Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
June 6, 2008
 DA 08-1340
In Reply Refer to:
1800B3-TSN
Released:  June 6, 2008
Mr. Richard Dean Hodson,
d/b/a Hodson Broadcasting
P.O. Box 66
Tecopa, CA  92389-0066
Shamrock Communications, Inc.
c/o Kenneth E. Satten, Esq.
Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP
2300 N Street, N.W.
Suite 700
Washington, DC  20037
In re: FM Auction No. 68
Shamrock Communications, Inc.
New(FM), Amargosa Valley, NV
Facility ID No. 170180
File No. BNPH-20070226AER
Application for New FM 
Construction Permit
Dear Objector and Counsel:
We have before us a Petition to Deny (Petition) filed by Richard Dean Hodson, d/b/a Hodson 
Broadcasting (Hodson) on May 7, 2007.  Hodson requests we deny Shamrock Communications, Inc.s 
(Shamrock) FM Auction No. 68 (Auction 68) application for a new FM broadcast station at 
Amargosa Valley, Nevada.1 Shamrock was the winning bidder, in Auction 68, for the Channel 291A 
allotment at Tecopa, California; in its post-auction Form 301 application, Shamrock seeks a minor change 
in the facilities, class, and community of license of the allotment.  Shamrock has concurrently filed a 
Petition for Rule Making (PRM) to replace the Tecopa allotment with a new allotment on Channel 
288A at Tecopa.2 For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Petition and grant the Application.
  
1 File No. BNPH-20070226AER (the Application).  
2 As is now required with Petitions for Rule Making proposing new allotments, Shamrock also filed a Form 301 
application, File No. BNPH-20070226AET.
2
Background. Shamrock filed a short-form (FCC Form 175) application on November 9, 2006, 
during the Auction 68 filing window.3 After the auction, Shamrock was the provisionally winning bidder 
with a net bid of $728,000.4 Having timely made all required auction payments, Shamrock timely filed 
the Application, proposing a one-step upgrade from Channel 291A to Channel 290C1, and change of 
community from Tecopa to Amargosa Valley, Nevada.  It concurrently filed the PRM, along with the 
required Form 301 application specifying the proposed facilities.  In response to Hodsons May 7, 2007, 
filing of the Petition, Shamrock filed an Opposition to Objection (Opposition) on May 24, 2007.  
Discussion.  Status of Petition.  Shamrock contends that Hodsons Petition cannot be considered 
a petition to deny, because it does not comply with the requirements of Section 309(d) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act).5 Specifically, Shamrock points out that the 
Petition is not supported by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, as is required by the Act 
and the Commissions Rules.6 We agree that Hodson should have submitted an affidavit to support his 
many factual assertions regarding population, community attributes, and technical matters.  In any event, 
Hodsons unsworn signature alone does not provide sufficient indicia of reliability of the assertions in the 
Petition.  We therefore consider the Petition to be an informal objection.
Substantive Allegations.  In his Petition, Hodson makes numerous assertions and accusations 
against Shamrock and its motives.  As noted above, however, Hodsons statements constitute bare 
unsworn allegations only, unsupported by technical showings, declarations of other Tecopa residents, or 
other evidence.  Essentially, Hodson argues that Shamrock has engaged in wrongful behavior by changing 
the community from Tecopa to Amargosa Valley in its post-auction long-form application, and 
simultaneously seeking to allot a new channel at Tecopa, which Hodson characterizes as an illegal 
backfill allotment.  Hodsons primary criticism seems to be that Shamrock is abandoning the 
community on which it bid, thus delaying the introduction of FM service at Tecopa.
While earnestly argued, Hodsons Petition does not point to any wrongful conduct on Shamrocks 
part.  It is uncontested that Shamrock was the winning bidder for the Channel 291A Tecopa allotment.  In 
Revision of Procedures Governing Amendments to FM Table of Allotments and Changes of Community of 
License in the Radio Broadcast Services,7 the Commission specifically allowed applicants to file minor 
modification community of license change applications, as long as the proposed new facility was 
mutually exclusive with either the applicants built and operating facilities or its original allotment.8  
Moreover, the Media Bureau subsequently affirmed that a winning auction applicant could propose a 
community of license change in its post-auction Form 301 application.9 We further note that not only is 
  
3 File No. BSFH-20061109AET.
4 See Auction of FM Construction Permits Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 68, Public Notice, 
22 FCC Rcd 518 (MB/WTB 2007).
5 47 U.S.C.  309(d).
6 See id.; 47 C.F.R.  73.5006(c).
7 Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14212 (2006) (2006 Community of License Order).
8 Id. at 14219.
9 See Media Bureau Offers Examples to Clarify the Treatment of Applications and Rulemaking Petitions Proposing 
Community of License Changes, Channel Substitutions, and New FM Allotments, Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 6852, 
6855-56 (MB 2007).
3
the community of license change a minor change, but Shamrocks proposed upgrade from Channel 291A 
to Channel 290C1 and transmitter site location are likewise minor changes, and thus allowed in its post-
auction long-form application.10
Part of the change of community application procedure involves submitting a detailed exhibit 
demonstrating that the proposed change constitutes a preferential arrangement of allotments under the 
Section 307(b) [of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended] priorities and policies we have used 
since 1982.11 It appears that, in order to justify such a preferential arrangement of allotments when 
proposing to move the sole allotment at Tecopa to a community that already has local transmission 
service, Shamrock has proposed a replacement allotment.  However, Hodson is in error when he accuses 
Shamrock of proposing a prohibited backfill allotment.  The case Hodson cites, Pacific Broadcasting of 
Missouri LLC,12 only prohibits so-called backfill allotments when used to preserve the existing sole local 
transmission service of a community being vacated.  However, the Tecopa allotment is not a sole local 
transmission service, as it has never been constructed and has never broadcast, thus the community has 
not come to rely on it for service.13 Shamrocks request for a new FM allotment at Tecopa, as noted 
above, has been proposed in order to comply with Section 307(b) requirements, not as a replacement for 
non-existent sole local transmission service.  While it is at least premature for Shamrock to claim that its 
modification application plus rulemaking proceeding will create two FM facilities, it is true that if 
granted, Shamrocks proposals will result in a construction permit serving a greater population, along 
with a replacement allotment of the same class at Tecopa.  The proposals thus satisfy Section 307(b), and 
are fully compliant with our rules and procedures as modified by the 2006 Community of License Order.14
Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, we find that Hodson has failed to raise a substantial and 
material question of fact regarding Shamrocks long-form application and associated PRM.  We further 
find that Shamrock is fully qualified to be a Commission licensee, and that grant of its Form 301 
application is in the public interest, convenience, and necessity.  Therefore, Hodsons Petition, which we 
treat as an informal objection, IS DENIED, and Shamrocks Application IS GRANTED.
Sincerely,
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau
     
10 47 C.F.R.  73.3573(a)(1).
11 Id. at 14218.  See 47 U.S.C.  307(b) (Section 307(b)); Revision of FM Assignment Policies and Procedures, 
Second Report and Order, 90 FCC 2d 88 (1982).
12 Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 2291, 2296 (2003), recon. denied, 19 FCC Rcd 10950 (2004).
13 See, e.g., Vernon Center and Eagle Lake, Minnesota, Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14714, 14715 (MB 2007) 
(reallotment of unbuilt station does not constitute removal of communitys sole local service). 
14 See supra note 7.