*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 54843.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  Washington,  D.  C.  20554 
 February  6,  2006  DA  06-  249 
 In  Reply  Refer  to:  1800B3-  SNC 


 Dan  J.  Alpert,  Esq.  2120  N.  21  st  Rd. 
 Arlington,  VA  22201 
 In  re:  New  AM,  Uncasville,  Connecticut  Facility  ID  No.  161009 
 The  Ridgefield  Broadcasting  Corp.  File  No.  BNP-  20041029AJN 


 Dear  Counsel: 
 We  have  before  us  a  Petition  for  Reconsideration  (“  Petition”),  filed  on  behalf  of  The  Ridgefield  Broadcasting  Corp.  (“  Ridgefield”),  seeking  reconsideration  of  the  December  1,  2005,  staff  letter  in  which 
 the  Media  Bureau  (“  Bureau”)  dismissed  Ridgefield’s  captioned  application  for  a  new  AM  station  at  Uncasville,  Connecticut.  The  application  is  a  singleton  in  AM  Auction  No.  84,  filed  pursuant  to  the 
 August  26,  2004,  public  notice.  1  For  the  reasons  set  forth  below,  the  Petition  is  denied. 
 The  staff’s  initial  deficiency  letter  on  February  8,  2005,  stated  that  Ridgefield’s  proposed  facility  failed  to  protect  other  stations  in  violation  of  Section  73.182  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  and  that  a 
 curative  amendment  was  required.  2  In  response  to  several  requests  for  additional  time,  a  second  staff  letter  granted  Ridgefield  a  period  of  180  days  from  the  date  of  the  original  deficiency  letter  to  bring  the 
 application  into  “substantial  compliance”  with  the  Commission’s  technical  rules  for  AM  facilities.  3  The  second  staff  letter  stated  that  “[  t]  he  proposed  Uncasville  facilities  must  protect  other  stations  and 
 applications  as  the  rules  require,  and  must  provide  the  required  principal  community  service.” 
 Ridgefield  amended  the  Uncasville  application  on  August  8,  2005.  The  amendment  changed  the  frequency  of  the  proposal  from  1520  kHz  to  1490  kHz,  and  supplied  field  strength  measurements  for 
 WACM,  West  Springfield,  Massachusetts.  The  staff’s  study  of  the  amended  proposal  indicated  that  the  Uncasville  facility  would  both  cause  and  receive  prohibited  contour  overlap  with  WACM  in  violation  of 
 Section  73.37  of  the  Commission’s  rules.  Because  the  amended  proposal  did  not  comply  with  the  Commission’s  rules,  the  staff  dismissed  Ridgefield’s  application.  4 


 In  order  to  eliminate  prohibited  contour  overlap  with  WACM,  with  its  Petition,  Ridgefield  supplied  a  technical  amendment  reducing  the  antenna  efficiency  of  the  proposed  Uncasville  station, 
 increasing  the  power,  and  asserting  that  the  staff’s  interpretation  of  the  provisions  of  73.37(  a)  concerning  Class  C  AM  stations  was  incorrect.  Upon  review  of  the  amended  application,  we  find  that  despite  the 


 1  See  Public  Notice  “AM  Auction  No.  84  Singleton  Applications,”  Attachment  A-  1,  19  FCC  Rcd  16655  (2004). 
 2  Letter  to  The  Ridgefield  Broadcasting  Corp.,  Ref.  1800B3  (MB  Feb.  8,  2005). 
 3  Letter  to  The  Ridgefield  Broadcasting  Corp.,  Ref.  1800B3  (MB  May  3,  2005). 
 4  Letter  to  The  Ridgefield  Broadcasting  Corp.,  Ref.  1800B3  (MB  Dec.  1,  2005). 
1
 applicant’s  repeated  attempts  to  cure  the  application’s  multiple  deficiencies,  the  amended  proposal  fails  to  provide  the  minimum  principal  community  coverage  at  night  required  by  Section  73.24(  i).  Uncasville  is 
 an  unincorporated  community,  the  boundaries  of  which  are  not  available  through  the  U.  S.  Census  Bureau.  However,  the  boundaries  of  Uncasville  shown  in  Ridgefield’s  amended  application  were  supplied  by  the 
 applicant’s  technical  consultant,  and  were  the  basis  for  our  evaluation.  The  applicant’s  map  entitled  “5  mV/  m  and  25.46  mV/  m  Principal  Community  Contours,”  which  was  prepared  by  Mueller  Broadcast 
 Design,  shows  clearly  that  the  proposed  25.46  mV/  m  nighttime  interference-  free  coverage  contour  does  not  encompass  at  least  80  percent  of  Uncasville,  as  required  by  Section  73.24(  i).  5  Consequently, 
 Ridgefield’s  application,  as  amended,  still  fails  to  comply  with  the  Commission’s  rules. 
 Accordingly,  Ridgefield’s  Petition  for  Reconsideration  IS  DENIED. 


 Sincerely, 


 Peter  H.  Doyle  Chief,  Audio  Division 
 Media  Bureau 


 5  A  compensating  polar  planimeter  measurement  using  the  applicant’s  map  indicates  that  the  proposed  nighttime 
 interference-  free  contour  encompasses  only  62  percent  of  the  principal  community  of  Uncasville. 
2