*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 22124.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  02-  2672 
 1 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 Request  for  Extension  of  Time  to  Construct  Digital  Facilities 
 KQCA-  DT,  Stockton,  California 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 ) 


 File  No.  BEPCDT-  20020304AKJ  ID  No.  10242 


 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  October  15,  2002  Released:  October  16,  2002 
 By  the  Chief,  Media  Bureau: 
 1.  The  Media  Bureau  (the  “Bureau”)  has  before  it  a  petition  for  reconsideration  filed  by  KQCA  Hearst-  Argyle  Television,  Inc.  (“  KQCA”)  seeking  reconsideration  of  the  Bureau’s  letter  of  June  3, 
 2002,  denying  its  request  for  an  extension  of  time  to  construct  the  digital  facilities  for  KQCA-  DT  and  admonishing  KQCA  for  failing  to  meet  the  May  1,  2002,  construction  deadline  for  DTV  facilities.  For  the 
 reasons  stated  below,  we  deny  the  petition. 
 2.  In  its  petition,  KQCA  argues  that  (1)  it  has  satisfied  the  DTV  extension  standard;  (2)  it  is  “ingeniously”  delivering  its  DTV  signal  to  viewers;  and  (3)  the  Bureau  failed  to  afford  similarly  situated 
 parties  similar  treatment. 
 3.  KQCA  states  that  its  DTV  construction  was  delayed  due  to  negotiations  with  Richland  Towers  (“  Richland”),  a  third-  party  tower  company  that  will  perform  tower  modifications;  order  and  install 
 an  antenna  and  other  DTV  equipment;  provide  a  “turnkey”  DTV  antenna  system  that  would  permit  multiple  DTV  operations  from  the  tower;  and  ultimately  manage  the  operations  of  the  tower.  KQCA  also  states  that 
 it  began  negotiations  with  Richland  in  August  2001  and  those  negotiations  were  finalized  in  April  2002.  As  of  the  date  of  the  petition,  the  parties  were  in  a  due  diligence  process  and  were  awaiting  approval  from  the 
 County  of  Sacramento  and  the  site  owner.  According  the  KQCA,  its  transmitter  had  been  built  at  the  time  of  the  petition,  but  Richland  had  not  ordered  the  necessary  antenna.  KQCA  projects  that  its  DTV  facility  will 
 be  completed  on  or  around  May  1,  2003. 
 4.  We  find  these  arguments  unpersuasive.  KQCA  received  its  license  in  November  2000,  but  did  not  begin  negotiations  with  Richland  until  August  2001.  KQCA  does  not  offer  any  explanation  for  this 
 lengthy  delay.  Furthermore,  at  the  time  of  the  petition,  KQCA  had  not  received  final  approval  of  its  tower  proposal  from  the  site  owner  and  local  authorities,  had  not  commenced  construction,  and  had  not  ordered  its 
 antenna.  These  facts  make  its  projected  May  1,  2003  operational  date  questionable.  In  itself,  the  choice  of  a  projected  operational  date  of  May  1,  2003  casts  doubts  of  the  reliability  of  KQCA’s  projections  because  that 
 date  is  several  months  beyond  the  extension  that  it  originally  requested.  Based  on  these  facts,  the  Bureau 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  02-  2672 
 2 
 was  justified  in  denying  KQCA’s  extension  request. 
 5.  KQCA  states  that  it  is  currently  delivering  its  station’s  DTV  signal  to  viewers  in  the  Sacramento  market.  According  to  the  petition,  this  is  being  accomplished  by  transmitting  a  separate  DTV 
 programming  stream  from  the  facilities  of  its  sister  station,  KCRA-  TV,  Sacramento.  This  approach,  however,  is  no  substitute  for  KQCA  delivering  its  DTV  signal  from  its  own  authorized  facility. 


 6.  Finally,  KQCA  argues  that  similarly  situated  parties  were  not  given  similar  treatment.  KQCA  states  that  KMAX-  TV,  Sacramento,  California,  proposes  to  use  KQCA’s  tower.  KQCA  goes  on 
 to  state  that  KMAX-  TV  was  granted  a  DTV  extension  because  of  delays  associated  with  modification  of  that  tower.  KQCA  contends  that  it  should  have  been  granted  the  same  extension  as  KMAX-  TV  because 
 the  same  tower  is  at  issue.  KQCA  is,  however,  the  tower  owner.  It  was  its  own  delay  in  beginning  negotiations  with  a  tower  contractor,  not  delays  occasioned  by  the  actions  of  a  third  party,  that  resulted  in 
 KQCA’s  failure  to  construct. 
 7.  ACCORDINGLY,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  THAT  the  petition  for  reconsideration  filed  by  KQCA  Hearst  Argyle  Television,  Inc.,  seeking  reconsideration  of  the  Bureau’s  letter  of  June  3,  2002,  which 
 denied  KQCA’s  request  for  an  extension  of  time  to  construct  the  digital  facilities  for  KQCA-  DT  and  admonished  KQCA  for  failure  to  meet  the  May  1,  2002,  construction  deadline  for  digital  television  facilities, 
 IS  DENIED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 W.  Kenneth  Ferree  Chief,  Media  Bureau 
2