**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | MM Docket No. 98-112         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Amendment of Section 73.202(b),  | ) | RM-9027                      |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Table of Allotments,             | * | RM-9268                      |
|                                  |   |                              |
| FM Broadcast Stations.           | * | RM-9384                      |
|                                  | * |                              |
| (Anniston and Ashland, Alabama,  | ) |                              |
| and College                      | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Park, Covington, Milledgeville   |   |                              |
| and                              | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Social Circle, Georgia)          | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

(Proceeding Terminated)

**Adopted:** February 7, 2001 **Released:** February 9, 2001

By the Chief, Allocations Branch:

1\. The Allocations Branch has before it a Petition for Reconsideration
filed by Preston Small directed to the [Report and Order]{.underline} in
this proceeding. 15 FCC Rcd 9971 (2000). WNNX License Investment Co.
("WNNX License") filed an Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration.
Radio South, Inc. filed Comments on Petition for Reconsideration.
Preston Small filed a Reply to Oppositions to Petition for
Reconsideration. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition
for Reconsideration.

[Background]{.underline}

2\. The [Notice of Proposed Rule Making]{.underline} in this proceeding
set forth two mutually exclusive Petitions for Rule Making. 13 FCC Rcd
12738 (1998). First, Preston Small, licensee of Station WLRR, Channel
264A, Milledgeville, Georgia, proposed the substitution of Channel 264C3
for Channel 264A, reallotment of Channel 264C3 to Covington, Georgia, as
a second local service, and modification of the Station WLRR license to
specify operation on Channel 264C3 at Covington. Subsequently, in
response to the [Notice]{.underline}, Preston Small filed a
Counterproposal proposing the reallotment of Channel 264C3 to Social
Circle, Georgia, instead of Covington as originally proposed. Second,
WNNX License, licensee of Station WHMA, Channel 263C, Anniston, Alabama,
proposed the substitution of Channel 263C3 for Channel 263C, reallotment
of Channel 263C3 to College Park, Georgia, and modification of the
Station WHMA license to specify operation on Channel 263C3 at College
Park. 3. The [Report and Order]{.underline} substituted Channel 263C3
for Channel 263C, reallotted Channel 263C3 to College park, and modified
the Station WHMA license to specify operation on Channel 263C3 at
College Park. In reaching this decision, we determined that the proposed
Channel 263C3 allotment to College Park as a first local service would
result in a preferential arrangement of allotments as required by
[Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of
License]{.underline} ("[Community of License]{.underline}"), 4 FCC Rcd
4870 (1989), [recon]{.underline}. 5 FCC Rcd 7094 (1990).[^1] Upon this
determination, we then determined that first local service at College
Park would be preferred over the Preston Small proposal for a first
local service at Social Circle.

4\. In his Petition for Reconsideration, Preston Small argues that the
[Report and Order]{.underline} "substantially fails" to discuss his
arguments with respect to the independence of College Park from the
Atlanta Urbanized Area and whether College Park is entitled to
consideration as a first local service. In this regard, Preston Small
notes that under [Faye and Richard Tuck]{.underline}, 3 FCC RCd 5374
(1988), we examine such proposals by considering the signal population
coverage, the size and proximity of the proposed community to the urban
center, and the interdependence of the proposed community and the urban
center utilizing the eight [Tuck]{.underline} factors.[^2] While Preston
Small acknowledges that interdependence is the most important factor
considered in making an allocation decision involving the proposed
reallocation of a station to an urbanized area, Preston Small contends
that the [Report and Order]{.underline} "mishandled" all three areas of
inquiry.

5\. We deny the Petition for Reconsideration. In doing so, we remain
concerned with the potential migration of stations from lesser served
rural areas to well-served urban areas and we will not blindly apply a
first local service preference of the FM allotment priorities when a
station seeks to reallot its channel to a suburban community in or near
an Urbanized Area. We will discuss each of the arguments in the Petition
for Reconsideration under the guidelines set forth in [Faye and Richard
Tuck]{.underline}.

6\. The first area of inquiry concerns the extent a station will provide
service to the entire Urbanized Area. In this situation, we recognize
that Station WHMA will provide a 70 dBu signal to 45% of the Atlanta
Urbanized Area. This does not support a conclusion that College Park is
not entitled to consideration as a first local service. As a Class C3
facility, Station WHMA will invariably serve a large area. In regard to
the extent of coverage in this instance, we note that in analogous
situations involving a community outside of an Urbanized Area, the
Commission only requires a showing pursuant to [Faye and Richard
Tuck]{.underline} in proposals providing 50% coverage to an Urbanized
Area. [Headland, Alabama and Chattahooche, Florida]{.underline} , 10 FCC
Rcd 10352 (1995). In this connection, we note that we have approved
reallotment proposals encompassing more than 45% of an Urbanized Area.
[Oraibi and Leupp, Arizona]{.underline}, 14 FCC Rcd 13547 (1999) (70 dBu
over 90% of an Urbanized Area), and [Mullins and Briarcliffe Acres,
South Carolina]{.underline}, 14 FCC 10516 (1999) (70 dBu over 67% of an
Urbanized Area). Our second area of inquiry involves the relative
populations of College Park to Atlanta. The 1990 College Park population
of 20,457 persons is substantial and supports a preference for College
Park as a first local service. While this population is only 5.2% of the
population of Atlanta, such a percentage has not precluded favorable
consideration as a first local service. [See]{.underline}
[e.g]{.underline}. [Ada, Newcastle and Watonga, Oklahoma]{.underline},
11 FCC Rcd 16896 (1996); [Bay St. Louis and Poplarville,
Mississippi]{.underline}, 10 FCC Rcd 13144 (1995); [Scotland Neck and
Pinetops, North Carolina]{.underline}, 7 FCC Rcd 5113 (1992); and
[D'Iberville and Wiggins, Mississippi]{.underline}, 10 FCC Rcd 10796
(1995).[^3] Our third, and most important, inquiry is the independence
of the suburban community. In [Faye and Richard Tuck]{.underline}, the
Commission set forth eight factors in assessing the independence of a
suburban community. The Preston Small Petition for Reconsideration
discusses each of these factors. In order to address the arguments
contained in the Petition for Reconsideration, we will evaluate the
College Park reallotment proposal using each of these factors.

7\. The first factor is the work patterns of the College Park residents.
Preston Small states that 84% of the College Park residents work outside
of College Park and precludes a favorable finding on this factor. In
rebuttal, the City of College Park has stated that 15% of its workforce
work in either local, state and federal government jobs. In addition to
the 802 businesses licensed to College Park, the City of College Park
states that, between 1991 and 1998, it has created 2,000 new jobs in the
service sector. This suggests that a significant number of persons
reside and work in College Park and the percentage of residents working
in College Park may be higher than the 16% alleged by Preston Small.
Even if the 16% estimate is accepted, 16% of the College Park workforce
is sufficient to support a favorable finding on this factor.
[C.f]{.underline}. [Coolidge and Gilbert, Arizona]{.underline}, 11 FCC
Rcd 3610 (1996). In regard to the second factor, whether the smaller
community has its own newspaper or other media that covers the
community's needs and interests, Preston Small contends that the [Report
and Order]{.underline} erred by referring to the South Fulton Neighbor
newspaper as a local newspaper providing news and advertising for
College Park. We continue to believe that the South Fulton Neighbor,
which excludes Atlanta, national and international news, sufficiently
covers the needs and interests of College Park to warrant a favorable
determination with respect to second factor. While the South Fulton
Neighbor covers other independent communities such as Hapeville,
Stockbridge, Fairburn and East Point, it does provide an outlet for
College Park by publishing College Park news, sports, advertising,
public meetings and College Park legal notices. There is also a local
cable access channel, a City of College Park web site and a newsletter
published by the City of College Park Recreation Department. We affirm
our favorable finding on this factor. [C.f]{.underline} [Elizabeth City,
North Carolina and Chesapeake, Virginia]{.underline}, 9 FCC RCd 3586
(1994); [Ada, Newcastle and Watonga, Oklahoma]{.underline}, 11 FCC Rcd
16896 (1996).

8\. The third factor, perception of community leaders and residents, and
fourth factor, local government and elected officials, clearly support
our determination concerning the independence of College Park. WNNX
License has included a letter from the College Park mayor and city
manager stating that College Park is a "community which stands entirely
on our own, being completely self-supporting, and prides itself with
providing quality municipal services to its citizens and businesses."
WNNX License has also included similar letters from community and
business leaders. [See]{.underline} P[leasanton, Bandera, Hondo and
Schertz, Texas]{.underline}, 15 FCC Rcd 3068 (2000); [Cadiz and Oak
Grove, Kentucky]{.underline}, 10 FCC Rcd 10785 (1995); [D'Iberville and
Wiggins, Mississippi]{.underline}, 10 FCC Rcd 10796 (1965). Factor 4,
local government and elected officials, clearly supports a view that
College Park is independent of Atlanta. The City of College Park has 325
fulltime employees as well as a Mayor, City Manager, City Attorney, City
Clerk, City Engineer and City Auditor.

9\. Similarly, factor 5, local telephone directory and zip code, and
factor 6, commercial establishments, health facilities and
transportation systems, support our conclusion regarding the
independence of College Park. College Park has its own zip codes and
local post office. In regard to factor 6, College Park has 802 licensed
business establishments and its own health facility. Likewise, factor 7,
the extent to which the specified community and the central city are
part of the same advertising market, favors a finding of independence.
There are two newspapers that local advertisers use to reach the
residents of College Park, the Clayton News Daily and the South Fulton
Neighbor. Neither of these newspapers serve Atlanta. Finally, factor 8,
the extent the specified community relies upon the metropolitan area for
municipal services, supports a finding of independence.[^4] College Park
has its own police and fire departments, department of public works,
operates its own electricity and water distribution systems, operates
its own sewer system and provides park and recreation facilities
including a municipal golf course. College Park also enforces its own
zoning, building and plumbing codes.

10\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the aforementioned Petition for
Reconsideration filed by Preston Small IS DENIED. 11. IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. 12. For further information
concerning this proceeding, contact Robert Hayne, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2177. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos
Chief, Allocations Branch Policy and Rules Division Mass Media Bureau

[^1]: In determining whether a proposal would result in a preferential
    arrangement of allotments, we compare the exiting versus the
    proposed arrangement of allotments using the FM allotment priorities
    set forth in [Revision of FM Assignment Policies and
    procedures]{.underline}, 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).

[^2]: In [Faye and Richard Tuck]{.underline}, the Commission set forth
    eight factors in assessing the independence of a specified
    community: (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 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]{.underline}, 11 FCC Rcd 1095 (1996);
    [Jupiter and Hobe Sound, Florida]{.underline}, 12 FCC Rcd 3570
    (1997).

[^3]: Preston Small has also cited our decision in [Parker and Port St.
    Joe, Florida]{.underline}, 11 FCC Rcd 1095 (1996), in which we
    stated that a population percentage of 14.3% "runs counter to
    treating Parker as a distinct community." The decision in [Parker
    and Port St. Joe]{.underline} does not preclude favorable
    consideration of College Park as a first local service for two
    reasons. First, the population of College Park (20,47 persons) is
    substantially larger than the population of Parker, Florida (4,598
    persons). As indicated above, a substantial population evidences
    independence from a nearby Urbanized Area. Second, and
    notwithstanding the statement that a percentage of 14.3% runs
    counter to treating Parker as a distinct community, we did, in fact,
    determine that Parker was entitled to a preference as a first local
    service.

[^4]: Preston Small notes that Hartsfield-Atlanta International Airport,
    owned by the City of Atlanta, is located, in part, within College
    Park. In addition to a welcoming sign from the mayor of Atlanta, the
    City of Atlanta provides water, sewer, electricity and gas to the
    Airport. According to Preston Small, this supports a contention that
    College Park is dependent upon Atlanta. We disagree. No resident of
    College Park lives at the Airport. Moreover, there is nothing in the
    record of this proceeding indicating that the City of Atlanta
    provides any municipal services to College Park