*Pages 1--7 from  Microsoft Word - 19034.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  00-  321 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 
 In  the  Matter  of 
 Amendment  of  Section  73.202(  b),  )  MM  Docket  No.  98-  55  FM  Table  of  Allotments,  )  RM-  9255 
 FM  Broadcast  Stations.  )  RM-  9327  (Pleasanton,  Bandera  ) 
 Hondo,  and  Schertz,  Texas)  ) 
 REPORT  AND  ORDER  (Proceeding  Terminated) 


 Adopted:  February  9,  2000  Released:  February  18,  2000 
 By  the  Chief,  Allocations  Branch: 
 1.  The  Commission  has  before  it  the  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  13  FCC  Rcd  7351  (1998  ("  Notice"),  issued  in  response  to  a  petition  filed  by  Reding  Broadcasting  Co.  ("  petitioner"),  licensee  of 
 Station  KBUC(  FM),  Channel  252A,  Pleasanton,  Texas.  Petitioner  requested  the  substitution  of  Channel  253C2  for  Channel  252A  at  Pleasanton,  Texas,  and  the  modification  of  Station  KBUC(  FM)  s  license 
 accordingly.  To  accommodate  this  upgrade,  the  petition  proposes  the  substitutions  of  Channel  290A  for  Channel  253A  at  Hondo,  Texas  and  Channel  276A  for  Channel  252A  at  Bandera,  Texas,  a  change  of  site  for 
 Hondo,  and  a  modification  of  the  licenses  for  Stations  at  Bandera  and  Hondo.  It  includes  a  pledge  to  reimburse  the  licensee  at  Bandera  and  the  permittee  at  Hondo  for  their  expenses  in  effectuating  the  channel 
 substitutions  and  the  change  of  transmitter  site  at  Hondo,  as  well  as  an  agreement  to  the  site  relocation  signed  by  the  permittee  at  Hondo. 


 2.  Petitioner  filed  comments  and  a  counterproposal.  1  North  American  Broadcasting  Co.  (  NABC),  an  applicant  at  Karnes  City,  Texas,  and  Comal  Broadcasting  Company  ("  Comal)  also  filed 
 comments  and  counterproposals.  Reply  comments  were  filed  by  petitioner,  NABC,  Comal,  La  Radio  Cristiana  Network,  permittee  of  Station  KAYG(  FM),  Camp  Wood,  Texas,  and  jointly  by  James  Withers, 
 licensee  of  Station  KEEP(  FM),  Bandera,  Texas  and  Five  Points  Broadcasting,  Inc.,  permittee  of  Station  KRBH(  FM)  Hondo,  Texas.  2 


 3.  In  response  to  the  Notice  proposing  an  upgrade  at  Pleasanton  and  related  channel  substitutions,  petitioner  filed  comments  and  a  counterproposal  requesting  the  substitution  of  Channel  253C1  for  Channel 
 252A  instead  of  Channel  253C2,  and  a  change  of  community  from  Pleasanton  to  Schertz,  Texas,  with  the  same  related  channel  substitutions  at  Hondo  and  Bandera.  NABC  requests  that  alternate  Channel  256A  be 
 substituted  at  Bandera,  Texas  instead  of  Channel  276A,  with  a  related  channel  substitution  of  Channel  251A  for  Channel  256A  at  Camp  Wood,  Texas  to  make  available  a  previously  proposed  site  for  the  allotment  at 


 1  The  community  of  Schertz,  Texas,  has  been  added  to  the  caption. 
 2  Late-  filed  comments  in  opposition  were  also  filed  by  Cosmopolitan  Enterprises  of  Victoria,  Inc.  These 
 comments  are  unauthorized  and  will  not  be  considered  in  this  proceeding. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  00-  321 
 2 
 Karnes  City.  3  Comal  requests,  as  an  alternative  to  the  upgrade  at  Pleasanton,  the  allotment  of  Channel  253C2  at  Blanco,  Texas,  with  the  same  related  channel  substitutions  at  Hondo  and  Bandera  as  proposed  by 
 petitioner.  4 
 4.  Petitioner  filed  its  counterproposal  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  Section  1.420(  i)  of  the  Commission's  Rules  which  permits  the  modification  of  a  station's  authorization  to  specify  a  new  community 
 of  license  without  affording  other  interested  parties  an  opportunity  to  file  competing  expressions  of  interest.  See  Report  and  Order  in  MM  Docket  No.  88-  526  ("  Change  of  Community  R&  O"),  4  FCC  Rcd  4870  (1989), 
 recon.  granted  in  part  ("  Change  of  Community  MO&  O"),  5  FCC  Rcd  7094  (1990).  5  In  support  of  the  proposal,  petitioner  states  that  the  requested  reallotment,  which  is  mutually  exclusive  with  its  existing 
 authorization  on  Channel  252A  at  Pleasanton,  as  well  as  its  proposed  allotment  at  Pleasanton,  would  fulfill  a  higher  allotment  priority  by  providing  a  first  local  aural  service  to  Schertz,  while  Pleasanton  will  continue  to 
 receive  local  full-  time  service  from  AM  Station  KBOP.  In  support  of  its  counterproposal,  petitioner  states  that  after  it  filed  its  original  proposal  for  Pleasanton  and  while  it  reviewed  possible  transmitter  site  locations 
 for  that  allotment,  it  discovered  that  its  Station  KBUC(  FM)  might  be  able  to  upgrade  to  a  Class  C1  station.  It  states  that  it  has  located  a  suitable  and  available  tower  which  would  accommodate  this  upgrade.  However, 
 it  states  that  it  cannot  cover  the  community  of  Pleasanton  with  a  city-  grade  signal  from  this  site  and  thus  the  allotment  of  Channel  253C1  requires  a  change  of  community  to  Schertz  from  Pleasanton.  It  acknowledges 
 that  Schertz,  a  community  of  14,014  persons,  is  partially  in  the  San  Antonio  Urbanized  Area  and  that  Channel  253C1,  if  allotted,  would  cover  over  99%  of  the  San  Antonio  Urbanized  Area  with  a  70dBu,  or  city 
 grade,  signal.  It  argues  that  the  reallotment  should  be  granted  because  the  community  of  Schertz  is  separate  and  apart  from  the  Urbanized  Area  and  thus  warrants  an  allotment  to  the  community  as  a  first  local  aural 
 service.  It  offers  an  analysis  of  the  community  vis    vis  the  Urbanized  Area  and  in  support  of  its  conclusion  that  the  community  is  independent  and  not  interdependent  with  the  Urbanized  Area,  citing  Faye  and  Richard 
 Tuck  ("  Tuck"),  3  FCC  Rcd  5374  (1988).  In  the  alternative,  petitioner  requests  that  the  Commission  grant  its  proposal  for  channel  253C2  at  Pleasanton  if  it  determines  that  Schertz  is  not  deserving  of  an  allotment. 
 Petitioner  states  that  it  will  apply  for  either  channel,  if  allotted. 
 5.  NABC  opposes  petitioners  counterproposal  at  Schertz.  It  argues  that  petitioners  proposal  to  Schertz  should  be  denied  and  its  proposal  to  Pleasanton  should  be  granted  because  the  community  of  Schertz 
 is  interdependent  with  the  San  Antonio  Urbanized  Area  and  does  not  warrant  a  first  local  service  preference  under  the  FM  allotment  priorities.  In  addition,  it  claims  that  petitioners  representations  regarding  its  proposed 


 3  NABC  is  an  applicant  for  Channel  276C2  at  Karnes  City,  Texas.  It  has  challenged  this  allotment  in  this 
 proceeding  and  in  a  previous  proceeding,  because  the  substitution  of  Channel  276A  for  Channel  252A  at  Bandera  requires  a  site  restriction  of  16  km  east  of  the  community  of  Karnes  City.  See  Report  and  Order  in  MM  Docket  90-  466 


 13  FCC  Rcd  234  (1998)  (Hondo,  Texas,  et  al.). 
 4  We  note  that  petitioners  original  proposal  for  Pleasanton  in  this  proceeding  is  the  same  proposal  it  filed  in 
 MM  Docket  No.  90-  466  and  was  denied  because  the  Hondo  and  Bandera  allotments  were  short-  spaced  to  Mexican  allotments  under  the  U.  S./  Mexican  Agreement  of  1972,  which  was  in  effect  at  the  time  they  were  filed.  See  Report  and 


 Order  in  MM  Docket  90-  466  13  FCC  Rcd  at  235  (1998)  (Hondo,  et  al.).  However,  under  the  U.  S./  Mexican  Agreement  of  1992,  the  current  treaty  with  Mexico,  those  allotments  are  fully  spaced  and  the  Mexican  government  has  already 
 approved  them. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  00-  321 
 3 
 Channel  253C1  transmitter  site  at  Schertz  and  its  intention  to  serve  the  community  of  Schertz  belie  its  actual  intention  to  serve  the  San  Antonio  Urbanized  Area.  NABC  also  argues  that  the  Commission  should  deny 
 petitioners  proposal  to  change  community  because  a  grant  will  further  exacerbate  the  migration  of  stations  from  rural  to  urban  areas. 


 6.  In  its  reply  comments,  petitioner  alleges  that  both  the  NABC  and  Comal  counterproposals  should  be  dismissed  as  defective.  Petitioner  claims  that  NABC  failed  to  include  coordinates  for  a  site  for  the 
 Karnes  City  allotment  or  an  engineering  report  in  support  of  its  proposal  for  that  site.  Petitioner  also  alleges  that  Comal  failed  to  include  a  statement  from  Five  Points  Broadcasting,  Inc.  that  it  is  willing  to  change 
 transmitter  site  to  accommodate  the  allotment  at  Blanco.  Petitioner  also  alleges  that  both  counterproposals  failed  to  include  pledges  to  reimburse  the  licensees  or  permittees  whose  channels  they  proposed  to  substitute. 
 DISCUSSION 
 7.  We  will  grant  the  proposal  to  Schertz  as  filed  by  petitioner.  As  a  threshold  matter,  we  agree  with  petitioner  that  Comals  counterproposal  is  defective.  It  failed  to  include  a  statement  from  Five  Points 
 Broadcasting,  Inc.,  that  it  is  willing  to  change  transmitter  site  to  accommodate  the  allotment  at  Blanco  and  failed  to  include  pledges  to  reimburse  the  licensees  or  permittees  whose  channels  they  proposed  to 
 substitute.  6  We  also  agree  that  NABCs  counterproposal  is  defective  and  must  be  dismissed  for  its  failure  to  include  pledges  to  reimburse  the  parties  at  Bandera  and  Hondo  for  the  costs  associated  with  channel  and 
 transmitter  site  changes,  but  disagree  with  petitioner  that  the  counterproposal  contained  insufficient  engineering  information.  7  We  note  that  even  if  each  of  these  counterproposals  were  considered  in  a 
 comparative  analysis  with  petitioners  counterproposal  at  Schertz,  they  would  not  be  chosen  as  a  preferential  arrangement  of  allotments.  The  proposal  at  Blanco,  a  first  local  service,  would  serve  a  smaller  community 
 and  approximately  one-  tenth  the  number  of  persons.  8  NABCs  proposal  at  Bandera  and  Camp  Wood  would  simply  accommodate  NABCs  described  technical  difficulties  and  apparently  speculative  concerns  about 
 future  improvements  at  Karnes  City  and  the  other  involved  communities,  which  do  not  establish  a  public  interest  benefit  which  could  form  the  basis  for  a  grant  in  a  comparative  analysis  with  Schertz.  However, 
 petitioners  proposal  at  Schertz  would  prevail  in  any  event  as  a  first  local  service  under  FM  allotment  priority  three,  whereas  NABCs  proposal  would  fall  under  priority  four,  other  public  interest  matters.  We 
 note  that  NABCs  application  prevailed  at  auction  at  Karnes  City,  which  it  could  amend  to  achieve  its  desired  results  using  the  various  methods  available  to  applicants,  such  as  contour  protection. 


 8.  We  believe  that  petitioners  showing  has  established  the  independence  of  Schertz  from  the  San  Antonio  Urbanized  Area.  The  allotment  of  Channel  253C1  could  provide  the  community  with  its  first  local 
 aural  service  while  Pleasanton  would  retain  local  aural  service  from  Station  KBOP(  AM).  We  do  not  question  Schertzs  status  as  a  community  for  allotment  purposes.  However,  we  agree  that  this  proposal  must  fulfill  a 
 majority  of  the  eight  interdependence  criteria  spelled  out  in  Tuck.  NABC  accurately  notes  that  the  first  two 
 6  See  Report  and  Order  in  Docket  No.  16662  (  Circleville,  Ohio),  8  FCC  2d  159  (1967)  (reimbursement);  See 
 Report  and  Order  in  MM  Docket  No.  88-  519  (  Beaumont  and  Big  Bear  Lake,  California),  4  FCCRcd  7505  (1989)(  transmitter  site  change). 


 7  NABC  late-  cured  this  reimbursement  pledge.  However,  we  cannot  accept  this  cure  because  to  do  so  would 
 prejudice  petitioners  rights.  See  Report  and  Order  in  MM  Docket  97-  26  (  Detroit,  Howe  and  Jacksboro,  Texas),  13  FCC  Rcd  16561  (1998)  at  6;  see  also  Report  and  Order  in  MM  Docket  87-  591  (  Scottsboro,  Alabama, 


 Trenton,  Georgia,  and  Signal  Mountain,  Tennessee),  6  FCC  Rcd  6111  (1991).  8 
 The  city  of  Blanco  has  a  1990  population  of  1,238  persons  and  the  proposal  at  Blanco  would  serve  approximately  112,000  persons. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  00-  321 
 4 
 criteria  support  a  finding  that  the  proposal  would  serve  the  surrounding  Urbanized  Area  rather  than  the  independent  community.  Schertz  is  partially  located  within  the  San  Antonio  Urbanized  Area,  and  the 
 allotment  of  a  C1  Channel  would  cover  over  99%  of  the  Urbanized  Area.  Therefore,  petitioner,  in  recognition  of  this,  has  provided  information  in  support  of  its  argument  that  Schertz  is  independent  of  the 
 Urbanized  Area  and  thus  entitled  to  a  first  local  service  preference  using  the  factors  enumerated  in  RKO  General  (  KFRC  ),  5  FCC  Rcd  3222  (1990)  and  Tuck.  9  In  addition,  petitioner  has  provided  data  regarding 
 the  areas  and  populations  which  would  gain  and  lose  service  if  Channel  253  C1  were  allotted  to  Schertz. 
 9.  Based  on  the  showing  presented  by  petitioner,  we  find  that  Schertz  is  a  community  independent  of  the  San  Antonio  Urbanized  Area.  Although  it  does  not  fulfill  all  of  the  delineated  eight  factors,  it  does 
 satisfy  a  majority  of  them,  which  is  sufficient  to  demonstrate  a  communitys  independence.  See  Tuck;  Report  and  Order  in  MM  Docket  No.  95-  32  (  Parker  and  St.  Joe,  Florida),  11  FCC  Rcd  1095  (1996). 
 First,  petitioner  states  that  it  does  not  have  information  to  prove  where  the  residents  of  Schertz  work,  but  that  there  are  a  good  number  of  businesses  located  in  Schertz  to  make  employment  available  to  a  number  of 
 residents.  While  this  may  show  that  employment  opportunities  are  available,  it  is  not  sufficient  to  establish  that  a  majority  of  residents  live  and  work  in  the  community,  as  we  have  generally  required.  [cite]  Second, 
 petitioner  shows  that  the  city  of  Schertz  is  served  by  a  monthly  newsletter,  as  well  as  The  Herald,  a  weekly  publication  that  covers  all  local  activities.  The  newspaper  used  by  the  city  for  publication  of  bids, 
 employment  openings,  public  hearings,  and  ordinances  is  the  Seguin  Gazette-  Enterprise,  which  is  published  six  days  a  week  in  the  city  of  Seguin.  NABC  points  out  that  neither  newspaper  is  a  Schertz  publication; 
 however,  we  note  that  since  neither  is  a  San  Antonio  publication,  this  does  not  establish  interdependence.  Furthermore,  Schertz  does  have  its  own  monthly  newsletter,  which  in  conjunction  with  the  other  papers 
 minimally  satisfies  this  criterion.  Third,  petitioner  notes  that  the  city  of  Schertz  has  a  distinct  history,  that  a  number  of  businesses  identify  strongly  with  the  city  and  include  the  word  Schertz  in  their  names,  and  that 
 the  City  Secretary  attests  that  the  city  government  perceives  itself  as  an  autonomous  community  from  San  Antonio.  While  NABC  challenges  this  on  the  basis  that  it  is  supported  only  by  one  letter  from  a  city  official, 
 we  believe  this  is  a  satisfactory  showing  with  sufficient  documentation.  In  addition,  the  letters  NABC 
 9  The  three  criteria  considered  in  making  a  first  local  service  preference  determination  are  (1)  signal  to  population 
 coverage,  i.  e.,  the  degree  to  which  a  station  would  provide  coverage  not  only  to  the  suburban  community  but  to  the  adjacent  metropolis  as  well,  (2)  the  size  and  proximity  of  the  suburban  community  relative  to  the  adjacent  city,  and  (3) 


 the  interdependence  of  the  suburban  community  with  the  central  city,  established  by  the  consideration  of  the  following  eight  factors: 


 (1)  the  extent  to  which  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 
 cover  the  community's  local  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  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. 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  00-  321 
 5 
 offered  to  support  its  allegation  of  interdependence  do  not  persuade  us  to  the  contrary,  because  they  do  not  address  or  establish  a  majority  of  the  Tuck  factors.  Fourth,  petitioner  proffers  that  the  city  has  its  own  local 
 government  and  elected  officials  and  thus  is  independent.  It  shows  that  Schertz  was  incorporated  by  the  State  of  Texas  in  1958;  it  has  a  council-  manager  form  of  government  and  has  an  elected  mayor.  The  City 
 Manager  is  the  Chief  Administrative  Officer.  The  city  government  has  144  full-  time  employees,  including  a  Comptroller,  Police  Chief,  Public  Works  Director,  among  others,  and  a  Municipal  Court  Judge,  Prosecutor, 
 City  Engineer,  and  City  Auditor  under  contract.  This  is  not  disputed  and  is  more  than  adequate  to  support  a  finding  of  independence.  Fifth,  the  city  of  Schertz  has  one  zip  code,  and  post  office,  and  is  served  by  a 
 telephone  book  separate  from  San  Antonio.  This  is  not  challenged  and  we  find  it  to  be  satisfactory.  Sixth,  the  city  has  numerous  commercial  establishments,  churches,  VFW,  DAV,  Elks,  Knights  of  Columbus, 
 Lions,  Kiwanis  and  Jaycees.  Schertz  does  not  have  its  own  hospital,  but  it  does  have  medical  clinics  and  dentists  and  it  has  a  veterinary  clinic.  This  is  an  adequate  showing  in  support  of  independence  and  is  also 
 not  disputed.  Seventh,  with  respect  to  the  advertising  market,  petitioner  provided  no  information.  Eighth,  the  city  has  its  own  Police  Department,  Fire  Department,  schools  and  library.  Its  Public  Works  department 
 provides  water  service,  streets  and  parks,  a  city  pool  and  animal  control.  Its  school  district,  Schertz-  Cibolo  Universal  City  School  District,  is  independent  of  San  Antonio.  Its  library  has  more  than  40,000  volumes. 
 All  of  these  factors  support  a  finding  of  independence. 
 10.  With  respect  to  NABCs  allegations  as  to  petitioners  intentions  to  serve  the  community,  we  find  that  there  is  no  evidence  to  support  these  allegations.  Petitioner  did  not  allege  that  the  site  serving 
 Schertz  was  the  only  site  it  could  locate,  nor  was  it  required  to  allege  this.  With  respect  to  NABC's  concerns  regarding  possible  abuse  of  the  Commissions  process  in  order  to  remove  service  from  a  rural  area  to  move 
 into  an  urban  area,  there  is  no  prohibition  on  such  a  move  as  long  as  it  complies  with  the  Commissions  FM  allotment  priorities.  See  Change  of  Community  R&  O  4  FCC  Rcd  at  4873.  We  have  determined  that  this 
 reallotment  does  comply  with  our  FM  allotment  priorities  and  thus  fulfills  the  public  interest.  No  abuse  has  been  demonstrated.  As  an  additional  point  of  fact,  we  note  that  petitioner  pledged  to  reimburse  both  James 
 Withers,  licensee  of  Station  KEEP(  FM),  Bandera,  Texas  for  its  reasonable  expenses  for  changing  frequency  and  Five  Points  Broadcasting,  Inc.,  permittee  of  Station  KRBH(  FM)  Hondo,  Texas  for  its  reasonable 
 expenses  of  changing  frequency  and  transmitter  location.  10 
 11.  Petitioner  also  states,  and  a  Commission  staff  engineering  analysis  confirms,  that  the  proposed  Class  C1  station  at  Schertz  will  provide  a  60dBu  signal  to  over  1,300,000  persons.  The  proposed  change  of 
 community  will  also  result  in  a  small  loss  area  of  374  square  kilometers  with  a  population  of  1,044  persons;  this  area  will  continue  to  receive  service  from  at  least  five  radio  stations. 


 12.  The  allotment  of  Channel  253C1  at  Schertz,  Texas,  can  be  made  at  petitioners  requested  site  44.1  kilometers  (27.4  miles)  west  of  the  community.  11  The  allotment  of  Channel  276A  at  Bandera  can  be 
 made  at  Station  KEEP(  FM)  s  licensed  site.  12  The  allotment  of  Channel  290A  at  Hondo  can  be  made  with  a 
 10  Attached  to  both  the  Petition  for  Rule  Making  and  the  Counterproposal  is  an  agreement  between  petitioner 
 and  James  Withers  and  Five  Points  Broadcasting,  Inc.,  showing  the  amount  petitioner  has  agreed  to  pay  expenses  for  the  affected  parties  changes.  In  accordance  with  previous  policy,  we  expect  this  amount  to  be  limited  to  the  parties 


 reasonable  out  of  pocket  expenses  in  connection  with  the  frequency  change  and  the  transmitter  site  change.  See  Circleville,  Ohio,  8  FCC2d  159(  1967). 
 11  The  coordinates  for  Channel  253C1  at  Schertz  are  29-  31-  25  and  98-  43-  25. 
 12  The  coordinates  for  Channel  276A  at  Bandera  are  29-  51-  22  and  99-  05-  25. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  00-  321 
 6 
 site  restriction  of  10.4  kilometers  (6.4  miles)  west  of  the  community.  13  We  note  that  these  communities  are  located  within  320  kilometers  (199  miles)  of  the  U.  S.-  Mexico  border,  and  concurrence  of  the  Mexican 
 government  has  been  received  for  these  allotments. 
 13.  Accordingly,  pursuant  to  the  authority  contained  in  Sections  4(  i),  5(  c)(  1),  303(  g)  and  (r)  and  307(  b)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  and  Sections  0.61,  0.204(  b)  and  0.283  of  the 
 Commission's  Rules,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  That  effective  April  3,  2000  ,  the  FM  Table  of  Allotments,  Section  73.202(  b)  of  the  Commission's  Rules,  IS  AMENDED  for  the  communities  listed  below,  as  follows: 
 Community  Channel  Number  Schertz,  Texas  253C1 
 Bandera,  Texas  276A  Hondo,  Texas  290A 


 14.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Commission  shall  send  by  Certified  Mail,  Return  Receipt  Requested,  a  copy  of  this  Order  to  the  following: 
 Mark  N.  Lipp  James  G.  Withers  Shook,  Hardy  and  Bacon  1921  Crampton  Court 
 801  Pennsylvania  Ave.,  NW  Chesterfield,  MO  63017  Suite  600  (Licensee  of  Station  KEEP(  FM)) 
 Washington,  DC  20004  and 
 Gene  A.  Bechtel  Five  Points  Broadcasting,  Inc.  Bechtel  &  Cole,  Chartered  9450  Plainfield  Drive 
 1901  L  Street,  NW  Rock  Hill,  MO  63119  Suite  250  (Permittee  of  Station  KRBH(  FM)) 
 Washington,  DC  20036  (Counsel  for  petitioner) 


 Henry  E.  Crawford  Bruce  A.  Eisen  Smithwick  &  Belendiuk  Kaye,  Scholer,  Fierman,  Hays  &  Handler 
 1990  M  Street,  N.  W.,  Suite  510  901  15th  Street,  NW  Washington,  DC  20036  Washington,  DC  20005 
 (Counsel  for  Comal  Broadcasting  Co.)  (Counsel  for  North  American  Broadcasting  Co.) 


 15.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED,  That  pursuant  to  Section  316(  a)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  the  authorization  of  Station  KBUC(  FM)  IS  MODIFIED  to  specify  operation  on  Channel 
 253C1  at  Schertz,  Texas  in  lieu  of  253A  at  Pleasanton,  Texas,  the  authorization  of  Station  KRBH(  FM)  IS  MODIFIED  to  specify  operation  on  Channel  290A  in  lieu  of  Channel  253A,  and  the  authorization  of  Station 
 KEEP(  FM)  IS  MODIFIED  to  specify  operation  on  Channel  276A  in  lieu  of  Channel  252A,  subject  to  the  following  conditions: 


 (a)  Within  90  days  of  the  effective  date  of  this  Order,  the  licensee  shall 
 13  The  coordinates  for  Channel  290A  at  Hondo  are  29-  21-  00  and  99-  15-  00. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  00-  321 
 7 
 submit  to  the  Commission  a  minor  change  application  for  a  construction  permit  (Form  301),  specifying  the  new  facility; 
 (b)  Upon  grant  of  the  construction  permit,  program  tests  may  be  conducted  in  accordance  with  Section  73.1620;  and 
 (c)  Nothing  contained  herein  shall  be  construed  to  authorize  a  change  in  transmitter  location  or  to  avoid  the  necessity  of  filing  an  environmental 
 assessment  pursuant  to  Section  1.1307  of  the  Commission's  Rules. 
 16.  Pursuant  to  Commission  Rule  Section  1.1104(  1)(  k)  and  (2)(  k),  any  party  seeking  a  change  in  community  of  license  of  an  FM  or  television  allotment  or  an  upgrade  of  an  existing  FM  allotment,  if  the 
 request  is  granted,  must  submit  a  rule  making  fee  when  filing  its  application  to  implement  the  change  in  community  of  license  and/  or  upgrade.  As  a  result  of  this  proceeding,  Reding  Broadcasting  Company, 
 licensee  of  Station  KBUC(  FM),  Pleasanton,  Texas  is  required  to  submit  a  rule  making  fee  in  addition  to  the  fee  required  for  the  applications  to  effectuate  the  upgrade  of  its  license  from  Channel  to  Channel  . 


 17.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED,  That  this  proceeding  BE  TERMINATED. 
 18.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED,  That  the  petitions  filed  by  North  American  Broadcasting  Company  and  Comal  Broadcasting  Company  ARE  DISMISSED. 


 19.  For  further  information  concerning  the  above,  contact  Victoria  McCauley,  Mass  Media  Bureau,  (202)  418-  2130. 
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 John  A.  Karousos  Chief,  Allocations  Branch 
 Policy  and  Rules  Division  Mass  Media  Bureau 
7