. § 73.858(b) and the Instructions for FCC
    Form 318, pp. 5-6, which reads:

    > Under this provision a local chapter of a national organization
    > will not have the attributable media interests of the national
    > organization attributed to it, provided that the local chapter:
    > (1) is incorporated in its local area separately from the national
    > organization with which it is affiliated; and (2) has a distinct
    > local presence and mission. To satisfy the second element of this
    > standard, an applicant must demonstrate that it has significant
    > membership within its local area and that it has a local purpose
    > that can be distinguished from the purpose of the national
    > organization with which it is affiliated.

[^26]: Hayden refers to the Commission's statement that LPFM licensees
    are to "meet the needs and interests of their communities," *LPFM
    Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 2270, and notes that an LPFM
    station is required to identify its community of license in
    accordance with the Commission's station identification rule, 47
    C.F.R. § 73.1201.

[^27]: ^?^ Lake City Opposition at 2.

[^28]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.871(c)(4). This section limits LPFM amendments
    filed after the close of the pertinent filing window to minor
    amendments such as changes "in general or legal information."

[^29]: *See, e.g., FM Channel Policies/Procedures,* Second Report and
    Order, 90 FCC 2d 88, 101 (1982).

[^30]: *See, e.g., Mighty Mac Broadcasting Co.,* Decision, 58 RR 2d 599,
    601 (1985).

[^31]: *See Creation of a Low Power Radio Service*, Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 2471 (1999) ("We believe that these new LPFM
    stations would provide a low-cost means of serving urban communities
    and neighborhoods, as well as populations living in smaller rural
    towns and communities. . . . Our goals are to address unmet needs
    for community-oriented radio broadcasting. . . ."). *See also LPFM
    Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2208 ("Our goal in creating a new
    LPFM service is to create a class of radio stations designed to
    serve very localized communities or underrepresented groups within
    communities"). LPFM stations are also exempt from the city coverage
    requirements of Section 73.315(a). *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.801.

[^32]: *LPFM Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2216, para. 25.

[^33]: For example, the website link provided by Lake City for the Coeur
    d'Alene Chamber of Commerce,
    [www.cdachamber.com](http://www.cdachamber.com/), lists the
    following representative Lake City businesses: Lake City Fast Photo,
    a photo finishing shop; Lake City Ford Lincoln Mercury, an
    automobile dealership; Lake City Transmission, an automobile service
    and repair shop; and Lake City Playhouse, a community theatre. The
    site also lists the Lake City Community Church. The Lake City
    Development Corporation (*see*
    [www.lcdc.org](http://www.dcdc.org/)), the urban redevelopment
    agency serving the city of Coeur d'Alene, was established by the
    Coeur d'Alene City Council and provides some evidence that Coeur
    d'Alene identifies with "Lake City." Furthermore, the city contains
    Lake City Junior Academy, a private middle school, and Lake City
    High School, home of the Timberwolves, which is part of the Coeur
    d'Alene School District.

[^34]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.860.

[^35]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.853(b). The *Third Report and Order* amends
    this rule section. Pursuant to the amended 47 C.F.R. § 73.853(b),
    \"\[o\]nly local applicants will be permitted to submit
    applications.\" The amended rule takes effect on March 17, 2008.

[^36]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 73.872.

[^37]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^38]: *See id.*

[^39]: *See* Lake City application at Section III, Question 1(a).

[^40]: *See* Lake City application at Section III, Question 2; *see
    also* Hayden application at Section III, Question 2.

[^41]: *See* captioned Lake City application at Section III, Question 3.

[^42]: *See* captioned Hayden application at Section III, Question 3.