Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-204
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In re Applications of
Airen Broadcasting Company for a Minor
Change to KZCC(FM), McCloud, California
The State or Oregon Acting By and Through the 
State Board of Higher Education on Behalf of 
Southern Oregon University for a Minor Change to 
KNHT(FM), Rio Dell, California
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. BMPH-20070523ADS
Facility ID No. 164090
File No. BPED-20070720ABF
Facility ID No. 17412
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  December 11, 2014 Released: December 11, 2014
By the Commission:
1. We have before us an Application for Review (“AFR”) filed by the State of Oregon 
Acting By and Through the State Board of Higher Education for the Benefit of Southern Oregon 
University (“Oregon”) on January 8, 2009.  Oregon seeks review of a Media Bureau (“Bureau”) decision 
that denied its Petition for Reconsideration of an earlier Bureau decision.
1
  Among other things, the earlier 
decision:  (1) granted an application filed by Airen Broadcasting Company (“Airen”) to change the 
community of license of its station – KZCC(FM) – from McCloud to Trinidad, California (“Airen 
Application”); (2) dismissed a conflicting application filed by Oregon to upgrade the facilities of its 
station – KNHT(FM), Rio Dell, California – from Class C2 to C1; (3) modified the license of KNHT(FM) 
to specify operation on a new channel in order to accommodate KZCC(FM)’s move; and (4) required 
Oregon to file a minor change application for KNHT(FM) specifying operation on this new channel.
2
  We 
also have before us a Motion for Stay (“Motion”) filed by Oregon on January 8, 2009.  Oregon requests a 
stay of the Bureau’s decision directing it to file a minor change application specifying operation of 
KNHT(FM) on its new channel “during the pendency of its Application for Review.”
3
2. Oregon argues that the Bureau erred in finding that grant of the Airen Application and the 
involuntary channel changes necessary to accommodate its grant would result in a preferential 
arrangement of allotments under Section 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
4
  Upon 
                                                     
1
KNHT(FM), Rio Dell, CA, Letter, DA 08-2676 (MB 2008) (“Reconsideration Decision”).
2
KZCC(FM), Trinidad, CA, Letter (MB Nov. 19, 2007) (“Letter Decision”). In the Reconsideration Decision, the 
Bureau also dismissed an application filed by Airen for a license to cover the facilities specified in the construction 
permit that the Bureau granted Airen in the Letter Decision.  Reconsideration Decision at 10.  Oregon nevertheless 
argues in the AFR that the Bureau erred in failing to take into consideration its Informal Objection to the license 
application.  AFR at 17-18.  We decline to consider this argument as Airen does not seek to overturn this dismissal 
or request any other relief related to the Bureau’s grant of this application.  
3
Motion at 9.
4
AFR at 9-17.  While Oregon challenges only the involuntary channel substitution that Airen proposed and the 
Bureau ordered for KNHT(FM), Airen actually proposed – and the Bureau ordered – two involuntary channel 
substitutions.  See Reconsideration Decision at 2; Letter Decision at 2, 3.    
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-204
2
review of the AFR and the entire record, we conclude that Oregon has failed to demonstrate that the 
Bureau erred in reaching this conclusion.
5
  We thus uphold the Bureau’s finding for the reasons set forth
in the Reconsideration Decision.
6
3. Oregon also asserts that the Bureau erred in rejecting an argument it made for the first 
time in a reply.
7
  Oregon further argues that the Bureau “violate[d] due process and the Commission’s 
own procedural rules” when it noted in the Reconsideration Decision that failure to file a construction 
permit application for KNHT(FM) specifying the station’s new channel “may result in the issuance of a 
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture.”
8
  Oregon, however, does not offer any analysis or any 
citations to precedent supporting these arguments and thus fails to “specify with particularity” the grounds 
on which Commission review is warranted, as required by our rules.
9
  Accordingly, we do not consider 
these arguments further.
10
                                                     
5
In addition, we reject Oregon’s claim that the Airen Application was subject to a heightened scrutiny because it 
involved an unbuilt construction permit and/or because it proposed to remove the sole local transmission service 
from McCloud, California. AFR at 6-7, 9, 11 12. While the Commission has stated that “any application proposing 
a community of license change filed by a permittee that has not built its current permitted facilities and that is not 
mutually exclusive with either the applicant's built and operating facilities or its original allotment shall be returned 
as unacceptable for filing,” Oregon has not alleged that the facilities proposed in the Airen Application lack mutual 
exclusivity. Revision of Procedures Governing Amendments to FM Table of Allotments & Changes of Cmty. of 
License in the Radio Broad. Servs., 21 FCC Rcd 14212, 14219 ¶ 11 (2006). Moreover, as the Bureau noted, the 
Commission’s policy prohibiting the removal of a community’s sole local transmission service applies where a 
station has commenced operations. Reconsideration Decision at 6. See also Revision of Procedures Governing 
Amendments to FM Table of Allotments and Changes of Community of License in the Broadcast Services, Report 
and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14212, 14229 ¶ 32 (2006). Airen had not yet constructed its facility nor commenced 
operation at McCloud. Accordingly, the Bureau properly found that the policy did not apply here. Reconsideration 
Decision at 6.
6
Reconsideration Decision at 5-8.
7
Oregon had raised questions about the programming broadcast by Airen on KZCC(FM) for the first time in its 
Reply to Airen’s Opposition to its Petition for Reconsideration.  The Bureau found the argument procedurally barred 
under Section 1.45(c) of the Commission’s rules, which specifies that replies are limited to matters raised in the 
opposition.  Reconsideration Decision at 5, citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.45(c). See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(h).  Oregon 
asserts that it could not have made the argument sooner.  AFR at 8.
8
AFR at 21-22, citing Reconsideration Decision at 8.  
9
47 C.F.R. § 1.115(b)(2).  Oregon does, however, claim that it is unable to submit the required construction permit 
application because it “is unable to certify that it has the financial ability to construct the proposed facilities.”  AFR 
at 21.  Oregon is not required to make such a certification in its application.  See FCC Form 301, Instructions, 
General Instructions, Item K (“Applicants are not required to certify as to their financial qualifications on FCC Form 
301.”).  Moreover, Oregon may rely on Airen’s commitment to reimburse it for the costs associated with 
KNHT(FM)’s channel change in certifying that it has the financial wherewithal to construct the facilities necessary 
to implement that change.  We hereby put Oregon on notice that we will tolerate no further delays in its filing of the 
construction permit application specifying KNHT(FM)’s new channel.  Finally, we confirm that this application 
should be filed on FCC Form 301 (Application for Construction Permit for Commercial Broadcast Station) in 
response to Oregon’s question about whether the application should instead be filed on FCC Form 340 (Application 
for Construction Permit for Reserved Channel Noncommercial Educational Broadcast Station).  AFR at 7, 9.  While 
Oregon operates KNHT(FM) as a noncommercial educational FM station, the station operates on a channel outside 
of the portion of the FM band reserved for noncommercial use.   As such, the station must comply with the 
engineering standards and rules applicable to commercial stations.  Oregon is well aware of this, having filed the 
very upgrade application that conflicted with the Airen Application on FCC Form 301.  See File No. BPED-
20070720ABF.  
10
For similar reasons, we decline to consider Oregon’s allegation that the Bureau “demonstrated a cavalier disregard 
of the long-standing Congressional public policy to promote public broadcasting and to encourage radio stations to 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-204
3
4. Finally, in the AFR, Oregon expresses for the first time its concerns that Airen lacks the 
funds to reimburse it for the costs associated with KNHT(FM)’s channel change,
11
and “the Commission 
lacks any enforcement mechanism that can truly compel Airen to reimburse” it.
12
  It also alleges for the 
first time in the AFR that grant of the Airen Application will “extinguish[ ] service through K270AV to 
Mendocino,” California.
13
  Oregon did not raise its financial concerns or its concern about the loss of 
service to Mendocino in any of its earlier pleadings.  Accordingly, we dismiss these portions of the AFR 
as procedurally barred.
14
5. Turning to the Motion, we note that Oregon sought only that the Commission stay the 
effect of the Reconsideration Decision “during the pendency of its Application for Review.”
15
  Given our 
disposition of the AFR herein, we find the Motion moot and dismiss it as such.
6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 5(c)(5) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
16
and Sections 1.115(c) and (g) of the Commission’s Rules,
17
the Application for Review filed by the State of Oregon Acting By and Through the State Board of 
Higher Education on Behalf of Southern Oregon University on January 8, 2009, IS DENIED in part and 
DISMISSED in part.  
7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Stay filed by the State of Oregon 
Acting By and Through the State Board of Higher Education on Behalf of Southern Oregon University 
on January 8, 2009, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.
8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State of Oregon Acting By and Through the State 
Board of Higher Education on Behalf of Southern Oregon University shall file a minor change application 
on FCC Form 301 within 30 days of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order specifying 
operation on Channel 273C2.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
convert to HD technology.”  AFR at 6.  While this claim is set forth in the introduction to the AFR, it is not listed as 
one of the questions presented to the Commission nor is it addressed in the argument section of the AFR.
11
AFR at 20-21.
12
Id. at 19.
13
Id. at 13.
14
See 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5); 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(c).  Section 5(c)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, and Section 1.115(c) of the Rules bar applications for review that rely “on questions of fact or law upon 
which the [designated authority issuing the decision] has been afforded no opportunity to pass.”
15
Motion at 9.
16
47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5).
17
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.115 (c), (g).