*Pages 1--3 from Microsoft Word - 45375.doc* Federal Communications Commission DA 05- 83 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In re Applications For Low Power Television and Television Translator Stations on Channels 62- 69 ) ) ) ) File No. 20000830BUX, et al. 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: January 13, 2005 Released: January 14, 2005 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: 1. The Commission, by the Chief of the Video Division of the Media Bureau, has before it the above- captioned applications seeking new analog low power television (LPTV) and TV translator stations on channels 62- 69. The applications were opposed by Motorola, Inc. 2 For the reasons set forth below, we deny Motorola’s opposition and grant the applications. 2. These applications were filed in August 2000 as part of a window for new analog LPTV and TV translator stations. The applications were later identified as not mutually exclusive and the applicants were instructed to submit their long- form (FCC Form 346) applications. 3. Motorola’s sole complaint is that the applicants are proposing to operate on channels 62- 69. Motorola claims that grant of these applications will negatively impact the ability of public safety entities to deploy their systems on these channels. 4. In 1998, the Commission reallocated television channels 60- 69 for use by new commercial wireless and public safety entities. 3 In the Report and Order in the reallocation proceeding, the Commission specifically stated that it would continue to authorize LPTV and TV translator service on channels 60- 69 until the end of the DTV transition period, as long as they do not cause harmful interference to primary services. 4 5. Motorola’s opposition is speculative and unsupported. Motorola offers no specific information to suggest that any of the facilities proposed in the applications will cause interference to other Commission licensees. In essence, Motorola’s opposition is a late- filed attempt to seek reconsideration of the Commission’s earlier determination. 6. Wherefore, the above facts considered, Motorola’s opposition IS DENIED. 1 The file numbers of the applications are listed in Appendix A. 2 Application File No. BNPTTL- 20000831ALB was also opposed by the State of New York’s Office of Technology. 3 See Reallocation of Television Channels 60- 69, 12 FCC Rcd 22953 (1998)( Report and Order). 4 Id. at 22967. 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 05- 83 2 7. It is further ordered that, having found the applicants qualified, the applications for new analog LPTV and TV translator stations listed in Appendix A ARE GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISION Barbara A. Kreisman, Chief Video Division Media Bureau 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 05- 83 3 APPENDIX A File No. Applicant City ST CH 20000830BUX TRINITY CHRISTIAN CENTER ENTERPRISE AL 62 20000829AXZ HOWARD MINTZ MIDLAND TX 63 20000831BXJ VENTURE TECHNOLOGIES GROUP ROCHELLE IL 63 20000831BEE JOHN R. POWLEY CROCKETT TX 63 20040115ADD MS COMMUNICATIONS, LLC ALEXANDRIA LA 63 20000829AXZ HOWARD MINTZ MIDLAND TX 63 20040213ACP UNIVERSITY OF UTAH TOOELE UT 63 20000831AUZ ARDMORE COMMUNITY ARDMORE OK 64 20000830AYA TRINITY CHRISTIAN CENTER CLINTON OK 65 20000830AEE SUMMIT MEDIA, L. P. PAHRUMP NV 67 20000831BCZ JOHN R. POWLEY GAINESVILLE TX 67 20000831BCK JOHN R. POWLEY LOGAN UT 67 20000830BQP AIRWAVES, INC. OGDEN UT 68 20000829AWR MICHAEL MINTZ BILLINGS MT 68 20000829AGW MICHAEL MINTZ LAWTON OK 68 20000829AQM MICHAEL MINTZ EUREKA CA 68 20000829AWK HOWARD MINTZ PITTSBURG KS 69 20000829AWQ MICHAEL MINTZ BILLINGS MT 69 20000831ALB VENTURE TECHNOLOGIES GROUP PORT JERVIS NY 69 20000829AWH HOWARD MINTZ MIDLAND TX 69 20000829AWP MICHAEL MINTZ OCEAN CITY MD 69 3