Federal Communications Commission DA 08-275
 Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of
Amendment of Section 73.202(b),
FM Table of Allotments,
FM Broadcast Stations.
Sells, Willcox, and Davis-Monthan
Air Force Base, Arizona.1
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MB Docket No. 02-376
RM-10617
RM-10690
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
(Proceeding Terminated)
Adopted:  January 30, 2008   Released: February 1, 2008
By the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau:
1. The Audio Division has before it: (1) a Petition for Reconsideration (the Petition) of 
the Report and Order2 in this proceeding filed by Lakeshore Media, LLC (Lakeshore), licensee of 
Station KWCX-FM, Willcox, Arizona; (2) an Opposition filed by REC Networks (REC); (3) an 
Opposition filed by Journal Broadcast Corporation (Journal); (4) a Reply to Oppositions to Petition for 
Reconsideration filed by Lakeshore; and (5) various related pleadings.3 For the reasons discussed below, 
we deny the Petition.
2. Background.  At the request of Rural Pima Broadcasting (Rural Pima), the Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making4 in this proceeding proposed the allotment of Channel 285A at Sells, Arizona, as 
the communitys first local transmission service. In response to the NPRM, Lakeshore filed a timely 
counterproposal, proposing the downgrade of Channel 285C2 to Channel 285C3 at Willcox, the 
reallotment of Channel 285C3 to Davis-Monthan AFB, and the associated modification of the license for 
Station KWCX-FM pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commissions rules.5 To 
accommodate this allotment, Lakeshore proposed to modify the transmitter site for Station KZZP(FM), 
Channel 284C, Mesa, Arizona, with the consent of the licensee, and agreed  to reimburse the licensee for 
  
1 The communities of Willcox and Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, have been added to the caption.
2 Sells, Arizona, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22459 (MB 2004) (R&O).
3 These pleadings include: (1) a Motion for Leave to File Supplement to Opposition  and Supplement to Opposition 
filed by Journal on July 15, 2005; (2) an Opposition to Motion and Reply to Supplement filed by Lakeshore on July 
28, 2005; (3) a Motion for Leave to File Second Supplement to Opposition and a Second Supplement to Opposition 
filed by Journal on November 18, 2005; (4) an Opposition to Motion and Reply to Second Supplement filed by 
Lakeshore on December 7, 2005; and (5) a Petition for Leave to File Supplement and Supplement to Petition for 
Reconsideration filed by Lakeshore on June 19, 2007.
4 Sells, Arizona, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 24575 (MB 2002) (NPRM).
5 47 C.F.R.  1.420(i).  This rule permits the modification of a stations authorization to specify a new community of 
license on a mutually exclusive co-channel or adjacent channel without affording other interested parties an 
opportunity to file competing expressions of interest.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-275
2
the reasonable costs of  changing its transmitter site. Further, because the relocation of Station KWCX-
FM would create white area,6 Lakeshore proposed two backfill allotments,7 Channels 282C2 and 
254C2, at Willcox, which would provide service to this area.  Finally, Lakeshore proposed the allotment 
of alternate Channel 249A at Sells in lieu of Channel 285A as requested by Rural Pima, in order to 
remove the conflict between the two proposals.8  
3. The R&O granted Rural Pimas rulemaking petition, allotting Channel 285A to Sells,9
and denied Lakeshores counterproposal, finding that the rationale of Pacific Broadcasting of Missouri, 
LLC,10 applies equally the facts of this proceeding. In Refugio, the Commission discontinued the practice 
of permitting the backfill of new allotments to prevent the removal of a communitys sole local 
transmission service because a vacant allotment is not an adequate substitute for the removal of a 
communitys only operating radio station. The R&O reasoned that because the backfill of a new 
allotment is no longer permitted in instances involving the removal of a communitys first local 
transmission service under Priority (3) of the FM Allotment Priorities, it should also not be allowed in a 
case involving the removal of a first fulltime reception service under higher allotment Priority (1) or a 
second fulltime reception service under Priority (2), which is co-equal to Priority (3). 11 In this case, the 
R&O found that the downgrade and relocation of Station KWCX-FM would create a white loss area 
under Priority (1) because 2,846 persons would be reduced from one full-time aural reception service to 
none, and a gray loss area12 under Priority (2) because 1,022 persons would be reduced from two full-
time aural reception services to one. Lakeshores counterproposal was denied because this loss of first and 
second full-time reception service to over 4,000 persons would not be adequately replaced by backfill
service provided by two new vacant allotments at Willcox or outweighed by the provision of a first local 
transmission service under Priority (3) at Davis-Monthan AFB.
4. In the Petition, Lakeshore argues that its counterproposal should not have been denied 
and sets forth four reasons in support of this position.13  First, Lakeshore argues that, although the 
  
6 A white area is an area in which there are no full-time aural reception services.  See Cheyenne, Wyoming, and 
Gerring, Nebraska, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7528, 7530 n.8 (MMB 2000) (Cheyenne).  
7 A backfill allotment is one made to replace an allotment that is being modified or relocated in connection with 
the change of community of license of an authorized station.  See, e.g., Cheboygan, et al., Michigan, Request for 
Supplemental Information, 17 FCC Rcd 20491 (MB 2002).
8 Lakeshores counterproposal is mutually exclusive with Rural Pimas rulemaking petition because Channel 285C3 
at  Davis-Monthan AFB is short-spaced to Channel 285A at Sells under the Commissions minimum distance 
separation requirements.  See 47 C.F.R.  73.207.
9 We clarify that the reference coordinates for Channel 285A at Sells, Arizona, concurred to by the government of 
Mexico are 31-51-28 NL and 111-53-23 WL as a specially negotiated restricted allotment limited to 1.1 kW ERP 
and 100 meters HAAT or the equivalent along the 123.2 degree azimuth toward Station XHNI(FM), Channel 286B, 
Nogales, Sonora, Mexico.
10 Letter to Pacific Broadcasting of Missouri LLC, Ref. No. 1800B3-LAS (MMB, Dec. 21, 2001), app for rev. 
denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 2291 (2003), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10950 (2004) (Refugio).  
11 The FM allotment priorities are: (1) first full-time aural service; (2) second full-time aural service; (3) first local 
service; and (4) other public interest matters. [Co-equal weight is given to priorities (2) and (3).]  See Revision of 
FM Assignment Policies and Procedures, Second Report and Order, 90 FCC 2d 88 (1982). 
12 A gray area is an area in which there is only one full-time aural reception service.  See Cheyenne, 15 FCC Rcd 
at 7530.
13 Public Notice of the Petition was given in Report No. 2694, February 28, 2005.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-275
3
Commission has a strong policy against the creation of white area, the counterproposal does not create 
white area, as a matter of law, because the Commission considers a vacant allotment to prevent the 
creation of white area.14 Lakeshore states that the Commission has taken this approach because it 
assumes that service will be provided on existing vacant allotments and that under Greenup, it does not 
matter when this service is actually provided. Second, Lakeshore argues that the loss of existing service 
by the relocation of Station KWCX-FM should have been considered under Priority (4) instead of
Priorities (1) and (2) because the Commission has held that disruption in or loss of existing service where 
unserved areas are covered by potential service falls under Priority (4).15 When the loss of service in this 
case is considered under Priority (4), Lakeshore asserts that it cannot overcome the provision of a first 
local service to Davis-Monthan AFB under higher allotment Priority (3).16 Third, Lakeshore contends 
that the R&O should not have reversed the Commissions precedent of allowing the use of vacant 
allotments to prevent the creation of white or gray area on an ad hoc basis because (1) the Bureau 
gave no notice that it intended to address this particular policy and (2) the new policy was retroactively 
applied to the parties in this proceeding without an affirmative finding on the record that the retroactive 
application of such a policy is appropriate.17 Fourth, Lakeshore alleges that changed circumstances have 
occurred that eliminate all of the white area and most of the gray area and, therefore, warrant grant of 
the counterproposal.18  
5. In its Opposition, Journal contends that the Petition should be denied because the staff 
correctly concluded that the new allotments proposed by Lakeshore cannot be used as backfill for the 
white and gray that would be created by Lakeshores counterproposal based upon the Commissions 
decision in Refugio. Additionally, Journal claims that Lakeshores reliance on two pending applications 
that would provide service to the white area is misplaced inasmuch as the applications have not been 
granted.  Finally, both Journal and REC assert that Davis-Monthan AFB is not a community for allotment 
purposes and is located entirely within the city limits of Tucson, Arizona.  
6. In a Reply to Oppositions, Lakeshore disagrees with Journal that the R&O properly relied 
upon Refugio.  On the contrary, Lakeshore argues that Refugio does not literally apply to this proceeding 
because this case involves the loss of reception service, not the loss of transmission service.  In addition, 
Lakeshore contends that its reliance on two pending applications is not misplaced because one of them 
  
14 See Greenup, Kentucky, and Athens, Ohio, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 1493 (1991) 
(Greenup).    
15 See Nogales, Vail, and Patagonia, Arizona, Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 20515, 20519 (MMB 2001) 
(Nogales).
16 Alternatively, Lakeshore requests that, if the potential service from proposed backfill allotments will no longer 
be considered in gain and loss calculations, the staff should clarify whether other types of potential service will be 
considered in gain and loss calculations (e.g., existing vacant allotments, unbuilt construction permits, and the 
assumption of maximum, as opposed to actual, facilities for all FM stations, except for Class C.   Lakeshore also 
questions why concurrently proposed backfill allotments are not considered but other types of potential service 
apparently are taken into account.  See Lakeshore Petition at 6-8.     
17 See Yakima Valley Cablevision, Inc. v. FCC, 794 F.2d 737 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
18 Lakeshore refers to the filing of  an application (File No. BPH-20010525AAX) by Station KCDQ(FM), 
Tombstone, Arizona, which was amended on January 28, 2004.  Lakeshore contends that, when this application is 
granted, it will cover most of the white area; Lakeshore contends that the small area left unserved contains 40 
people and should be considered de minimis.  Likewise, Cochise Broadcasting LLC, the high bidder in FM Auction 
37, filed an application (File BNPH-20041201CAN) for a new FM station on Channel 279C at Lordsburg, New 
Mexico, which would cover all of the white area and most of the gray area.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-275
4
has been granted.19 Last, Lakeshore states that it previously submitted extensive evidence on the 
community status of Davis-Monthan AFB and believes that the evidence supports a determination that it 
is both a community and independent of Tucson.20  
7. Discussion.  As a threshold matter, we will grant the motions filed by Journal and 
Lakeshore to supplement their pleadings.21 Consideration of these pleadings will enable us to resolve this 
proceeding on a full record and to take into account changed circumstances that have occurred since 
release of the R&O.22 However, as explained below, we do not find that the arguments raised in the 
Petition or the changed circumstances warrant any modifications to the R&O. 
8. Foremost, we continue to believe that the R&O properly applied the Commissions 
rationale in Refugio to the facts of this case and denied Lakeshores counterproposal because the proposed 
backfill allotments at Willcox are not adequate substitutes for the creation of sizeable white and
gray service loss areas.  Indeed, it is undisputed that the relocation of Station KWCX-FM would result
in the loss of all radio service for 2,846 persons and the reduction from two to one full-time reception 
service for 1,022 persons. Because the Commission no longer permits the backfill of a new allotment 
where there would be the removal of a communitys sole local transmission service under Priority (3), it 
is likewise in the public interest to apply this policy to situations involving loss of first and second full-
time reception services under Priorities (1) and (2). In all three instances, . . . the licensing of vacant 
allotments is too remote and too contingent to justify the filing of move-out proposals premised on such 
replacement services.23     
9. Next, to the extent that Lakeshore argues that, as a matter of law, its counterproposal does 
not create white or gray loss areas because the Commission considers a vacant allotment to prevent 
the creation of white or gray areas, we disagree. Although the R&O distinguished the issues involved 
in Greenup and the instant proceeding,24 we recognize that Greenup did establish a single test for 
  
19 See File No. BPH-20010525AAX, granted on March 22, 2005.  See supra note 18.
20 On July 15, 2005, Journal supplemented its Opposition, stating that  the application (File No. BNPH-
20041201CAN) filed by the successful bidder in FM Auction #37  for a new station on Channel 279C at Lordsburg, 
New Mexico, was modified by a second  application to downgrade the channel to Class C1 and to change the 
transmitter site.  See File No. BNPH-20050607ABD.  As a result, Journal contends that the Lordsburg station would 
not provide 60 dBu service to any of the white area.  On July 28, 2005, Lakeshore responded  that the modified 
Lordsburg application is of no decisional significance because under Greenup, FM stations other than class C 
stations are analyzed as if they were constructed with maximum facilities for their class, and not based upon the 
actual facilities proposed.  On November 18, 2005, Journal reported the grant of the Lordsburg application (File No. 
BNPH-20050607ABD).  On June 19, 2007, Lakeshore submitted an engineering supplement to the Petition, 
reporting that if all currently licensed facilities and construction permits are considered, there would no longer be 
white area loss but would be a gray area loss of 2,070 people.   
21 See note 3 supra.
22 See, e.g., Greenup, 6 FCC Rcd at 1494 (reversing the grant of a proposal that originally claimed benefits under 
Priority 2 because intervening allotment actions had removed the Priority 2 gains); and Columbus and Monona, 
Wisconsin, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 10012 (MB 2006) (granting a motion to supplement a 
petition for reconsideration to provide information on facts that have changed since the release of the Report and 
Order in an FM allotment proceeding).
23 Refugio, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 10956.
24 See R&O, 19 FCC Rcd at 22461-62,  9.  The R&O distinguished Greenup on the ground that it permits taking 
into account vacant allotments in determining whether an allotment proposal should receive Priority (1) or (2) credit, 
such as between the mutually exclusive upgrade proposals in that case.    By way of contrast, the R&O explained 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-275
5
calculating white or gray gain or loss areas under Priorities (1) and (2) that has been used in FM 
allotment proceedings. Under this test, if a proposed reallotment of an FM station would create gain or 
loss areas, we would consider whether the existing or proposed 60 dBu service contours of the reallotted 
station are covered by actual service (e.g., operating AM or FM stations) or potential service (e.g., unbuilt 
construction permits or vacant allotments)25 before determining whether there would be a gain or loss of 
first or second full-time reception service. However, the extension of the Commissions Refugio policy to 
the facts of the instant proceeding has necessarily modified, to some extent, the calculation of white or
gray areas for operating, as opposed to unbuilt, stations.  Under the former approach, the potential 
service from a concurrently proposed backfill allotment or an existing vacant allotment would negate 
the creation of white or gray areas.26  But, in the wake of the Refugio case, we will no longer consider 
the potential service from a backfill allotment as an adequate substitute for the removal of first or 
second full-time reception service by an operating station and will deny a proposal relying on a backfill 
allotment on Priority (1) and (2) grounds.27 By way of contrast, the traditional Greenup test of 
considering the potential service from backfill or existing vacant allotments would continue to apply in 
cases involving reallotments and changes of community of license for unbuilt stations because existing 
(Continued from previous page)    
that Lakeshores counterproposal involves whether a vacant allotment is sufficient to offset the removal of actual 
first or second reception service.   
25 The Greenup test also assumes maximum, as opposed to actual, facilities for all FM stations and allotments, 
except for Class C, regardless of  whether these maximum facilities are ever realized.  See Greenup, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 1495,  15.         
26 See, e.g., Nogales, supra note 15 (taking into account, inter alia, the potential service from vacant  allotments in 
determining that loss of service from the proposed reallotment of an FM station should be considered under Priority 
4 as opposed to Priority 2); Meeker and Craig, Colorado, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 23858 (MMB 2000) 
(including the potential service from 5 vacant FM allotments in determining the absence of  white or gray loss 
areas and the creation of a gray gain area of 802 people but denying the proposed reallotment of an unbuilt 
construction permit on other grounds) (Meeker); Eatonton and Sandy Springs, Georgia, and Anniston and 
Lineville, Alabama, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 6580, 6584 n.30 (MMB 1991) (looking favorably upon two 
proposed backfill allotments to replace the loss of first and second aural reception service but denying the 
proposed reallotment on other grounds) (Anniston); and Caliente, Nevada, et al., Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 
893, 896 (MB 2004) (recognizing that two backfill allotments were concurrently proposed to prevent the creation 
of a gray loss area but finding it unnecessary to allot the backfill channels because the gray area was 
unpopulated) (Caliente).   We further note that the  R&O distinguished both Meeker and Nogales from the present 
proceeding on the ground that neither case granted a vacant allotment to fill white or gray areas.   See R&O, 19
FCC Rcd at 22461 n.8   Specifically, in Meeker, the proposal was denied for other reasons, and in Nogales, 
consideration of the station as a grandfathered 3kW, as opposed to a 6 kW, Class A FM station, virtually eliminated 
the gray loss area at issue in that case.  However, we acknowledge and clarify that, while no backfill allotments 
were made to eliminate white or gray areas, these cases did follow the Greenup test and took into account 
potential service from vacant allotments in calculating gains or losses of service.  Because these cases were decided 
before the Commissions decision in Refugio, they contain no language indicating that potential service from vacant 
allotments could not have been relied upon.   
27 Indeed, the Refugio rationale was recently extended so that the potential service from a vacant allotment will not 
be considered where an operating station is changing its community of license.  See Eldorado, Mason, Mertzon, and 
Fort Stockton, Texas, Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 3572 (MB 2006), recon denied, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 22 FCC Rcd 280 (MB 2007), app. for rev. pending (denying reallotment of an on-air FM station because it 
would create a gray area containing 7,372 persons and not taking into account potential service from vacant 
allotments in the loss area) (Eldorado Proceeding).  
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-275
6
on-air service is not being lost.28 Likewise, we would apply the traditional Greenup test to rulemaking 
proposals seeking new allotments and claiming the applicability of Priorities (1), (2), or (3) because new 
service is being proposed and no actual service is being subtracted.  Accordingly, Lakeshores argument 
that, as a matter of law, there are no white or gray areas in this proceeding has no merit.29  
10. Although the Petition points out that two construction permits30 have been granted to 
stations in Tombstone, Arizona, and Lordsburg, New Mexico, since the release of the R&O, we do not 
believe that these changed circumstances, as well as more recent ones,31 warrant reversing the result of 
this proceeding because these newly authorized facilities have not been built and are not currently 
providing service to the white and gray loss areas that would be created by the reallotment of 
Lakeshores station. As a result, these unbuilt construction permits are not adequate replacements for the 
loss of first and second full-time reception service to approximately four thousand people that would 
occur in this case.  This approach is similar to Refugio in which the move-out was conditioned on the 
initiation of broadcast operations by the replacement station.32  
11. Contrary to Lakeshores assertion, extending Refugio on an ad hoc basis to this 
proceeding and not notifying the parties in advance that the Commission may rule on this issue does not
violate basic administrative procedure. This policy change occurred within a rulemaking proceeding 
conducted pursuant to Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)33 under which 
Lakeshore had actual notice and opportunity to address this issue.  Indeed, the applicability of the Refugio
policy was specifically raised by Journal and was responded to by Lakeshore, giving the staff the benefit 
of a record on this issue before applying that policy. Further, it is well established that the Commission 
has broad authority to change its processing rules or policies at any time and parties do not have a vested 
  
28 See, e.g., Meatiest et al., Wyoming, Report and Order, DA 08-126 at   7 and n.40  (realloting an unbuilt FM 
station from Marbleton, Wyoming, to Ballard, Utah, and relying upon a vacant backfill FM allotment at 
Marbleton to prevent the creation of a white loss area of 759 persons caused by the reallotment ). 
29 To the extent that Lakeshore argues that, under Nogales, disruption in or loss of  on-air service  where unserved 
areas are covered by potential service falls under Priority (4), this case was decided before the Commissions 
Refugio decision and, like the dicta in Anniston,  is no longer controlling in  light of that decision.  By way of 
contrast,  Meeker is still valid because it did not involve the loss of on-air service.                         
30 See File Nos. BPH-20010525AAX for Station KCDQ(FM), Tombstone, Arizona, and BPNPH-20050607ABD for 
a new FM station on Channel 279C1, Lordsburg, New Mexico.
31 Subsequent to the filing of Lakeshores Supplement to Petition for Reconsideration, the unbuilt construction 
permit (File No. BNPH-20050607ABD) for Channel 279C1, Lordsburg, New Mexico, which was relied upon as a 
replacement service for the white or gray loss area  was downgraded, reallotted, and modified to specify 
operation on Channel 279A at Vail, Arizona.  See Corona de Tucson, et al., New Mexico, Report and Order, 22 FCC 
Rcd 13933 (MB 2007), recon. pending.   We also note that a construction permit application (File No. BPH-
20051228AEC) was granted on July 26, 2007, to upgrade Station KPSA-FM, Channel 249A, Lordsburg, New 
Mexico, to Channel 250C, but this upgraded facility is not built.        
32 See Refugio, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 10956,  14.  We will, however, continue to 
assume maximum facilities for all FM stations, except for Class C, in calculating the gain or loss areas created by 
the proposed reallotment of FM stations and in determining the coverage of other FM stations in the gain or loss 
areas.  First, assuming maximum facilities enables us to take into account the areas or populations that FM stations 
are protected from interference and entitled to service.  Second, the consistent use of maximum facilities promotes 
uniformity in gain or loss calculations.  Third, the FM Table of Allotments and the minimum distance separation 
requirements of Section 73.207 are based upon the maximum permissible facilities for all classes of FM stations.                           
33 5 U.S.C.  553.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-275
7
right that a particular rule or policy will continue to be applied.34 The policy of permitting the backfill 
of  new allotments was discontinued in Refugio and in the present proceeding because it was determined 
that it was contrary to the public interest to replace the actual loss of sole local transmission service or 
first or second fulltime reception service with the potential service of  vacant backfill allotments.35  
Applying this change of policy in this proceeding does not constitute an unlawful retroactive application 
of policy because the Commission is not required to follow a policy or procedure that has been 
determined not to be in the public interest.36  
12. Conclusion and Ordering Clauses.  For the reasons stated above, and pursuant to the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and our rules,37 Lakeshores Petition for Reconsideration IS 
DENIED. 
13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order be 
sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested , to Scott Cinnamon, Esq., Law Offices of Scott 
Cinnamon, PLLC, 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 200, #144, Washington, D.C. 20036 (Counsel 
for Rural Pima Broadcasting); Mark N. Lipp, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, 1776 K Street, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20006 (Counsel for Lakeshore Media, LLC); Aaron P. Shainis, Esq., Shainis & Peltzman, Chartered, 
1850 M Street, N.W., Suite 240, Washington, D.C. 20036 (Counsel for Lakeshore Media, LLC); Gregory 
Masters, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, 1776 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 (Counsel for Citicasters 
Licenses, L.P.); Mr. Andy Laird, Journal Broadcast Group, Inc., 720 E. Capitol Drive, Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin 53212; Joseph M. DiScipio, Esq., Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C., 1300 N. 17th Sreet, 11th
Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22209 (Counsel for Journal Broadcast Group, Inc.); Lawrence N. Cohn, Esq., 
Cohn and Marks LLP, 1920 N Street, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20036-1622 (Counsel for 
Journal Broadcast Group, Inc.); and Mr. Rich Eyre, REC Networks, P.O. Box 40816, Mesa, Arizona 
85274.   
14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding is terminated.
15. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Andrew J. Rhodes, Media
Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
John A. Karousos
Assistant Chief
 Audio Division
Media Bureau     
  
34 See, e.g., Chadmoore Comm., Inc. v. FCC, 113 F.3d 235, 240-41 (D.C. Cir 1997) (filing of upgrade applications 
did not vest petitioners with a legally cognizable expectation that criteria for considering their applications would 
remain unchanged); Letter to Pamela C. Cooper, Esq., et al., 16 FCC Rcd 12668, 12672 (MMB 2001) (changes in 
processing rules may be applied in cases arising before their promulgation); and Eldorado, Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 282,  7 (applying the Refugio policy to the parties in this case does not constitute an 
unlawful retroactive rulemaking because a filer does not have a vested right in the continued application of 
processing policies in effect at the time of filing).
35 See Refugio, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 2295-96; and R&O, 19 FCC Rcd at 22461.
36 See, e.g., Washington Association for Television and Children v. FCC, 655 F. 2d 1264, 1268 (D.C. Cir. 1981).  In 
view of the denial of Lakeshores Petition, it is not necessary to address the issue of the community status of Davis-
Monthan AFB raised by both Journal and REC.           
37 See 47 U.S.C.  405; 47 C.F.R.  1.429.