DA 96-1151
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Amendment of Section 73.202(b), ) MM Docket No. 94-134 
Table of Allotments, ) RM-8538 
FM Broadcast Stations. ) RM-8589 
(Burlington, Colorado; Brewster, ) 
Kansas) )
REPORT AND ORDER 
(Proceeding Terminated)
Adopted: July 19, 1996 Released: August 2, 1996 
By the Chief, Allocations Branch:
1. The Commission has before it the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Notice'). 9 FCC 
Red 6826 (1994), issued in response to a petition filed by Bruce Corman, Kay Hanley, and 
Charley P. Bames ("Petitioners"), proposing the allotment of Channel 257C1 to Burlington, 
Colorado. Petitioners, who are members of a general partnership, filed comments and reply 
comments. KNAB, Inc. ("KNAB"), the licensee of Stations KNAB(AM) and KNAB-FM, 
Burlington, Colorado, filed comments' and reply comments and two separate motions to dismiss 
directed against Petitioners' petition for rule making and its reply comments. For the reasons 
discussed below, we are allotting Channel 257C1 to Burlington, Colorado, as a new allotment.
2. At Petitioners' request, the Notice proposed the allotment of Channel 257C1 to 
Burlington, Colorado. Petitioners filed comments reaffirming their interest in pursuing the 
allocation of that channel and building a station. KNAB filed comments claiming that 
Burlington, Colorado, and the surrounding county could not support an additional broadcast 
station. In addition, KNAB submitted a counterproposal requesting that Channel 257C1 be 
allotted to Brewster, Kansas, in lieu of Burlington, Colorado. Although KNAB expressed its 
intention to file an application for Channel 257C1 if it is allotted to Brewster, it also stated that
1 KNAB's comments were part of its pleading entitled "Comments and Counterproposal" filed January 12, 
1995. KNAB also filed a Supplement to the foregoing pleading on January 13, 1995. The Supplement requested 
that the Commission include as part of this docket an original copy of a duplicate certification entitled "Statement 
of Bette Bailly" which had been filed with KNAB's Comments and Counterproposal. We hereby accept that 
Supplement as part of this docket.
8642
if the Commission should allot a new channel to Burlington, either Channel 257C1 or an alternate 
channel, KNAB would be unable to apply for any Brewster channel. In this regard, KNAB 
contends that due to economic considerations, it could not compete with a new station in 
Burlington as well as construct and operate a new facility in Brewster. KNAB filed a pleading 
entitled "Reply Comments and Motion to Dismiss Petition for Rulemaking" in which it asks that 
the Commission dismiss Petitioners' petition for rule making because Petitioners had not yet 
included an affidavit verifying that the statements contained in their petition for rule making are 
accurate to the best of their knowledge, as required by Section 1.52 of the Commission's Rules. 
The Notice had already stated that the foregoing affidavit was missing and requested that 
Petitioners rectify this omission when they filed their comments.
3. In their reply comments filed February 27, 1995, each of the three Petitioners filed an 
affidavit stating their interest in the allotment of Channel 257C1 to Burlington, Colorado, and 
their intention to apply for the channel, if allotted. Their sworn statements also explained that 
in comments dated November 30, 1994, Petitioners had provided a statement of continuing 
interest in the foregoing channel and in building a station on that channel and had attached an 
affidavit of Charley P. Barnes, one of their general partners, verifying the truth and accuracy of 
the statements contained in the Petitioners' comments, as required by Section 1.52 of the Rules. 
A copy of the foregoing affidavit by Mr. Barnes is attached to each of the Petitioners' affidavits. 
Petitioners also argue that KNAB's counterproposal is designed to stop competition from 
occurring in Burlington, Colorado, and that the local economy can support a second competitive 
radio voice. Petitioners also contend that the Commission has a policy of not addressing the 
potential economic impact of new allotments on existing stations and that there are a number of 
allotment scenarios that would allow both Burlington, Colorado, and Brewster, Kansas, to be each 
allotted a Class C channel.
4. KNAB filed a motion to dismiss the Petitioners' reply comments as untimely. KNAB 
argues that reply comments in response to KNAB's comments regarding Petitioners' proposal to 
allow channel 257C1 to Burlington, Colorado, were due January 27, 1995, and that any reply 
comments filed on February 27, 1995, should have been limited to KNAB's counterproposal to 
allot channel 257C1 to Brewster, Kansas. Nevertheless, KNAB argues, most of Petitioners' reply 
comments address KNAB's comments regarding the Burlington, Colorado, proposal. Further, 
KNAB contends, any arguments addressing KNAB's Brewster counterproposal are so intertwined 
with Petitioners' untimely reply comments concerning the Burlington proposal, that the entire 
reply comments must be dismissed. Lastly, KNAB asks that if the Commission should deny 
KNAB's request to dismiss Petitioners' reply comments, that KNAB be given a fifteen-day 
extension of time subsequent to such denial to file a response to Petitioners' reply comments.2
2 KNAB also filed a motion to dismiss a comment supporting the Burlington proposal filed by Roger L. 
Hoppe II, on the grounds that Mr. Hoppe has failed to provide a certification of the comment and to serve the other 
parties to the proceeding, as required by the Notice. We grant that motion. We also note that the comment did not 
raise any significant matter affecting the public interest. In fact, the comment offered the opinion that the Burlington 
area could support another FM station, which is a matter we no longer consider relevant in allotment proceedings.
8643
5. We will allot Channel 257C1 to Burlington Colorado.3 In rule making proceedings 
in which two parties express an interest in building stations on the same channel in different 
communities, we attempt to accommodate both parties by allotting separate channels of the same 
class to each of the two communities. We have determined that Channel 257C1 can be allotted 
to Burlington, Colorado, and Channel 291 Cl can be allotted to Brewster, Kansas. Inasmuch as 
KNAB has stated that it would not apply for a channel in Brewster, Kansas, if a new FM channel 
is allotted to Burlington, Colorado, we are construing that statement as a withdrawal of its 
expression of interest in applying for a channel in Brewster, Kansas. In that light, we will not 
allot a channel to Brewster, Kansas. In a separate vein, we do not address the potential economic 
impact of new allotments on existing stations. See FM Channel Assignments: Policies Regarding 
Detrimental Effects of Proposed New Broadcast Stations on Existing Stations. 3 FCC Red 638 
(1988), affirmed. 4 FCC Red 2276 (1989).4 Therefore, we must disregard KNAB's argument that 
Burlington, Colorado and the surrounding county cannot support an additional radio station. 
We believe the public interest would be served by allotting Channel 257C1 to Burlington, 
Colorado, since it would provide that community with an additional local commercial FM service. 
Channel 257C1 can be allotted to Burlington in compliance with the Commission's minimum 
distance separation requirements without the imposition of a site restriction.
6. In regard to Section 1.52 of the Rules, each of the three Petitioners has filed an 
affidavit that the Section 1.52 affidavit was mailed with their comments and each petitioner has 
filed a copy of the earlier Section 1.52 affidavit with their subsequent filings. In this light, we 
will accept the Section 1.52 affidavit that was submitted with Petitioners' reply comments as 
constituting compliance with our directive to submit a Section 1.52 affidavit, since the proposal 
to allot channel 257C1 to Burlington is no longer considered to be contested. See Amor Family 
Broadcasting Group v. FCC. 918 F.2d 960, 963 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
7. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority Contained in Sections 4(i), 5(c)(l), 303(g) and 
(r) and 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61,0.204(b) and 
0.283 of the Commission's Rules, IT IS ORDERED, That effective September 16, 1996, the FM 
Table of Allotments, Section 73.202(b) of the Commission's Rules, IS AMENDED for the 
community listed below, as follows:
City Channel No. 
Burlington, Colorado 257C1, 281C1
8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED.
9. The window period for filing applications for Channel 257C1 at Burlington, Colorado, 
will open on September 16, 1996, and close on October 17, 1996.
3 The reference coordinates for Channel 257C1 at Burlington, Colorado, are North Latitude 39-18-18 and 
West Longitude 102-16-06.
' See also Cheyenne. Wyoming. 8 FCC Red 4473 (1993).
8644
10. For further information concerning the above, contact R. Barthen Gorman, Mass 
Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. Questions related to the window application filing process for 
Channel 257C1 at Burlington, Colorado, should be addressed to the Audio Services Division, 
Mass Media Bureau, (202) 41.8-2700.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
John A. Karousos 
Chief, Allocations Branch 
Policy and Rules Division 
Mass Media Bureau
8645