Federal Communications Commission DA 09-660
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In re Applications of  
White Park Broadcasting, Inc.
For Modification of Facilities for Stations
KBEN-FM, Basin, Wyoming
KWHO(FM), Cody, Wyoming
KROW(FM), Lovell, Wyoming
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FRN: 0013319074
Facility ID No. 165998
File No. BMPH-20070716ABY
Facility ID No. 165999
File No. BMPH-20070828AAV
Facility ID No. 164288
File No. BPH-20080219ALX
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
Adopted:  March 20, 2009 Released:  March 23, 2009
By the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau:
I.  INTRODUCTION
1. We have before us the captioned applications (collectively, the “Applications”) of White 
Park Broadcasting, Inc. (“White Park”) for minor modification of construction permit for its authorized 
but unbuilt stations KBEN-FM, Cowley, Wyoming (the “KBEN-FM Application”) and KWHO(FM), 
Cody, Wyoming (the “KWHO Application”), and for minor modification of the constructed, licensed 
facilities of station KROW(FM), Lovell, Wyoming (the “KROW Application”).  Also before us are (1) an 
“Informal Objection and Request for Hearing Designation Order” (the “KBEN/KWHO Objection”) filed 
by Legend Communications of Wyoming, LLC (“Legend”) on September 20, 2007, and a “Supplemental 
Informal Objection” (“Supplement”) to the KBEN-FM and KWHO(FM) Applications filed by Legend on 
February 29, 2008;1 (2) an Informal Objection (the “KROW Objection”) to the KROW Application, and 
(3) related responsive pleadings.2 Finally, we have before us two separate responses to a staff inquiry 
  
1 The Informal Objection and Supplement also contest an application by White Park for modification of the 
construction permit for Station KROW(FM), Lovell, Wyoming, File No. BMPH-20070705AFI (the “2005 KROW 
Application”).  As noted, infra,  on January 25, 2008, the staff dismissed that application at the request of the 
applicant, subsequently dismissing the Objection as it related to that application as moot.  We address a 
subsequently filed application for minor modification to the constructed, licensed facilities of that station, (the 
“KROW Application”) and the Informal Objection to that application (the “KROW Objection”) herein.
2 These include: White Park’s November 1, 2007, Opposition to the Informal Objection; Legend’s November 13, 
2007, Reply to that Opposition, and White Park’s December 31, 2007, “Response” to the Reply.  Additionally, with 
respect to the Supplement, White Park filed an Opposition on February 4, 2008, to which Legend replied on  
February 29, 2008. White Park filed an Opposition to the KROW Objection on March 21, 2008, to which Legend 
filed a Reply on April 2, 2008.  Legend filed an “Informal Objection to Amendments, Reply to Letters, and 
Continued Request for Hearing Designation Order” on August 6, 2008 (“Objection to Amendments”).  White Park 
filed an Opposition to that pleading on August 22, 2008 (“Opposition to Objection to Amendments”), to which 
Legend filed a Reply on September 5, 2008 (“Reply to Opposition to Objection to Amendments”).  White Park filed 
a “Petition for Leave to File Response to Reply” and a “Response to Reply” on September 19, 2008.
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
2
letter dated April 28, 2008 (the “Inquiry Letter”), filed on June 17, 2008, and June 29, 2008, regarding the 
effects of the proposals on the quality of the human environment.  For the reasons set forth below, we: (1) 
find that no further environmental processing is warranted; (2) grant the KBEN/KWHO Objection and 
KROW Objection to the extent indicated herein, and otherwise deny them; (3) admonish White Park for 
its apparent willful violation of Section 1.17 of the Commission’s Rules (the “Rules”), and (4) grant the 
Applications. 
II.  BACKGROUND
2. White Park was the successful bidder in FM Auction No. 37 for an FM frequency in 
Lovell, Wyoming,3 and it was the successful bidder in FM Auction No. 62 for several FM frequencies, 
including Basin and Cody, Wyoming.4 White Park’s subsequent “long-form” applications for those 
frequencies were granted by the staff in 2005 (Lovell) and 2006 (Basin and Cody).5 In July of 2007, 
White Park filed the subject application for KBEN-FM, proposing to relocate the station from Basin to 
Cowley, Wyoming, and change the station’s transmitter site and technical facilities.  Slightly more than 
one month later, White Park applied to change KWHO(FM)’s frequency from Channel 244C2 (96.7 
MHz) to 266C2 (101.1 MHz) and change the station’s transmitter site and technical facilities.  The 
Applications propose to collocate the KBEN-FM, and KWHO(FM) antennas on a new 60.5-meter tower 
to be constructed on McCullough Peak in Park County, Wyoming.6  
3. Also in July of 2007, White Park filed an application to relocate the transmission facilities 
of KROW(FM) to the same tower on McCullough Peak proposed for the KBEN-FM and KWHO(FM) 
antennas.7 On December 27, 2007, it filed an application to move KROW(FM) to a new transmitter site, 
requesting dismissal of the 2007 KROW Application.8 The staff dismissed the 2007 KROW Application 
and granted the 2008 KROW Application on January 25, 2008.9 White Park constructed the KROW(FM) 
facility as authorized and filed an application for covering license on February 14, 2008.10 Five days 
later, White Park, in the KROW Application, proposed essentially the same facilities specified in the 2007 
KROW Application, i.e., the relocation of KROW(FM) to McCullough Peak on the same tower as that 
proposed by KBEN-FM and KWHO(FM).
4. The KBEN/KWHO Applications.  In the KBEN-FM and KWHO Applications, White 
Park certified that the proposal was excluded from environmental processing under Section 1.1306 of the 
Rules, i.e., that the proposed facility would not have a significant environmental impact and complies 
with the maximum permissible radiofrequency radiation (“RFR”) exposure limits for controlled and 
uncontrolled environments.11 Each Application contained an explanatory Exhibit specifically addressing 
compliance with the Commission’s RFR exposure guidelines and stating that:
  
3 See FM Broadcast Construction Permits Auction Closes; Auction No. 37 Winning Bidders Announced; Payment 
and Deadlines Established, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 1021 (MB 2004), Attachment A.
4 See Auction of FM Construction Permits Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 62, Public Notice, 
21 FCC Rcd 1071 (MB 2006), Attachment A.
5 See Construction Permit Nos. BNPH-20050103AAG (Lovell) (granted on March 9, 2005), and  BNPH-
20060310AAG (Basin) and BNPH-20060310AAH (Cody), both of which were granted on June 28, 2006.
6 White Park indicates, without elaboration, that there are two other antenna towers in the area and that the site 
constitutes a “de facto antenna farm.”  Opposition at 2-3.  
7 See File No. BMPH-20070705AFI (the “2007 KROW Application”).
8 See File No. BMPH-20071228AAF (the “2008 KROW Application”).
9 See Broadcast Applications, Public Notice, Report No. 46662 (Jan. 30, 2008) pp. 2, 9.
10 See File No. BLH-20080214AFB.  The staff granted the uncontested license application on March 14, 2008.
11 See Applications, Section III-B, Item 18. 
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
3
The location of the transmitter site is near an existing tower with no significant sources of 
rf radiation and does not fall into any of the categories listed in Sections 1.1307(a)(1) 
through 1.1307(a)(3), and Sections 1.1307(a)(5) through 1.1307(a)(7) of the 
Commission’s Rules; the proposed operation will not involve utilization of high intensity 
white lights described in Section 1.1307(a)(8) of the Rules.
With respect to conformity with the requirements of Section 1.1307(a)(4) of the Rules, 
the tower structure will not be located in a recreational area frequented by the public. The 
proposed location is excluded from environmental processing based on the tentative 
conclusion that there are no properties of historical significance in the area of potential 
effects, and that the proposed operation therefore will not have an impact on historical 
properties.12
5. In the KBEN/KWHO Objection, Legend states that White Park’s affirmative 
certifications that the proposed facilities were excluded from environmental processing appear to be false 
because White Park did not have a basis for so certifying.  Citing the FCC Form 301 Instructions and 
Worksheet #3 included in those Instructions,13 Legend states that, in order to make an affirmative 
environmental certification, an applicant is required to examine eight factors, spelled out on Worksheet 
#3, and must submit an Environmental Assessment pursuant to Section 1.1311 if it answers “Yes” to any 
of them.  Legend continues that, in order to answer each of these questions, applicants are required to 
perform certain “due diligence” with respect to the proposed tower site, which in some cases involves 
consulting with offices or agencies with expertise in certain areas.  Legend states that, in order to make an 
affirmative certification in the Applications, White Park must “at the very least” have consulted with the 
Fish and Wildlife Service of the United States Department of the Interior (“FWS”) regarding the possible 
effects of the proposals on endangered species, the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer 
(“SHPO”) for the possible effect of the proposals on historic properties, and American Indian Tribes for 
the possible effects of the proposals on Native American Sacred sites.  It states that it hired its own 
environmental consultant, who concluded that there is “no indication that [White Park] completed its due 
diligence process regarding FCC rules for . . . Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act, 
. . . Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, or Tribal Consultation. ”14 Thus, it claims, it 
appears that White Park falsely certified on the Applications that construction and operation of the 
  
12 See Applications, Exhibit 31. 
13 The Instructions and Worksheet # 3 track the criteria listed in Section 1.1307(b).  See FCC Form 301 Instructions 
for Section III, Part C.  Worksheet # 3 specifically states as follows:
Commission grant of an application may have a significant environmental impact, thereby requiring an 
environmental Assessment (EA), if you answer "Yes" to any of the following 8 items: 
1. involves high intensity white lighting located in residential neighborhoods.    Yes No
2. is located in an officially designated wilderness area or wildlife preserve. Yes No
3. threatens the existence or habitat of endangered species. Yes No
4. affects districts, sites, buildings, structures or objects significant in American
history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture that are listed in the 
National Register of Historic Places or are eligible for listing. Yes No
5. affects Indian religious sites. Yes No
6. is located in a floodplain. Yes No
7. requires construction that involved significant changes in surface features
(e.g., wetland fill, deforestation or water diversion). Yes No
8. does not comply with the FCC established guidelines regarding exposure to 
PT electromagnetic fields as described in OFT Bulletin 65. Yes No
14 Informal Objection at 4-5 and Attachment 3, Letter to Susan K. Patrick from Environmental Resources 
Management, at 3.  ERS states that it: (1) contacted the FWS’ Cheyenne Field Office, which has jurisdiction over 
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
4
proposed facilities will not have a significant environmental impact without performing the due diligence 
necessary to make this certification.  It therefore requests that the Commission “engage in fact finding” 
and, if it confirms that White Park falsely certified, designate the applications for evidentiary hearing to 
determine if White Park has the basic qualifications to be a licensee.15
6. In its Opposition, White Park indicates that:
White Park’s siting decision was the product of extensive research aimed at minimizing 
the impact of the new tower on the natural environment. In addition to undertaking its 
own scouting missions for a suitable site in Park County, White Park solicited the opinion 
of a local Wyoming official of the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”), a federal 
agency responsible for managing significant portions of the land in Northern Wyoming, 
with respect to potential tower sites in the area, and the Park County Planning and Zoning 
Commission, the local land use authority.16
White Park attaches a declaration from its President, Edward F. Flanagan, which makes 
unsupported and conclusory assertions regarding compliance with the factors set forth in Section 
1.1307(b) of the rules.17 For example, it states “based upon White Park’s own research and 
giving substantial consideration to [the recommendation of the BLM’s Duane Feick],” that: 
· McCullough Peak is not a wilderness area;18
· There are no endangered species in the vicinity of McCullough Peak and if there 
were they have already been disturbed by the construction of the two existing 
towers;19
· There is no impact on historic sites [because] McCullough Peak is a mountain peak 
that is far away from any populated areas and has no historic sites on or near it . . . If 
there ever were historic sites there, the existing telecommunications users have long 
ago destroyed them;20
· There are no Native American Religious sites on McCullough Peak;21
     
the project area, and that FWS’ search of its data base revealed no record of any tower-related projects submitted for 
its review at the coordinates specified in the Applications; (2) contacted the Wyoming State Historic Preservation 
Office, and was informed that there were no Section 106 projects submitted for review for the project location; and 
(3) consulted the Commission’s Tower Construction Notification System (“TCNS”) and determined that 14 tribal 
governments expressed interest in the site location proposed in the Applications, including the Fort Peck Tribes, and 
that no notification of any of these tribes appears to have occurred.  
We acknowledge that these representations concerning ERM’s contacts with the FWS and Wyoming SHPO 
constitute hearsay statements recounting the representations made by ERM as to its contacts with FWS and SHPO 
employees.  However, hearsay evidence may be admissible in administrative proceedings if there are some indicia 
of reliability.  See, e.g. Echostar Communications Corporation v. FCC, 292 F.3d 749, 753 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Wine 
Country Radio, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 2333, 2334 (1996).  The insufficiency of White 
Park’s response, described in detail in Paragraphs 6 and 26 below, lend significant credence to Legend’s allegations. 
15 Informal Objection at 7.
16 Opposition at 3. 
17 Opposition, Exhibit A, Declaration of Edward F. Flanagan.  
18 Declaration of Edward F. Flanagan, ¶ 8. 
19 Id. at  ¶ 9.  Mr. Flanagan further states that “the BLM’s recommendation of the site to White Park was based on 
the absence of any concerns over harming endangered species.”  Id.  White Park ‘s submission does not include a 
declaration from Duane Feick or any documentation that might corroborate BLM’s recommendation.  Nor does it 
reflect that.Flanagan consulted FWS directly. 
20 Id. at  ¶ 10. 
21 Id. at ¶ 11.
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
5
· There is no possibility of McCullough Peak being in a flood plain.  The site on 
McCullough Peak sits 1400 feet above the Shoshone River, at a height of 6200 feet 
above sea level;22 and 
· There is no intended impact to surface features.  White Park will not disturb or move 
any soil but will merely install anchors, a tower base, and prefabricated building.23
7. White Park also attaches a declaration from a White Park employee, Michael Schutta, 
who describes his discussions with Mr. Feick and the Park County Planning and Zoning Commission.  He 
states that “at no time” was he advised by any public official or private party that it would not be 
advisable to locate a new transmission tower on McCullough Peak, that BLM manager Mr. Feick 
identified that site as the “best available” due to its current use as a communications site, and that he was 
told by the representative of the Park County Planning and Zoning Commission that they had no special 
concerns about the site.  He concludes that “the location of the tower for the White Park stations will, like 
the other two towers at the McCullough Peak antenna farm, have no adverse effect on the environment 
and surrounding land.”24
8. On December 27, 2007, White Park amended the Applications to provide a letter, dated 
December 20, 2007, from the Wyoming SHPO concurring with the proposed finding that there are no 
historic properties that will be affected by the proposed tower.25 Legend’s Supplement argues that the 
very tender of this amendment indicates that White Park has been less than candid in making its 
certifications.  If it truly believed that its proposals would have no significant impact on the environment, 
Legend asks rhetorically, why would it later hire a reputable environmental consultant, TRC 
Environmental Corporation (“TRC”), and consult with the Wyoming SHPO?26 Legend further argues 
that the Applications are not ripe for processing because White Park has yet to demonstrate that it 
performed “other due diligence” such as consultation with the FWS and Indian Tribes.27 In its Opposition 
to this pleading, White Park states that its amendment containing the SHPO letter is not an “admission” at 
all, but rather an “urgent reminder” to the Commission that Legend’s claims are without merit and that the 
site proposed in the Applications does not raise any environmental concerns.28 It reiterates that, prior to 
filing the Applications it “extensively investigated and confirmed the suitability of the proposed tower 
site,” and claims that “the same set of facts that were true then are true now.  According to White Park, 
the proposed site satisfies all of the conditions set forth in Section 1.1307(a)(1)-1.1307(a)(8) of the 
Commission’s Rules.”29
9. The KROW Application.  In the KROW Application, White Park makes a slightly 
different representation, taking into account the Wyoming SHPO concurrence:
  
22 Id. at ¶ 12.
23 Id. at ¶ 13.
24 Opposition, Exhibit B, Declaration of Michael R. Schutta, at ¶ 13. 
25 See Applications, Amendment of December 27, 2007, at Attachment 31.
26 Supplement at 4-5.  Legend raises similar arguments in its Objection to Amendments.  Specifically, Legend 
argues that White Park’s performance of due diligence undercuts its argument that the proposed site is located on an 
antenna farm.  In opposition to that pleading, White Park argues that it continues to believe that the “antenna farm 
exception” (discussed infra) applies to the proposed site, but that, out of an “abundance of caution” and in an effort 
to shorten the Commission’s review process, it also chose to conduct environmental due diligence.  Opposition to 
Objection to Amendments at 7-8.
27 Id. at 5. 
28 Opposition to Supplement at 2-3.
29 Id. at 3.
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
6
White Park submits that the proposed transmitter site is categorically excluded from
environmental processing under the Commission's Rules. Attachment A to this Exhibit 
31 evidences that two antenna supporting structures are located in immediate proximity 
to the antenna supporting structure proposed for KROW. It is White Park's belief that 
these structures constitute an "antenna farm" because they involve multiple antenna 
supporting structures that are located in a "clustered" arrangement. Assuming an "antenna 
farm" exists, the site is categorically excluded from environmental processing under the 
provisions of Note 3 to Section 1.1306 of the Commission's Rules.
In an abundance of caution, owing to the absence of any Commission precedent as to the
minimum criteria for an "antenna farm," White Park has reviewed the potential 
environmental impact of the proposed antenna supporting structure. Based on a review by 
White Park personnel and a number of consultants retained by White Park, White Park 
has determined that there is no need for the preparation of an Environmental Assessment 
or further environmental processing by the Commission as this proposed site, which 
combines antennas for three stations in the vicinity of existing towers, minimizes any 
harmful impact on the environment.
White Park wishes to make particular note that it has determined that the proposed 
transmitter site, immediately adjacent to federally managed land on which an existing 
antenna supporting structure is located, will not affect any historical property of national 
significance. Appended hereto as Attachment B is a notice from the Wyoming State 
Historic Preservation Officer confirming the absence of any impact on such properties. 
Additionally, White Park knows of no impact of this proposal on American Indian 
religious sites.30
10. In its Objection to the KROW Application, Legend acknowledges the Wyoming SHPO’s 
concurrence with White Park’s conclusion that no historic properties would be affected by the location of 
the tower on McCullough Peak, but it argues that White Park’s “determination” that there is no need for 
preparation of an EA does not appear to be based on any objective criteria or proper due diligence.31 For 
instance, it claims, White Park has not submitted evidence that the proposed tower would not impact 
threatened or endangered species or their habitats.32 It also argues that there is no evidence that White 
Park has consulted with Indian Tribes as required by Section 1.1307(a)(5) of the Rules, as the Wyoming 
SHPO’s letter is silent on this matter and White Park’s statement that “it knows of no impact” of the 
proposal on American Indian religious sites is unsupported by objective evidence.
11. In its Opposition, White Park states that, once again, Legend has failed to point to any 
obligation that White Park was required – and failed – to satisfy.  It states that the tower is in an antenna 
farm and is therefore categorically excluded from environmental processing.  Even assuming arguendo 
that the proposed site is not in an antenna farm, White Park argues, its own independent research, the 
advice of BLM, consultation with the Wyoming SHPO, the submission of an FCC Form 620 to the 
  
30 See KROW Application, Exhibit 31.
31 KROW Objection at 4.  Legend further argues that the proposed site cannot be considered an antenna farm, given 
the distances between the two existing towers and their differences in height.  See Reply to Opposition to Objection 
to Amendments.
32 Legend comments that although the Commission’s rules do not require White Park to contact FWS, White Park 
must objectively determine that the proposed tower would not affect threatened or endangered species and to date it 
has provided no objective evidence that it has done so.  “The traditional and easiest method for doing this,” opines 
Legend, is consultation with the FWS. Id. at 5.
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
7
Commission,33 and the engineering exhibits to the KROW Application all confirm the environmental 
suitability of the site and provide a sound basis for White Park’s certifications.34 With respect to Indian 
Tribes, White Park states that Legend did not make an effort to determine what, if any, tribe might have a 
religious site on McCullough Peak, whereas “White Park’s investigation determined that there were no 
Indian religious sites on McCullough Peak and its communications with Indian Tribes through the 
Commission’s Tower Construction Notification System . . . have not resulted in any objections.”35
12. Because it was unclear from the pleadings whether the certifications in the Applications 
had a reasonable basis, the staff sent the Inquiry Letter to White Park, requesting White Park provide the 
specific foundation for its conclusions concerning each of the environmental factors listed in Section 
1.1307(a)(1)-(a)(7) when each of the Applications was originally filed.36 In the Inquiry Letter, the staff 
also invited White Park to provide a discussion and case precedent for its argument that the McCullough 
Peak site is a “de facto antenna farm” exempting the Applications from environmental processing.  White 
Park provided the justification for its position that the McCullough Peak site is an antenna farm on June 
17, 2008 (the “Antenna Farm Letter”), and it provided its justification for the environmental certifications 
on June 20, 2008 (the “Certification Letter”).
III.  DISCUSSION.
13. Antenna Farm.  White Park Argument.  In its “white paper” in support of its argument 
that McCullough Peak is a de facto antenna farm and should be categorically excluded from 
environmental processing, White Park observes that “de facto” antenna farms have long been in 
existence, and the Commission first formally addressed the concept of an “antenna farm” in 1967 in the 
context of air safety.37 It states that, in the Antenna Farm Order, the Commission defined an “antenna 
farm as “a geographical location, with established boundaries, designated by the Federal Communications 
Commission, in which antenna towers with a common impact on aviation may be grouped,”38 and it 
established specific procedures for officially designating antenna farms.39 White Park states that federal 
courts at that time acknowledged that the concept of an “antenna farm” is simple and straightforward: 
“there is nothing very technical or difficult about the concept of ‘antenna farms’: they are simple 
aggregations of antennas of more than one broadcaster into a relatively limited area.”40 White Park states 
that in fact the Commission itself has recognized an antenna farm consisting of two towers outside the 
city limits of Minneapolis and St. Paul;41 it argues that in so doing, and in fact to this day, the 
  
33 FCC Form 620 is designed to be submitted initially to the State Historic Preservation Officer, not to the 
Commission, and there is no reason to submit the form to the Commission if the SHPO concurs in a determination 
that no historic properties will be affected by the proposal.   See Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Review of 
Effects on Historic Properties for Certain Undertakings Approved by the Federal Communications Commission, § 
7A.  We have no record of receiving White Park’s Form 620 for the KROW(FM) Application.
34 Opposition at 3. 
35 Id. at 4.
36 It was not necessary to request an explanation with respect to Section 1.1307(a)(8) because on the face of the 
Applications the towers will not be equipped with high intensity lights.
37 White Park cites Amendment of Parts 1, 17, and 73 to Provide for the Establishment and Use of Antenna Farm 
Areas, Report and Order, 8 FCC 2d 559 (1967) (“Antenna Farm Order”).  Antenna Farm Letter at 1.
38 Id., citing Antenna Farm Order, 8 FCC 2d at 565 ¶ 14, codified at 47 C.F.R. § 17.2(b).  
39 See 47 C.F.R § 17.8, “Establishment of Antenna Farm Areas.”  Under these procedures, antenna farms are to be 
formally designated via rulemaking.  White Park observes, correctly, that the Commission has not officially 
designated any antenna farms using these procedures.  Antenna Farm Letter at 6.
40 Antenna Farm Letter at 2, citing Marsh Media v. FCC, 436 F.2d 132, 134 (D.C. Cir. 1970).  
41 Antenna Farm Letter at 2, citing WTCN Television, Inc., Decision, 14 FCC 2d 870 (Rev. Bd. 1968), aff’d, WTCN 
Television Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC 2d 909 (1969).
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
8
Commission has never specified any “threshold requirements (such as minimum distance between towers 
or a minimum number of towers) for de facto antenna farms.”42
14. White Park states that the Commission revisited the concept of the “antenna farm” several 
years later when it engaged in a rulemaking proceeding to implement the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 (“NEPA”).43 In so doing, White Park argues, the Commission sought to give the concept 
utility beyond the specific FAA context discussed in the Antenna Farm Order, ultimately concluding that:
New FM and TV antenna towers can also be located in an “antenna farm” (i.e., an area in which 
similar towers have already been clustered) and, when so located, are unlikely to alter the 
character of that area.  For these reasons, authorizations involving use of existing structures or 
location of a new tower in an antenna farm are considered minor actions (requiring no 
environmental processing).44
White Park comments that the Commission again did not associate any numerical or distance 
requirements with the concept of the de facto antenna farm.45
15. White Park further indicates that the Commission’s environmental rules assumed their 
current form in 1986, when the agency amended those rules to reflect revisions in federal oversight rules 
promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality.46 The new rules “were designed primarily to 
reduce paperwork and delays by eliminating unnecessary environmental processing and to improve the 
quality of agency decisions that affect the environment,” and the Commission stated that “the principal 
effect of the rules we are adopting is to reduce the categories of Commission actions which require 
environmental processing.”47 Except for cases involving “sensitive site areas (as specified in Section 
1.1307(a) of the Rules), high-intensity lighting, and RF radiation,” the Commission wrote, 
“environmental processing will generally not be required.”48 White Park points specifically to Note 3 of  
Section 1.1306, which states that applicants proposing to locate in an antenna farm are categorically 
excluded from environmental processing unless the provisions of Section 1.1307(b) of the Rules 
(regarding RF radiation exposure guidelines) are implicated:
The construction of an antenna tower or supporting structure in an established “antenna farm”: 
(i.e., an area in which similar antenna towers are clustered, whether or not such area has been 
officially designated as an antenna farm) will be categorically excluded unless one or more of the 
antennas to be mounted on the tower or structure are subject to the provisions of § 1.1307(b) and 
  
42 Antenna Farm Letter at 2.
43 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4335.
44 Antenna Farm Letter at 2-3, citing Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Report and 
Order, 49 FCC Rcd 1313, 1324 (1974).
45 Antenna Farm Letter at 3.
46 Antenna Farm Letter at 3, citing Amendment of Environmental Rules in Response to New Regulations Issued by 
the Council on Environmental Quality, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 RR 2d 13 (1986) (“1986 
Environmental Rules Revision”).
47 Antenna Farm Letter at 3, citing 1986 Environmental Rules Revision at ¶¶ 2, 20.
48 Antenna Farm Letter at 4, citing 1986 Environmental Rules Revision at ¶ 13.
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
9
the additional radiofrequency radiation from the antenna(s) on the new tower or structure would 
cause human exposure in excess of the applicable health and safety guidelines cited in § 
1.1307(b).49
White Park indicates that the Commission essentially has retained the definition of “antenna farm” 
devised in the 1967 Antenna Farm Order, but expanded it into broader contexts while simultaneously 
stripping it of any requirement that an antenna farm be formally designated by the Commission.50  
16. Examining the Commission’s definition of “antenna farm” – “an area in which similar 
antenna towers are clustered, whether or not such area has been officially designated as an antenna farm” 
– White Park identifies two “definitional elements”: that there must be more than one tower, and the 
towers must be “clustered” or grouped together with a number of similar things in association or physical 
proximity.51 White Park states that no reported decision has concluded that any criteria other than “two or 
more towers located near each other” are necessary for an “antenna farm” determination; the relatively 
few references to “antenna farms” in reported Commission decisions “hew to the same plain-language, 
common-sense approach.”52 In those instances where the question of the existence of an antenna farm has 
arisen, states White Park, the Commission has declined to set numerical or distance limits, but instead has 
recognized that two or more towers located in close proximity constitute an antenna farm.53 White Park 
then posits that “if two or more towers exist close or near to each other then they constitute an ‘antenna 
farm.’”54 It provides an Exhibit providing a diagram of the McCullough Peak site, indicating the two 
constructed towers and White Park’s proposed third tower.  One of the constructed towers (the “Qwest 
Tower”) is 500 feet from the proposed tower, and the other (the “Tri State Generation Tower”) is 1000 
  
49 Antenna Farm Letter at 5, citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.1306 Note 3.
50 Antenna Farm Letter at 6.
51 Antenna Farm Letter at 7, citing Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1976).
52 Id.  White Park relies on the following: Procedures for Reviewing Request for Relief from State and Local 
Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c) of the Communications Act of 1934; Guidelines for Evaluating the 
Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation; Petition for Rulemaking of the Cellular Telecommunications 
Industry Association Concerning Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Preempt State and Local Regulation of 
Commercial Mobile Radio Service Transmitting Facilities, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 13494, Appendix C, Part 
VI, ¶ 6 (1997) (“We have always allowed multiple transmitter sites, i.e., antenna farms, to pool their resources and 
have only one study done for the entire site.”); Definition of Congested Areas in the Broadcast Auxiliary Services 
and the Cable Television Relay Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5658, 5659 (1991) (“. . . the 
studio-transmitter links are more or less parallel and aimed toward a common mountaintop transmitter site or 
‘antenna farm’. . . . ”); First Century Broadcasting, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 100 FCC 2d 761, 762 
(1985) (“In designating the mutually exclusive applications . . . for comparative hearing, the Bureau declined to 
specify an environmental issue, because it found the proposed site to be near several other antenna towers, thereby 
making grant of [the] proposal a minor environmental action . . . (antenna farm exception)”); Guidelines for 
Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 
15123, Appendix A, Part IV (1996) (“ . . . in a few cases involving multiple transmitters at large antenna farms 
detailed measurement studies may be necessary”).
53 Antenna Farm Letter at 8.  White Park cites First Century Broadcasting, 100 FCC Rcd at 768-769, where “the 
Commission found that a proposed location with ‘several 90-foot towers’ constituted an ‘antenna farm,’” and 
Canyon Area Residents for the Environment Request for Review of Action Taken Under Delegated Authority on a 
Petition for Environmental Impact Statement, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 8152, 8160 (1999), in 
which “the Commission confirmed that an ‘antenna farm’ is premised on the existence of similar towers, once again 
evidencing that the crucial factor is two or more existing towers, just as in the case of McCullough Peak.”  Id.
54 Antenna Farm Letter at 8.
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
10
feet from the White Park tower.55 White Park concludes that this information is sufficient to demonstrate 
that McCullough Peak constitutes an antenna farm, and therefore the proposed tower is categorically 
excluded from environmental processing.56
17. Staff Analysis.  White Park correctly traces the development of the concept of the 
“antenna farm” from its origin in the desire to improve air safety through to its expansion into the 
Commission’s environmental rules.  The location of a broadcast antenna in a proposed or existing antenna 
farm, as discussed below, also became a factor in evaluating requests for waiver of the Commission’s 
spacing rules,57 and much of what case law there is on the topic arose in the context of spacing rule 
waiver requests.  It also is correct that: (1) the Commission has not formally designated any antenna farms 
using the procedures in Section 17.8 of the Rules; and (2) in discussing de facto antenna farms, the 
Commission has not imposed threshold requirements for number of towers and spatial proximity.  
However, in recognizing de facto antenna farms, the Commission has been guided by several principles. 
As our review of relevant case law, below reveals, we believe that reducing those cases to a statement that 
“if two or more towers exist close or near to each other then they constitute an ‘antenna farm’” 
oversimplifies the Commission’s analytic framework.58
· In WTCN Television, Inc., cited by White Park, the Review Board found, in the context of a 
request for waiver of the Commission’s spacing rules for television stations, that a two-tower 
site at Shoreview between Minneapolis and St. Paul constituted an antenna farm.  The 
Review Board granted a spacing waiver for these two towers, finding the waiver would result 
in the public interest benefit of improved air safety because it would locate all tall television 
towers in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area at a single location.  A waiver was necessary because 
there was no single location from which all Minneapolis/St. Paul stations could meet the 
Commission’s spacing requirements.  
  
55 At the request of the staff, White Park supplemented its response to indicate that the Quest Tower height is 49 
meters above ground level (“AGL”), and the height of the Tri State Generation Tower is 21 meters AGL.  See Letter 
to Marlene H. Dortch from Barry A. Friedman, Esq. (Sep. 2, 2008).
56 Id. at 9.
57 See Antenna Farm Order, 8 FCC 2d at 566:
[T]he establishment of antenna farms ... does not mean that the Commission will approve mileage 
shortages to accommodate a particular applicant to locate in such a farm, unless the public interest 
so indicates. However, if extraordinary reasons of aeronautical safety indicate that a particular 
antenna structure should be located within the antenna farm, the Commission may authorize a 
short-spacing to accommodate a particular antenna. Such an action will not be considered as a 
justification for the filing of other requests for short separations.
Under the spacing waiver policy, the three key elements to be considered in a licensee’s request for waiver of the 
spacing rules were: (1) the suitability of the present site; (2) the availability of other non-short-spaced sites; and (3) 
consideration of all public interest factors concerning the short-spacing.  The Commission considered an applicant’s 
relocation to a de facto antenna farm to be a positive public interest factor.  See Edens Broadcasting, Inc., Decision, 
2 FCC Rcd 689, 695 (Rev. Bd. 1987), aff’d 5 FCC Rcd 2576 (1990) (“Edens Broadcasting”), citing Beasley 
Broadcasting of Philadelphia, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 100 FCC 2d 106, 109 n.6 (1985).
58 The Commission and staff appear to have recognized several antenna farms without discussion or elaboration 
regarding the number or proximity of towers at those sites.  See, e.g., the “Bithlo” antenna farm outside Orlando, 
Florida, Clermont and Cocoa, Florida, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 6566 ¶ 5 (1990); the 
“Hallendale” antenna farm; the “Tucson Mountain” antenna farm, Tucson Community Broadcasting, Inc., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 2625 (1990); and the Cheyenne Mountain antenna farm near Pueblo, 
Colorado, Pueblo, Colorado, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 19649 (1996).
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
11
After extensive hearings before the Federal Aviation Administration, the two towers were 
approved at heights of 2,349 feet above mean sea level (“AMSL”).59 Five Minneapolis-St. 
Paul area television stations applied to locate their antennas on the towers.  In order to carry 
out the plan to have all local television stations operate from those tall towers and thus 
improve air safety, the Commission granted the applications on the condition that the antenna 
structures be made available to all present and future permittees and licensees of television 
stations in the Minneapolis-St. Paul market on a fair and equitable basis.  In treating these 
towers as a proposed antenna farm, the Review Board took into account not only the close 
proximity of the two towers, but also the size, purpose (particularly the number of broadcast 
stations using the towers), and proximity of the towers.60 Finally, it gave weight to the public 
interest benefit created by the two towers.
In WTCN Television, Inc., the Review Board also recognized “de facto or informal antenna 
farms in important communities which have been established by the amicable efforts of 
licensees.”  It specifically referenced “the joint use of the Empire State Building by all of the 
New York City television stations, as well as FM stations and other services,” as one of the 
best examples of a de facto antenna farm.61 It also stated that “there are other examples such 
as Los Angeles [the Mt. Wilson site],62 Baltimore, and Dallas-Fort Worth [the Cedar Hill 
antenna farm].”63
· In Beasley Broadcasting of Philadelphia,64 again in the context of a request for waiver of the 
spacing rules (this time for FM stations), the Commission found that a de facto antenna farm 
existed in Roxboro, Pennsylvania, where there were 12 towers in an area of less than one-half 
square mile, six of which were taller than 1000 feet above ground level, plus a three-tower 
AM directional array.
  
59 The cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul are approximately 850 feet AMSL.  Thus, the WTCN Television towers 
were approximately 1500 feet above ground level.  
60 Specifically, the Review Board stated that “a common antenna farm constitutes the grouping of towers where 
multiple antenna or closely spaced antenna towers are located for purpose of maximizing air safety while at the same 
time maximizing broadcast coverage to the public.”  WTCN Television, Inc., 14 FCC 2d 870 n.3 (emphasis added).  
The WTCN Television towers were subsequently recognized as a de facto antenna farm in D&D Broadcasting, Inc., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8082, 8083 (1992).
61 WTCN Television, 14 FCC 2d 870 n. 3.  But see GAF Broadcasting Company, Inc., Hearing Designation Order, 8 
FCC Rcd 1742, 1744-45 (MMB 1993) (proposal to mount broadcast antenna on the Chrysler Building in New York 
City, which would be visible to pedestrians, was not categorically excluded from environmental processing because
the Chrysler Building is not an established “antenna farm” for broadcast antennas and the only antennas presently 
mounted on the structure were relatively small “whip type” private radio antennas that were not visible from the 
street level:  “In this regard, the broadcast antenna which [the applicant] proposes to sidemount on the building 
differs from the private radio antennas presently located on the structure”).   
62 See, e.g., Radio One License, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14271 (2006) (Notice of 
Apparent Liability upheld for violations of RF radiation exposure limits at the “Mt. Wilson antenna farm”).
63 See, e.g., Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Sixth Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 7418, 7607-08 
(1998) (“Univision states that nearly every television station in the market operates from the Cedar Hill antenna 
farm, located between Dallas and Fort Worth.”)   The staff has also recognized a Houston-area antenna farm near 
Missouri City, Texas.  See, e.g., Paxson Houston License, Inc., Letter, 19 FCC Rcd 21816, 21817 (MB 2004).
64 Beasley Broadcasting of Philadelphia, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 100 FCC 2d 106 n.4 (1985) (“Beasley”).
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
12
· In Edens Broadcasting,65 the Review Board found that waiver of the spacing rules would be 
inappropriate for a Tampa, Florida station, even considering its proposal to locate in the 
“Riverview” antenna farm outside Tampa.  This site contained five towers taller than 1000 
feet, another that is 915 feet tall, and for which the FAA had approved the addition of three 
more 1000-foot towers. 
· In First Century Broadcasting, Inc.¸66 the Commission considered a proposal to increase the 
overall height of a television tower for KFCB(TV), Concord, California, from 90 to 140 feet 
above ground level on the North Peak of Mt. Diablo in Mt. Diablo State Park.67 Among 
others, the Native American Heritage Preservation Project (“NAHPP”) challenged the 
proposal on environmental grounds, arguing that “development of the [Mt. Diablo] mountain 
peak would have a significant religious and cultural impact on ten Native American tribes 
living in five states.”68 The Commission observed that:
There are four other towers [on the North Peak of Mt. Diablo] ranging in 
height from 70 to 90 feet and in facing width from 18 to 48 inches. Some of 
the towers are guyed and one, that of the Standard Oil Company of 
California, supports nine parabolic antennas measuring between four and ten 
feet in diameter.  In addition, although FCBI’s 140-foot structure is the 
highest above ground level by 50 feet, another 90-foot tower further up the 
mountain is actually 26 feet above mean sea level higher than FCBI’s.69
The issue, according to the Commission, was “whether the added height and other changes 
are so great that the structure can no longer be considered similar to the others on the 
mountain.”  Citing the factors listed above, the Commission concluded that the proposed 
tower was still similar to the others in the area and therefore it properly qualified for the 
antenna farm exception.70
· Lookout Mountain near Golden, Colorado, was recognized by the Commission as “an 
‘antenna farm’ that for many years has been the location for many radio and television  
towers for stations licensed to Denver and its surrounding areas.”71 By one account, there 
were as many as 30 separate communication towers located at Lookout Mountain, seven of 
them over 300 feet high, the tallest tower being approximately 850 feet above ground level.72  
  
65 Edens Broadcasting, 2 FCC Rcd at 690.
66 First Century Broadcasting, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 100 FCC 2d 761 (1985).
67 The proposal would replace the existing 90-foot structure with a 140-foot structure, consisting of a 90-foot tower 
and a 50-foot antenna, and increase its facing width at the base from 18 to 48 inches.  Id. at 762.  
68 Id.
69 Id. at n.4.
70 Id. at 769.
71 Canyon Area Residents for the Environment Request for Review of Action Taken Under Delegated Authority on a 
Petition for an Environmental Impact Statement, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 8152 (1999) 
(“CARE”).
72 See website of Colorado City & Mountain Views, http://www.citymtnviews.com/AntLMchart.php4 (last checked 
September 23, 2008).
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
13
There are at least five tall towers supporting television and radio services, which five towers 
are to be replaced by a single 850-foot tower which will hold digital television transmission 
facilities of six Denver television stations, plus a number of FM station antennas.73  
· In Universal Broadcasting of Indiana, Inc.,74 the Commission rejected an applicant’s request 
for waiver of the FM spacing requirements under the “designated antenna farm” exception 
then listed in Section 73.209(c) of the Rules.  The Commission first indicated that there were 
no officially designated antenna farm areas.  Citing WTCN and Beasley, the Commission then 
refused to consider the proposal to be located within a de facto antenna farm, writing that:
In marked contrast to the situation presented here, Beasley’s inadequate 
coverage of its community of license was a significant factor, and the de 
facto antenna farm comprised twelve towers, six of which were 1,000 feet or 
higher, all located in an area less than a half mile square.  Here, Universal’s 
claim that its proposed site is an “antenna farm” because the local fire 
department has expressed an interest in using the same site lacks merit.75
18. As evidenced by the cases discussed above, the Commission has not prescribed any 
numerical or distance requirements with respect to the concept of de facto antenna farms.  We disagree 
with White Park’s assertion that the existence of two or more towers located within close proximity, 
standing alone, necessarily requires the Commission to conclude that the site constitutes an antenna farm.  
Indeed, case law and common sense both dictate that, in most instances, multiple towers of comparable 
height and physical appearance are needed to comprise an antenna farm.76 In the one case in which the 
Commission has expressly concluded that two towers could constitute an antenna farm, the issue did not 
arise in an environmental context and the antenna farm designation was supported by special 
circumstances and conditions that are not present here.  Specifically, WTCN Television, Inc. involved two 
1500-foot towers on which five television stations, as well as some FM stations in the Minneapolis-St. 
Paul area, were to locate their facilities. 77 Consistent with the considerations that had led to the issuance 
of the Antenna Farm Order, the Review Board found that designation of this two-tower cluster as a de 
facto antenna farm would promote aeronautical safety.78 Moreover, the applications were granted on the 
condition that the antenna structures be made available to all present and future television permittees and 
licensees in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.  
  
73 This tower, proposed by a consortium of Denver television stations called the Lake Cedar Group, encountered 
significant opposition on environmental grounds from local residents.  See generally CARE, supra.  Ultimately, 
Congress resolved the controversy, enacting legislation stating that any person that holds an approved FCC DTV 
construction permit for a tower located on Lookout Mountain may construct its tower if such tower is “of the same 
height or lower than the tallest existing analog broadcast antenna or tower at such location.”  See Pub. L. No. 109-
466 (2006).
74 Universal Broadcasting of Indiana, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 102 FCC 2d 1457 (1986) (“Universal 
Broadcasting”).
75 Id. at 1459.  
76 See Beasley, 100 FCC 2d at 106 n.4 (12-tower antenna farm); Edens Broadcasting, 2 FCC Rcd at 690 (6-tower 
antenna farm); First Century, 100 FCC 2d at 762 (4-tower antenna farm).  See also
http://www.citymtnviews.com/AntLMchart.php4 (last checked September 23, 2008) (discussing 30-tower antenna 
farm at Lookout Mountain).
77 See also Universal Broadcasting, 102 FCC 2d at 1457.  There, the Commission rejected the licensee’s argument 
that the proposed site was an antenna farm simply because another party also expressed an interest in using the site, 
finding that the licensee failed to demonstrate that the designation of the proposed site as an antenna farm would 
have public interest benefits.  
78 We note that at the time WTCN Television, Inc., was decided, the Commission did not have environmental rules, 
so environmental effects were not considered in the decision.
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
14
19. Here, the physical traits and configuration of the existing and proposed towers are very 
different from those in WTCN Television, Inc. As described above, the Quest Tower is 500 feet from the 
proposed tower and 49 meters AGL, and the Tri State Generation Tower is 1000 feet from the proposed 
tower and 21 meters AGL.  The proposed White Park tower, which will stand at 60.5 meters AGL, is 
almost 25 percent taller than the Quest Tower and over 50 percent taller than the Tri State Generation 
Tower.  Moreover, no broadcast stations operate from this location, as the two existing towers serve two-
way radio and telephone companies.79  White Park has not demonstrated that local broadcasters are, or 
will be, required to use the McCullough Peak site in the future, or that other public benefits, such as those 
demonstrated in WTCN Television, Inc. and Twenver, Inc., which White Park also cites, would flow from 
designation of the site as a de facto antenna farm. 80 Given the paucity of towers at the site, the varying 
height and spatial separation between the towers, the fact that they are not used by any broadcast stations, 
and the lack of any special public interest considerations, we cannot conclude that the McCullough Peak 
site is a de facto antenna farm for purposes of our FM processing rules.81 Accordingly, we find that 
White Park is not exempt from environmental processing under the “antenna farm exception.” 
20. Environmental Certification.  White Park Argument.   In responding to the staff inquiry 
regarding the basis for its certification in the Applications that the proposals were categorically excluded 
from environmental processing, White Park initially argues that it “exercised due diligence in evaluating 
the environmental impact of the proposed site” and has received a “no effect” determination from the 
Wyoming SHPO, no indications of interest from any Native American tribe, and a “no effect” 
determination from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.82 It then provides an “overview” of the 
self-proclaimed “comprehensive effort” to select a site that would minimally impact the environment, 
noting that its due diligence efforts “all pointed toward McCullough Peak.”83 White Park states that it: (1) 
solicited the opinion of Mr. Duane Feick, a local official with the Bureau of Land Management, with 
respect to potential tower sites in the area, and Mr. Feick specifically advised White Park to look at 
private land on McCullough Peak as the “optimum site to locate a new antenna structure”;84 and (2) spoke 
with Ms. Nikki Burnett, an Assistant Planner with the Zoning Commission, who advised White Park that 
“the Zoning Commission had reviewed and confirmed that use of a de facto antenna farm on McCullough 
Peak was consistent with local requirements.”85 White Park states that it selected McCullough Peak 
  
79 Reply to Opposition to Informal Objection, Attachment 1, Declaration of W. Lawrence Patrick.
80 Twenver, Inc., 3 FCC Rcd 5907 (MMB 1988) (rejecting a section 1.1307(c) challenge to a proposed tower on Mt.
Morrison outside of Denver because there were already two more obtrusive towers and the proposed multi-user 
tower would be beneficial in terms of reducing the number of towers, given that it would accommodate the City’s 
emergency and public safety equipment and up to six FM broadcast stations and would permit the City to dismantle 
its present tower).  Notably, the Bureau had no reason to consider whether the Twenver tower fell within the antenna 
farm categorical exclusion because it determined that the proposed tower complied fully with section 1.1307(a).  
Although Twenver, Inc. did not involve any finding of a de facto antenna farm, we note that the two existing towers 
in that case were of greater height above mean sea level or greater in bulk than the proposed tower, and that the 
towers collectively hosted facilities of several broadcasters as well as other Commission licensees.
81 See, e.g., Beasley, 100 FCC 2d at 106 n.4 (noting that 12 towers were located in less than a square mile); Twenver, 
Inc., 3 FCC Rcd at 5909 (finding the proximity between the two existing towers and the proposed tower - 900 and 
650 feet, respectively – supported a finding that the cluster of towers would be “beneficial” to the environment 
where the proposed tower would be less obtrusive than the existing towers, would replace an existing tower, and 
would accommodate public safety communication equipment as well as many as six broadcast stations).    
82 Certification Letter, Transmittal Letter from Counsel at 2.
83 Certification Letter at 1-2. 
84 Id. at 2.
85 Id.
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
15
because, as an antenna farm, it “would ensure minimal impact on the environment through construction of 
a single tower for three radio stations at a location where antenna towers were clustered.”86
21. With respect to each specific environmental factor which White Park was to consider 
before making its environmental certifications, White Park relies heavily in each of its responses on the 
Declaration of its Vice President, Edward P. Flanagan, which was originally submitted as Exhibit A to 
White Park’s November 1, 2007, Opposition to Legend’s initial Informal Objection.87 White Park states 
as follows:
· Location in an officially designated wilderness area or wildlife preserve (Sections 
1.1307(a)(1), 1.1307(a)(2)).  With respect to White Park’s investigation of whether the 
proposed site was in an officially designated wilderness area or wildlife preserve, Mr. 
Flanagan states that McCullough Peak “is a mountain peak where two radio towers already 
exist . . . Rather than being a wilderness area it is what is known in the tower industry as an 
antenna farm.”88
o White Park supplements this non-sequitur by describing the analysis of its 
engineering director, Jon Hosford, and its land consultant, Michael Schutta, 
confirming that the McCullough Peak site was private land and not an officially 
designated wilderness area or wildlife preserve.  It submits copies of material used by 
Messrs. Hosford and Schutta, including maps provided to Mr. Schutta by BLM, maps 
displayed on BLM’s website, and USGS topographic maps.89
· Facilities that may affect listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical 
habitats, or are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of and proposed endangered or 
threatened species or likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed 
critical habitats (Section 1.1307(a)(3)).  White Park references the declaration of Mr.
Flanagan, who opines that the nature of the multiple tower site at McCullough Peak 
effectively precluded the present-day habitation of any endangered species in the vicinity of 
the proposed site; if there were any endangered species in the area at one time, he states, 
“they have already been disturbed by the construction of the two existing towers.”90
o Additionally, White Park indicates that Mr. Hosford reviewed the lists of endangered 
species and critical habitats contained in the Code of Federal Regulations. 91 Based 
on this review, Mr. Hosford concluded that there was only one endangered animal in 
Wyoming (Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse), and that its habitat was entirely in 
South Wyoming nowhere near the proposed site.92
o White Park also submits a June 5, 2008, letter from the FWS stating that there are 
“no threatened, endangered, or candidate species” likely to occur in the area, 
  
86 Id.
87 As noted above, Section 1.1307(a)(8) is not at issue because the tower will not be equipped with high intensity 
white lights.
88 Id. at 3, citing Flanagan Declaration at 2 ¶ 8.
89 Id. at 3-4 and Exhibits B (Declaration of Jon Hosford) and C (copies of maps).
90 Id. at 4, citing Flanagan Declaration at 2 ¶9.
91 White Park does not provide the specific provisions Mr. Hosford claims to have reviewed.
92 Certification Letter at 4 and Exhibit B (Hosford Declaration) at ¶3.  White Park states that Mr. Hosford also noted 
several species of plants, but none were listed as being within Park County, in which the proposed site is located. Id.
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
16
although it cautioned White Park regarding work that could lead to the “taking” of 
any migratory birds.93 White Park obtained this letter after the Applications were 
filed.
· Facilities that may affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects, significant in 
American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture that are listed, or eligible 
for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places (Section 1.1307(a)(4)).  White Park 
indicates that, based on the existence of a multi-tower site at McCullough Peak, it determined 
that there were no protected historical sites at McCullough Peak.94 It also references Mr. 
Flanagan’s statement that “[i]f there ever were historical sites there, the existing 
telecommunications users have long ago destroyed them.”95
o White Park also provides a December 20, 2007, letter from the Office of the 
Wyoming SHPO indicating that no historic properties would be affected by the 
project as planned.96 White Park obtained this letter after the KBEN and KWHO 
Applications were filed.
· Facilities that may affect Indian religious sites (Section 1.1307(a)(5)).  White Park references 
the Flanagan Declaration indicating that it chose the McCullough Peak site in part because 
BLM expressed no concerns about Indian religious sites there, but had informed White Park 
that another (unspecified) site under consideration did have significance to Native Americans.  
Mr. Flanagan also states that “if there were Native American religious sites on McCullough 
Peak, the existing tower construction on the site destroyed them beyond repair.”97
o White Park also submits several letters from its environmental consultant, TRC 
Environmental, dated January 7, 2008, and April 24, 2008, to the Commission’s 
Federal Preservation Officer regarding the status of its contacts with Indian tribes via
the Commission’s Tower Construction Notification System (“TCNS”) and the    
absence of objections from any tribes to the proposed use of the McCullough Peak 
site.98 These letters were obtained after the KBEN and KWHO Applications were 
filed.
· Facilities located in a flood plain (Section 1.1307(a)(6)).  White Park cites the Flanagan 
Declaration to the effect that McCullough Peak is a mountain peak rising 1400 feet above the 
Shoshone River and, by its very nature, cannot be a flood plain.99 Nevertheless, White Park 
indicates that Mr. Hosford reviewed the relevant floodplain map provided by the Federal 
  
93 Certification Letter at 5 and Exhibit E (FWS Letter) at 1.  
94 Certification Letter at 5.
95 Id., citing Flanagan Declaration at 3 ¶ 10.
96 Id. at Exhibit F.
97 Id. at 5, citing Flanagan Declaration at 3 ¶ 11.
98 Id. at 6 and Exhibit G.  White Park also submitted a February 13, 2008, “update” letter from TRC to White Park 
summarizing the responses to TCNS notifications; this letter indicates that “all tribes” expressed the concern that 
construction cease and the proper tribal and federal authorities be notified if any unanticipated human or 
archaeological remains are discovered during construction. Letter to Mr. Ed Flanagan from James A. Lowe (dated 
Feb. 13, 2008), submitted in Exhibit G to the Certification Letter.  Legend argues that the interest expressed by the 
Indian tribes demonstrates the inadequacy of White Park’s previous due diligence efforts.  See Reply to Opposition 
to Objection to Amendments at 3-4.
99 Certification Letter at 6, citing Flanagan Declaration at 3 ¶ 12.
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
17
Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”), which revealed no Flood plains within 2000 
feet of the site.100 Mr. Hosford does not state specifically that he examined the flood plain 
map prior to the filing of the Applications.
· Facilities that will involve significant change in surface features (e.g. wetland fill, 
deforestation, or water diversion) (Section 1.1307(a)(7)).  White Park states that McCullough 
Peak is mostly a rock ledge, and it references Mr. Flanagan’s declaration that “as a mountain 
peak already used for an antenna farm, there are no wetlands, forests, water, or other natural 
resources to disturb or affect.”101
22. Analysis.  Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules provides that no person may provide, in any 
written statement of fact, “material factual information that is incorrect or omit material information that 
is necessary to prevent any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect or misleading 
without a reasonable basis for believing that any such material factual statement is correct and not 
misleading.”102 In expanding the scope of Section 1.17 in 2003 to include written statements that are 
made without a reasonable basis for believing the statement is correct and not misleading, the 
Commission explained that this requirement was intended to more clearly articulate the obligations of 
persons dealing with the Commission, ensure that they exercise due diligence in preparing written 
submissions, and enhance the effectiveness of the Commission's enforcement efforts.103 Thus, even 
absent an intent to deceive, a false statement may constitute an actionable violation of Section 1.17 of the 
Rules if it is provided without a reasonable basis for believing that the statement is correct and not 
misleading.104
23. Given the record we now have before us, we find that the proposals set forth in the 
Applications will have no significant environmental impact on the quality of the human environment, and 
no further environmental processing is warranted. However, we find that the environmental certifications 
in the KBEN and KWHO Applications were made without a reasonable basis for believing they were 
correct at least with respect to the criteria specified in Sections 1.1307(a)(3) (endangered or threatened 
species/critical habitat), 1.1307(a)(4) (historic properties) and 1.1307(a)(5) (Indian religious sites).  We 
also find that the environmental certification in the KROW Application was made without a reasonable 
basis for believing they were correct at least with respect to the criteria specified in Sections 1.1307(a)(3) 
and 1.1307(a)(5).  We believe it is clear from White Park’s response that it sought no pertinent 
information to support its environmental certification on these factors.  
24. With respect to endangered or threatened species and critical habitat, we acknowledge 
that the Rules do not require that applicants contact and consult with FWS.  Section 1.1307(a)(3) of the 
rules105 and the Commission’s July 2003 Letter to the Director of FWS106 do, however, require that 
  
100 Id. at 6, citing Exhibit B (Hosford Declaration) at 3.  
101 Id. at 6, citing Flanagan Declaration at 3 ¶ 13.  Mr. Flanagan states that White Park will not disturb or move any 
soil but will merely install anchors, a tower base, and a prefabricated building.  Id. We question how the anchors 
and tower base will be installed without moving any soil.
102 47 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)(2).
103 Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Truthful Statements to the Commission, 
Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 4016, 4016-4017, 4021 (2003), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 
FCC Rcd 5790, further recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 1250 (2004).
104 See In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Truthful Statements to the 
Commission, 18 FCC Rcd at 4017 (stating that the revision to Section 1.17 is intended to “prohibit incorrect 
statements or omissions that are the result of negligence, as well as an intent to deceive”).
105 See Note to 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a)(3).
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
18
applicants make a meaningful evaluation of the effects of their proposals on listed and threatened species 
and habitats before filing the application.  For this purpose the Commission would consider the opinion of 
a qualified biologist using the most current data available in lieu of a statement from FWS, insofar as it 
provides a basis for evaluating the effects of a proposal on endangered or threatened species or their 
critical habitats.  Mr. Hosford’s statement that he reviewed the Code of Federal Regulations and Mr. 
Flanagan’s conclusory and unsupported statement that any existing threatened or endangered species or 
critical habitats “have already been disturbed by the construction of the two existing towers” falls far 
short of the meaningful evaluation of environmental effects necessary to provide a reasonable basis upon 
which to base its certifications in the Applications.  
25. With respect to Section 1.1307(a)(4), the Rules do set forth specific procedures that are to 
be followed to ascertain whether a proposed action will affect any historic properties.107 While White 
Park received a letter from Wyoming SHPO prior to the filing of the KROW Application, White Park 
provides no evidence that these procedures were followed prior to the environmental certification in the 
KBEN and KHWO Applications.  In these circumstances we are not persuaded that the certifications in 
these applications were based on the identification, evaluation and assessment of effects of White Park’s 
proposals on historic properties in accordance with Section VI of the Programmatic Agreement, as 
required by Section 1.1307(a)(4).  Accordingly, we find that, with respect to the KBEN and KWHO 
Applications, the record does not reflect that White Park had a reasonable basis for believing it was in 
compliance with Section 1.1307(a)(4) of the Rules mandating that an applicant must follow the 
procedures set forth in that Agreement “[t]o ascertain whether a proposed action may affect properties 
that are listed or eligible for listing in  the National Register of Historic Places.”
26. With respect to Section 1.1307(a)(5), the Programmatic Agreement sets forth specific 
procedures for identifying and contacting any Indian tribe that may attach religious or cultural 
significance to historic properties that might be affected by a proposal.108 Mr. Flanagan’s conclusory and 
unsupported statements that any historic sites or Indian religious sites that may have been present on 
McCullough Peak have been destroyed by construction and operation of the two existing towers are 
woefully insufficient to constitute a reasonable basis for White Park’s certification.  Moreover, the 
recounting of a conversation with a BLM employee who “expressed no concerns about Indian religious 
sites” on McCullough Peak does not ameliorate White Park’s lack of diligence.  The record does not 
contain an affirmative statement from the BLM employee or representations from any other individual 
with relevant experience in the Section 106 process and the McCullough Peak area that might lend 
credence to Mr. Flanagan’s unsupported supposition regarding the presence of historic properties or 
     
106 See Letter to Mr. Steve Williams, director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from Susan H. Steiman (Jul. 9, 2003)
(noting that the Rules require licensees, applicants, and tower companies to determine, in the first instance, the 
environmental effects of their proposed towers).
107 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a)(4) & Appendix C (to ascertain whether a proposed action may affect properties that are 
listed or eligible for listing in the National Register for Historic Places an applicant shall follow the procedures set 
forth in the rules of the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, 36 C.F.R. Part 800, as modified by the 
Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review).  See 
also Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review 
Process, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 1073 (2004), Appendix B (Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for 
Review of Effects on Historic Properties for Certain Undertakings Approved by the Federal Communications 
Commission) (“Programmatic Agreement”). 
108 See Programmatic Agreement, Section IV.  Neither the Programmatic Agreement nor the Rules require use of the 
Commission’s TCNS notification system, although the Commission believes that TCNS provides the easiest and 
most comprehensive means for identifying and contacting tribes with an interest in the property on which the tower 
site is located.  See, e.g., Clarification of Procedures for Participation of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and 
Native Hawaiian Organizations Under the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement, Declaratory Ruling, 20 FCC Rcd 
16092, 16093 ¶ 3 (2005).
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
19
Indian religious sites on McCullough Peak.109 Accordingly, we find that, with respect to all three 
Applications, the record does not reflect that White Park had a reasonable basis for believing it was in 
compliance with Section 1.1307(a)(5) of the Rules.
27. Given the above discussion, we are not persuaded that White Park made the 
environmental certifications in the KBEN and KWHO Applications with a reasonable basis for believing 
they were correct with respect to the criteria specified in Sections 1.1307(a)(3), 1.1307(a)(4), and 
1.1307(a)(5) of the Rules.110 Similarly, White Park has not shown that it made the environmental 
certification in the KROW Application with a reasonable basis for believing it was correct with respect to 
the criteria specified in Sections 1.1307(a)(3) and 1.1307(a)(5) of the Rules.111  The Commission and the 
courts have recognized that "[t]he FCC relies heavily on the honesty and probity of its licensees in a 
regulatory system that is largely self-policing."112 Full and clear disclosure of all material facts in every 
application is essential to the efficient administration of the Commission's licensing process, and proper 
analysis of an application is critically dependent on the accuracy and completeness of information and 
data which only the applicant can provide.  The choice of remedies and sanctions is an area in which we 
have broad discretion.113  
28. While the record does not reflect that White Park made a meaningful evaluation of the 
environmental effects of its proposals that would have provided a reasonable basis for White Park to 
conclude that it was in compliance with our environmental processing rules, our consideration of all of 
the facts leads us to conclude that White Park’s actions in this regard do not rise to such a level or pattern 
of misconduct so as to warrant designation for evidentiary hearing. 114 In particular, we find nothing in 
the record that evidences an intent to mislead the Commission.  White Park has demonstrated that it did in 
fact make some effort prior to the filing of the Applications to determine whether it was in compliance 
with our environmental processing rules, as evidenced by its discussions with the Park County Planning 
and Zoning Commission and the Bureau of Land Management, its own independent research, and with 
respect to the KROW Application, consultation with Wyoming SHPO.   As discussed above, however, 
with the exception of the Wyoming SHPO, the entities and individuals White Park consulted before 
submitting its Applications were not qualified to render reasoned and informed opinions that could allow 
White Park to meaningfully make its environmental certification.  
  
109 See Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review 
Process, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 1125-26 ¶¶ 145-48 (mandating the use of Secretary of Interior-qualified 
experts to identify and evaluate properties within the APE for direct effects and for the assessment of historic 
properties generally; encouraging the use of Secretary-qualified experts to identify historic properties within the 
APE for visual effects; encouraging and expecting that applicants will use experts with relevant experience in the 
Section 106 process and the specific geographic area); Programmatic Agreement, Sections VI.D.I.d, 2.b; E.5.
110 47 C.F.R. § § 1.1307(a)(3), 1.1307(a)(4), and 1.1307(a)(5).
111 47 C.F.R. § § 1.1307(a)(3) and 1.1307(a)(5).
112 See Commercial Radio Service, Inc., Order to Show Cause, 21 FCC Rcd 9983, 9986 (2006) (citing, e.g.,
Contemporary Media, Inc., v. FCC, 214 F.3d 187, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2000)).
113 See, e.g., RKO General, Inc. v. FCC, 670 F. 2d 215, 237 (D.C. Cir. 1981); Leflore Broadcasting Co. Inc. v. FCC, 
636 F. 2d 454, 463 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824, 831 (D.C. Cir. 1965); USA 
Broadcasting, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 4253, 4256 (2004).
114 See, e.g., Dan Alpert, Esq., Letter, 23 FCC Rcd 10202 (MB 2008) (found that licensee’s financial certification 
was false, but given that the licensee was currently financially qualified and the certification was made in good faith, 
concluded that designating the application for hearing would serve no useful purpose); Citicasters Licenses, L.P.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, 22 FCC Rcd 19324 (MB 2007) (finding 
licensee’s certification false with respect to its previous violations of the of the Act or Rules, but concluding that 
licensee’s actions in this regard did not rise to such a level or pattern of misconduct so as to warrant designation for 
evidentiary hearing).
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
20
29. Upon considering all the facts and circumstances presented in this case, we believe that a 
monetary forfeiture would be warranted for White Park’s violations with respect to its certifications in the 
KBEN and KWHO Applications.  We note, however, that because White Park has not been issued a 
covering license for KBEN-FM and KWHO(FM), the statute of limitations for proposing a forfeiture is 
one year from the date of violation.115 The Commission has held that a false or misleading statement 
made at one point in time is not a “continuing violation” for purposes of Section 503(b) simply because it 
was not corrected.116 Therefore, because the false certifications here occurred on July 16, 2007 (for the 
KBEN Application), and August 28, 2007 (for the KWHO Application), we are barred by Section 
503(b)(6) of the Act from issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability to White Park for its false certifications 
in the KBEN and WKHO Applications.  However, we will admonish White Park for its violation of 
Section 1.17 of the Rules by making the environmental certifications in the KBEN and KWHO 
Applications without a reasonable basis for believing they were correct with respect to the criteria 
specified in Sections 1.1307(a)(3), 1.1307(a)(4), and 1.1307(a)(5) of the Rules.117 We remind White Park 
that we expect it to provide full disclosures in its communications with the Commission and caution it 
that we will not hesitate to impose appropriate sanctions against it for any further violations.
30. Additionally, we believe that a monetary forfeiture would be warranted for White Park’s 
false certification in the KROW Application.  White Park’s certification in the KROW Application was 
largely based on its interpretation of Commission precedent regarding antenna farms, and that it 
purportedly investigated its proposals with respect to the criteria specified in Sections 1.1307(a)(3), 
1.1307(a)(4), and 1.1307(a)(5) out of an abundance of caution.118 White Park’s reliance on the 
categorical exclusion under Section 1.1306(b)(Note 3) does not excuse its certification without the 
evaluation of its proposals required by Section 1.1307(a) because, as noted above, Commission precedent 
does not clearly establish that McCullough Peak would qualify as an antenna farm so as to exempt all of 
White Park’s proposals from environmental processing.  We believe, therefore, that White Park made a 
certification, without a meaningful evaluation of its proposal or a reasonable basis for believing that the 
certification was correct, that the KROW Application was categorically excluded from environmental 
processing vis-a vis the criteria specified in Sections 1.1307(a)(3) and 1.1307(a)(5) of the environmental 
Rules.  However, as with the KBEN and KWHO Applications, we are barred from issuing a Notice of 
Apparent Liability by Section 503(b)(6) of the Act.  When the KROW Application was filed, White Park 
held only a construction permit for that Station.  The fact that the staff granted a covering license for 
KROW(FM) several weeks after the KROW Application was filed119 does not extend the statute of 
limitations imposed by Section 503(b)(6).120 Accordingly, we will not issue a Notice of Apparent 
Liability and instead will only admonish White Park for falsely certifying that the KROW Application 
was excluded from environmental processing.
  
115 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(6).  See also American Family Association,, Order on Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd 
6880, 6881-82 (EB 2006), reversed in part, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 8044 (EB 2006) (Because [American Family 
Association] was a permittee, rather than a licensee . . . the applicable statute of limitations was one year, pursuant to 
section 503(b)(6)(B).)
116 Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 2152, 2167 (1997), rev’d on 
other grounds, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. FCC, 141 F 3d 344 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
117 T-Mobile Northeast, L.L.C., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 11799, 11806 (EB 2006) 
(proposing a forfeiture of $11,000 against licensee for its failure to comply with the historic preservation review 
requirements prior to constructing its facility in apparent willful violation of Section 1.1307(a)(4) of the Rules).
118 With respect to KBEN and KWHO – and the original KROW application – there is no evidence that White 
Park’s certification was based on its assessment that the McCullough Peak was antenna farm.  That theory appeared 
only after the objections were filed.  
119 See n. 10, supra. 
120 American Family Association, 21 FCC Rcd at 6882.  
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
21
31. Strike Pleadings.  White Park alleges that pleadings filed by Legend were in the nature of 
a strike petition.121 The crucial consideration in determining whether any pleading is in the nature of a 
strike petition is whether it was filed for the primary purpose of delay.122 In making such a determination, 
the Commission considers a number of factors, including the absence of any reasonable basis for the 
allegations raised in the pleadings.123 For the reasons set out above, we find that White Park has failed to 
establish that Legend’s actions lacked a reasonable basis. Further, White Park has not provided any 
evidence establishing that Legend's sole purpose was to delay construction of the proposed tower at 
McCullough Peak.  We will not infer the existence of a primary purpose to delay from the mere filing of 
pleadings that a party has a statutory right to file.124 Accordingly, we will not consider this issue further.
IV.  CONCLUSION
32. We have reviewed the Applications and conclude that their grant will serve the public 
interest, convenience, and necessity.  We further conclude that it is appropriate to admonish White Park 
with respect to its violations of Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules for making environmental certifications in 
the Applications without having a reasonable basis for believing they were correct.
V.  ORDERING CLAUSES
33. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules, that White Park Broadcasting, Inc., is 
hereby ADMONISHED for its apparent willful violations of Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Commission’s 
Rules. 
34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED IT IS ORDERED, that the Informal Objections filed by 
Legend Communications of Wyoming, LLC, ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and ARE 
DENIED in all other respects.  
35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Applications (File Nos. BMPH-20070716ABY, 
BMPH-20070828AAV, and BPH-20080219ALX) filed by White Park for minor modification of 
construction permit for its authorized but unbuilt stations KBEN-FM, Cowley, Wyoming and 
KWHO(FM), Cody, Wyoming, and for minor modification of the constructed, licensed facilities of 
station KROW(FM), Lovell, Wyoming, ARE GRANTED.
  
121 See Opposition to Informal Objection to Amendments, Reply to Letters, and Continued Request for Hearing 
Designation Order at 11.
122 Radio Carrollton, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 69 FCC 2d 1139 (1978), recon. denied, 72 FCC 2d 264 
(1979).
123 Greater Portland Broadcasting Corp., Letter, 3 FCC Rcd 1953, 1954 (1988).
124 Id.
Federal Communications Commission  DA 09-660
22
36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this letter shall be sent, by First Class and 
Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to White Park Broadcasting, Inc., 288 South River Road, 
Bedford, New Hampshire 03110, and its counsel, Barry A. Friedman, Esquire, Thompson Hine L.L.P., 
Seventh Floor, 1920 N Street, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036; and to Legend Communications 
of Wyoming, LLC, 5074 Dorsey Hall Drive, Suite 205, Ellicott City, Maryland 21042, and its counsel, 
Mark Lipp, Esquire, Wiley Rein, L.L.P., 1776 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau