Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-39 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
WTL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
ROGUE VALLEY CHRISTIAN RADIO, INC. 
SAINT ANNE DE BEAUPRE 
EDUCATIONAL RADIO ASSOCIATION
Applications for a Construction Permit for a New 
LPFM Station at Grants Pass, Oregon  
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. BNPL-20010615BDF
Facility ID No. 135682
File No. BNPL-20010615AZN
Facility ID No. 135644
File No. BNPL-20010614AGR
Facility ID No. 134988
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  February 6, 2008  Released:  February 8, 2008
By the Commission:
 
I.  INTRODUCTION
1.  The Commission has before it the captioned, mutually exclusive applications of WTL 
Communications, Inc. (“WTL”), Rogue Valley Christian Radio, Inc. (“RVCR”), and Saint Anne de 
Beaupre Educational Radio Association (“Beaupre”), each seeking a construction permit for a new station
in the Low Power FM (“LPFM”) Broadcast Service at Grants Pass, Oregon.  In accordance with our 
procedures,1 the staff tallied the comparative point totals claimed by each applicant and listed those point 
totals in a Public Notice accepting the applications for filing, establishing a petition to deny period, and 
specifying the applications’ tentative selectee status.2  WTL was designated as the tentative selectee for 
the subject authorization.  RVCR filed a Petition to Deny WTL’s application on April 12, 2004 (the 
“Petition”).  WTL filed an Opposition on May 3, 2004, to which RVCR replied on May 17, 2004.  An 
Informal Objection (“Objection”) to the RVCR application was filed by WTL on May 4 and 7, 2004.3  
No parties filed a petition to deny or informal objection to the captioned Beaupre application. For the 
following reasons, we grant the Petition, in part, grant the Objection in part, grant the WTL application
and dismiss those of RVCR and Beaupre.
  
1 See Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 2205 (2000) (“LPFM Report and 
Order”); recon. generally denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 19208 (2000); 
regulation modification granted by Second Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 8026 (2001); Third Report and Order 
and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07-204 (rel. Dec. 11, 2007) (“Third Report and Order”).   
2 See Closed Groups of Pending Low Power FM Mutually Exclusive Applications Accepted for Filing, Public 
Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 4624 (2004).
3 WTL supplemented its Informal Objection on January 10, 2006 (collectively, the “Objection”). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-39 
2
II.  DISCUSSION
2.  RVCR Petition to Deny.  We have evaluated the merits of the RVCR Petition and the 
responsive pleadings received and conclude that WTL is not entitled to the comparative point that it 
claimed for “established community presence.”  Accordingly, as explained below, we will disallow that 
point and reevaluate the applications on a comparative basis.
3.  RVCR argues in its Petition that WTL does not qualify as a local nonprofit educational 
institution or organization.  RVCR asserts that, because WTL did not include its headquarters’ address in 
its originally-filed application, as required by the Instructions for FCC Form 318,4 WTL has failed to 
establish that it is entitled to a point in the comparative point analysis for having an established 
community presence.5  In its Opposition, WTL acknowledges that “the documentation provided by WTL 
in its application was apparently not sufficient to fully substantiate the necessary criteria.”6 WTL argues, 
however, that its subsequently filed “evidence” establishes that, at the time of filing and continuing, it was 
a non-profit corporation with educational goals, with physical headquarters within 10 miles of its
proposed transmitter site.7  In its Reply, RVCR argues that WTL did not demonstrate in its application as 
originally filed that it was entitled to a point for established community presence, and its attempt at ex 
post facto justification must be rejected because, pursuant to Section 73.871(b) of the Commission’s 
Rules (the “Rules”),8 it cannot upgrade its comparative status after the cut-off date for its proposal. 
4. In the LPFM Report and Order, the Commission stated that an applicant claiming a point for 
established community presence must provide supporting documentation as an exhibit to its application:
Applicants claiming points for established community presence will be required to certify in their 
applications that they meet the [criteria established for claiming the point].  The application form 
will identify appropriate documentation that must be made available for the point claimed.  
Applicants will be required to submit this information at the time of filing and it will be available 
in our public reference room. . . .   This information also will enable applicants to verify that 
competing applicants qualify for the points they claim. 9
As observed by RVCR, the Form 318 instructions, Page 8 (Section III, Question 1: Established 
Community Presence) state that:
Applicants claiming a point for this criterion also must submit evidence of their qualifications as 
an exhibit to their application forms.  This evidence must demonstrate the date of commencement 
of the applicant's existence and the location(s) of the applicant's headquarters, campus or 
governing board members' residences . . . during the two years prior to the application 
  
4 See Instructions to FCC Form 318, Section III, Question 1 at 8. 
5 See RVCR Petition at 1.
6 See WTL Opposition at 3.  WTL advises that it mistakenly included only its post office box mailing address, rather 
than its headquarters’ street address, in its captioned application.   
7 See id. at Exhibits A and B.
8 See RVCR Reply, at 1-2; see also 47 C.F.R. § 73.871(b) (“Amendments that would improve the comparative 
position of new and major change applications will not be accepted after the close of the pertinent filing window.”).   
9 LPFM Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 2261 ¶ 142.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-39 
3
filing. . . . The location of an applicant's headquarters, campus, or governing board members' 
residences may be demonstrated by the affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge 
thereof.10
Although WTL provided evidence of its incorporation in its originally-filed application, it did not specify 
the location of its headquarters or the residence addresses of its governing board members in that 
application, or the duration of such local presence.  We cannot accept WTL’s May 3, 2004 filing as a 
basis for awarding a point for “established community presence” because to do so would improve its
comparative position from that established in the original application, in contravention of Section 
73.871(b).11 Accordingly, we find that WTL is not entitled to the claimed point for established 
community presence.12  We will, however, accept WTL’s May 3, 2004 filing as an amendment to its 
application for informational purposes only.
5.  WTL Informal Objection.  In its application, RVCR stated that it “is a nonstock, nonprofit 
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon in 2001.”13 RVCR claimed a point for 
established community presence because, although it was not incorporated until 2001, “at least 75 percent 
of the Corporation’s directors have established local presence” because “four, i.e., 80 percent, of the five 
directors of the Corporation . . . have resided within 10 miles of the proposed antenna site of the proposed 
LPFM station continuously for the past two years.”14  WTL argues in its Objection that:  (1) RVCR failed 
to provide its Articles of Incorporation, the status of its incorporation on the application filing date, or the 
exact date of its incorporation, and thus, failed to demonstrate that it was a nonprofit legal entity; (2) even 
if the Commission concludes that RVCR was properly incorporated at the time of filing, RVCR
improperly claimed a comparative point for established community presence;15 and (3) RVCR appears to 
be controlled by a central organization and will not truly be serving the local community.  In its January 
10, 2006, Supplement to the Objection, WTL argues that RVCR’s claim that it incorporated in Oregon in
  
10 FCC Form 318 Instructions at 8 (Section III, Question 1:  Established Community Presence).
11 47 C.F.R. § 73.871(b).  Broadcast applicants traditionally have not been permitted to strengthen their comparative 
positions beyond that established by the applicable cut-off date, regardless of whether the amendment was voluntary 
or involuntary.  See, e.g., Women’s Broadcasting Coalition, FCC 85-667, 59 RR 2d 730 (1986) (site change 
amendment necessitated by FAA rejection of original site would be accepted, but coverage credit for number of 
persons served would be limited to the number of persons served by the original proposal); Rose Broadcasting 
Company, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 68 FCC2d 1242 (1978) (amendment accepted to replace deceased 
applicant principal, but applicant could not rely on amendment to improve its comparative position).
12 We will not dismiss WTL’s application for its failure to specify the location of its headquarters or the residence 
addresses of its governing board members.  This omission is not a defect that ordinarily would cause dismissal of an 
application, but would rather have required a corrective amendment prior to grant.  See, e.g., Superior Broadcasting 
Of California, Decision, 94 FCC 2d 904 (1983) (light comparative demerit for failure to report information already 
on public file with FCC); Post-Newsweek Stations, Florida, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 49 FCC 2d 92 
(1974) (supplemental filings falling within certain parameters were properly accepted and considered by the 
Bureau).  Nothing in the LPFM Report and Order or the Rules requires the dismissal of WTL’s application based on 
this omission.
13 RVCR application, Exhibit 2.
14 Id. at Exhibit 7.  RVCR President Donna Griffith identifies the four directors as Darla Day, Geraldine Wytcherly, 
Bill McFeeters, and Glenn Chinn.
15 WTL notes that the Instructions for FCC Form 318 indicate that the applicant must have a community presence 
for at least two years prior to the date of the application.  WTL states that RVCR claims the point, even though it 
had not been incorporated for two years prior to filing, because “at least 75 percent of its directors have lived within 
10 miles of the proposed antenna site during the past two years.”