Kittyha1.u!c Broadcasting Oorp. et aZ.
153
FCC 67-256
,BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.O. 20554
In TIl Applications of
KITTYIB.'VK BROADCAS'l'L'fG CORP., KETTERING,
OHIO
Reque8ts: 1140 kc, 1 kw, DA·Day
THE GEM CITY BROADOASTING Co., KErTER·
lNG, OIliO
Requests: 1140 kc, 5 kw, 1 kw (OH) ,
DA-2, Day
'VESTERN OHIO BROADCASTING SERVICE, INC.,
EATON, OHIO
Requests: 1130 kc, 250 w, DA, Day
TREATY CITYRADIO~INC., GREENVILLE, OHIO
Requests: 1130 kC,250 w, DA, Day
JAMES L. SOHMALZ, PHYLISS .A..c-..rN .sCHMALZ,
JAMES I. Toy, JR., AND THOMAS A. GALL- 
NEYER~D.B.A. BLOOl\UKGTON BROADCASTING
Co.,BLoo:~UXGTON,IND.
Requests: 1130 kc, 1 kw, Day
VOICE OF THE OHIO VALLEY, me., LomsVILLE,
Ky.
Requests: 1130 kc, 10 kw, DA·Day
W. V. RA>1SEY AND LEWIS YOUNG, D.B.A.
SHIVELY BROADCASTING Co., SHIVELY, Ky.
Requests: 1130 kc, 500 w Day
ALBERT S. TEDESCO (vYvVC11), BRAZIL, IND.
HaB: 1380 kc, 500 w, DA·Day
Requests: 1130 kc, 500 w, Day
COOK, INC., ELLETTSYU.LE, IND.
RequCBts: 1110 ke, 250 w, Day
For Construction Permits
Docket No. 17243
File No. BP-16603
Docket No. 17244
File No. BP-16877
Docket No. 17245
File No. BP-16816
Docket No. 17246
File No. BP-16881
Docket No. 17247
File No. BP-1687G
Docket No. 17248
File No. BP-16878
Docket No. 17249
File No. BP-1G738
Docket No. 17250
File No. BP-16669
MEMORANDU1<r OPINION AND ORDER
(Adopted March 1, 19(7)
By THE COMMISSION: CoMMISSIONER "VADSWORTH ABSENT.
1. The Commission has before it for consideration (a) the above·
captioned applications; (b) a motion to dismiss the application of
Cook, Inc., filed by Bloommgton Broadcasting Co. (BP-1G87G) on
October 4, 19G5; and (e) pleadings in opposition and reply thereto.
2. In its motion to dismiss, Bloomington Broadcasting Co. requests
dismissal of the proposal of Cook, Inc., on the grounds that its applica.
tion was not timely filed pursuant to section 1.571 (c) of the Commis·
7 F.C.C. 2d
106-534--67----2
154 Federal Oornrnunwations Oornrni8sion Reports
sian's rules (the cutoff rule) and is thus not entitled to consolidation
with the applications in this group. Bloomington points out that the
lead application (Kittyhawk Broadcasting Corp., BP-16603) was
listed on the Commission's pnblic notice of July 8, 1965 (FCC 65 
610): The notice stated that, in order to be considered with any listed
application or with any other application conflicting with one on the
list, an appiIcation had to be filed by the close of business on Au 
gust 17, 1965. Prior to that date, there were no applications on file
which would have conflicted, directly or indirectly, with the Cook pro 
posa1.However, on August 17, 1965, Bloomington filed its application
and, because of an-interlinking chain of interference, became joined in
engineering conflict with IGttyhawk. Forthat reason, under the terms
of the public notice of July 8, 19'65, Bloomington's effective cutoff date
became August 17, 1965, and no applications conflicting with Bloom 
ington could be timely tendered after that date. On September 9, 1965,
Cook tendered its application for filing. This proposal and that of
BloOlnington involve mutually destructrve interference.
3. Cook, in opposing the lllotion to dismiss, states that preparation
of its application began during the first week in August of 1965; that it
was physically impossible to complete the application by August 17;
that, until Bloomington filed, it had no reason to believe that it (Cook)
would be hound by the August 17 cutoff date; and that, since Bloom 
ington did not file until August 17, it (Cook) did not receive adequate
notice of the cutoff date. Cook cites Ridge Radio Gorpomtion v.
F.G.G., 110 U.S. App. D.C. 277 (1961), in support of its position.
Alternatively, in the event of an adverse finding as to timeliness. Cook
asserts that the above sequence constitutes good grounds for a \;'-aiver
of the rule.
4. The Commission finds that Cook's reliance on RidgeRadio, supra,
is misplaced. In that case the court found that the Commission's
public· notice "as phrased * * * was not fair warning * * * ."
[Emphasis added.] Following Rid,ge Radio, however, the Commis 
sion reworded its notice in such a fashion as to afford specific warning
to prospective applicants that they could be cutoff by the filing of
unlisted applications which involve conflict with listed proposals.'
Ifowever, even prior to Ridge Radio, supra, the Commission refused
consolidation to late-filed applications which involved, through un 
listed applications, indirect interlinking conflict with proposals ap 
pearing on cutoff lists.
2
The Commission's interpretation of the cut 
off rule has relnained constant since its inception. The only thing that
has changed has been the wording of the public notices. For these
reasons we believe that Cook knew or should have known that an
intervening proposal filed on the last possible day could act to deny
him consolidation. To illustrate: If proposals A and B conflict and
A has a published cutoff date, a prospective applicant, D, knows or
should know that he must be ready to file by A's cutoff date even
though his proposal does not involve direct conflict with A or B be-
lThe words added were "* '" '" 0-1' with any other application on file by the close of
business OIl Ea given date} which involves ar conflict necessitating a hearing with an
application on this list .. * "'."
2 Fredericksburg Broadoasting Corp., 19 R.R. 900 (11160); )l{id-Ameriocm Broadoasting
System, Ino., 19 R.R. 920 (1960).
7 F.c'C, 2d
Kittyhawk Broadcasting Corp. et aZ.
155
cause an unlieted applicant, C, mightfile~perhapsfor tactical rea 
sons-on the last day allowed. D knows that if C should file in this
fashion and conflicts with either A or B that he, D, will not be entitled
to file an application in conflict with C. Any other interpretation of
the rule would result in its destruction because if D were accepted for
filing, any applications filed subsequent thereto and in conflict with
D would 'be entitled to consolidation in the ABCD group. In theory,
at least, the chain might never end, and any attempt to establish cut 
off dates would be nugatory. In the case at hand, the fact that no later 
filed application conflicts with the Cook r;roposal is purely fortuitous
and that fact cannot be relled upon by Cook as grounds for waiver.
Since Cook has not set forth any compelling reasons to warrant ex 
traordina.ry action 3 by the Comnlission, its reqnest for waiver will be
denied and the application returned as untimely, pursuant to section
1.227 (b).
5. The Commission, after examination of the above-captioned ap 
plications, finds ,that the following deficiencies exist:
(0-) In re ;application of Kittyhav,rk Broadcasting Corp.:
(1) The proposed 5-mv/m contour would penetrate the geographic
boundaries of Dayton, Ohio. Since the population of Dayton (2G2,332)
exceeds 50,000, and is more than twi'ce that o,f Kettering, Ohio (54,462),
a rebuttable presumption that the applicant realistically proposes to
serve the larger community arises under the Commission's Pol-icy State 
1nent on Section 3.07 (b) Oonsideration,s for Standard Broadcast Facili 
ties Invol'ving Suburban Oommunities, 2 FCC 2d 190, 6 R.R. 2d 1901,
'adopted Decemher 22, 1965. By amendment of Novembe.r 21, 1900, the
applicant 'Submitted data in attempting to rebut the presumption that
it realistically proposes to serve Dayton. However, after examination
of this material, the Commission finds that the applicant has: failed to
rebut the presumption and that an ,evidentiary hearing must be held to
explore that matter further.
(2) The proposed towers have not yet obtained clearance from the
Federal Aviation Agency. Thus, an air menace issue will be specified.
(b) In re application of the Gem City Broadcasting Co. :
(1) The proposed 5-mv/m contour would penetrate the geographic
boundaries of Dayton, Ohio (population 262,332). Since the population
of Dayton exceeds 50,000 and is more than twice that (If Kettering,
Ohio (54,462), a rebuttable presumption that the applicant realistically
proposes to serve the larger community arises under the Commission's
December 22, 1965, Policy State'Jl1,6nt Involving Snbnrban Communi_ties,
supra. By amendment of November 28, 1966, the applicant submitted
data in an attempt to rebut the aforementioned presumption. How 
ever, after examination of this material, the Commission finds: that the
applicant has failed to rebut the presumption and an issue with respect
thereto will be included.
(c) In 1'e application ofvv~esternOhio Broadcasting Service, Inc.:
(1) It appears, from the applicant's data, that the antenna param 
eters specified in the application do not acenrate'ly depict the proposed
radiation pattern. Accordingly, an issue ,vill be designated to deter 
mine whether the proposed antenna parameters 'accurately depict the
proposed directional 'antenna radiation pattern.
(a) In re application of Treaty City Radin, Inc.:
(1) Based on applicant's data it appears that cash in the amount of
approximately $75,000 (construction cost, $25,000; working capital,
$50,000) will 'be required for the construction and operation of the
-':-M=id:----:"-'m-e--:ri.ca, Broadcasting System, Inc., supra.
7 F.C.C. 2d
156 Federal Oommunications Oommission Reports
proposed station for 1 year. To meet these requirements, the applicant
relies upon $10,000 cash in a bankaccoullt, a bank loan of $25,000, new
capital of $5,000, and $60,000 in projected revenues fur the< first year.
II'owever, the applicant has failed to submit data in support of his
predicted revenue. Furthermore, no balance sheets have been sub
M
mitted purporting to establish the ability of the potential stockholders
to meet their financial obligations. In addition, the letter submitted
pledging the bank loan is more than a year old and as' sU'ch is UllM
acceptable. Assuming, ,arguendo, the aforesaid bank letter is accept 
able, the applicant ,vDuid still require $40,000 to meet its capital
requirements. Accordingly, a financial issue will be included.
(2) The site photographs do not show sufficient detail within the
immediate vicinity of the proposed ,antenna site. Accordingly, an issue
will he designated to determine if the antenna site is suitable for the
proposed operation.
(e) In re appli'caUon of Bloomington Broadcasting Co.:
(1) It appears from the applicant's dat,a that $169,386 (downpay 
ment on equipment, $6,386; land, $30,000; building, $30,000; miscel 
laneous, $19,000; operation expenses for first year, $84,000) will be re 
quired to construct and operate the prop-oslal for 1 year. To meet this
expense the applicant has available a $150,000 loan from James I. Toy,
a minority partner, and $6,000 in capital contributed by 'l"'oy and
Thomas A. Gallmeyer (the remaining minority partner). In addition,
James and Phyliss Schmalz (majority partner&-76 percent owner 
ship) are committed to contribute $19,000 to capital; however, their
balance sheet indicates that they lack sufficient liquid assets to meet
this Obligation. Furthermore, BI'Oomington relies on predicted revenue
of $90,000 to help defray its initial expenses, 'but the applicant has failed
to establish that this revenue is available.
(2) In view of the Schmalz' inability to meet their commitment and
the lack of evidence Ishowing the availahility of revenue, the Commission
finds that the 'applicant requires $13,386, in addition to the $156,000
available, to meet their first-year -expenses. Accordingly, a financial
issue will be included.
(3) Since the applicant has not 'obtained clearance from the Federal
Aviation Agency, an issue will be included to determine whether the
proposed antenna would constitute ,a menace to air navigation.
(1) In re application of Voice of the Ohio Valley, Inc.:
(1) Based-on the applicant's data, $113,697 (downpayment 'Onequip~
ment, $20,505; first-year payments on equipment,with interest, $24,19Q;
building, $10,000; miS'c.-eUaneous, $4,000; working capital for 1 year,
$55,000) will be required to meet the cost of eonstruction and operation
for the first year. To defray these expenditures the applicant relies
on stock 'Subscriptions of $110,000 by John O. Bland, Jr. ($99,000), and
Jack Gibson ($11,000) and predieted revenue of $20,000. Examination
of the subscribers' ballance sheets indicates that neither has sufficient
liquid assets to meet his stock-purchase commitments. In addition,
the applicant has failed to sru:bmit data which would indi'Cate the
availability of the predicted revenue. Accordingly, 'a financial issue
will be specified.
(2) It further appears that the applicant proposes to operate day 
time with 10 kw of ])O'Wer utilizing a six-element directional ,antenna
system to suppress th,at radiation over a wide arc; that the theoretical
calculated radiation pattern exhibits essentially zero radiation in the
null areas, and maximum expected operating values (MEOV's) as low
as 1,6 mV/ill -are proposed; that the 'site phO'oographs submitted are in 
adequate and, in fact, it appears that the proposed site is located in an
area where manmade structures may exist, ,and, as a result, problems
of reradiation may occur; and in view of these considerations ,an issue
will be included to determine whether the applicant will be able to
adjust ,and maintain the proposed directiorual antenna system within
the maximum. expected operating values of radiation, as proposed.
7 F.C.C. 2d
KUtyhal.Ok Broadcasting Corp. et al.
157
7 F.e.e. 2d
(g) In 1'e application of Shively Broadcasting Co.:
(1) Applicant's data indicate that $63,242 will 'De, required to con 
struct ($23,370) and operate ($39,872) the proposed station for 1 year.
The partners.hip agreement providesl that the partners .vill cont:i'ibute
sufficient funds to llleet the cost of construction and operation. The
applicant has not submitted iall acceptable manufacturer's letter of credit
and, furthermnre, it has submitted no evidence to sup.port its predic 
tion of revenue.
(2) It appears from the partner's individual balance sheets that
neither has sufficient liquid assets to meet his commitment. Thus, a
financial issue will be sp'ecifiecl.
(3) The 'Proposed 5-mv/m co-ntour would penetrate the geographic
boundaries of Louisville, Ky. Since the population of Louisville
(380,\339) exceeds 50,000, and is more than twice that of Shively, Ky.
(15,155), a rebuttable presumption that the applicant realistically pro 
poses to serve the larger community arises under the Commission's
aforementioned poli'cys'tatemellit of December 22, 1965, on suburban
COmmunities. By 'amendment the applicant submitted data in an at 
tempt to rebut the presumption that it is realistically proposing to serve
LouiSville. However, after examination o-f this material, the Cnm 
mission finds that the applicant has failed to effectively rebut the afore 
said presumptio,n, -and an issue wiH be designated with resllect tbereto.
6. Except as indicated by the issues specified below, each of Ole ap 
plicants is qualified to construct, own, and operate as proiJosed, but,
since the applications are mutually 8xc1usive., they Hmsi"j 08 designated
for hearing in a consolidated proceeding on the issu;,"S c:pecified 'below.
Accordingly, It 'is oTde.rerl: That, pursuant to bedion 309(e) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as am.ended, tlIB abo-ve applications, with
the e,xception of Cook, Inc., Are designated for hearing in a consol 
idated proceeding, rut a time and place to be specified in a subsequent
orcler
j
upon the following issues:
1. To determine the areas and populations which would receive primary
service from the above-captioned applications, ,vith the exception of the
'VnVC:VI application, and the availability of other primary serviC8 to sucll
areas and populations.
2. To determine the areas and populations ,yhich may be expected to gain
or lose primary service from the proposed operation of station WWC1H, antI
the availability -of ,other primary service to such areas and populations.
3. 'To determine whether the proposal of Kittyhawk Broadcasting Corp,.
will realistically provide a local transmission facility for its specified station
location aT for another larger community, in light of all the relevant evi 
dence, including, but not necessarily limited to, the sho,ving \vUh respect to:
(a) 'The extellt to which the specified statiolllocation has been ascer 
tained by the applicant to have separate and distinct pTog>ramillg"
needs;
(0) The extent to \vhich the needs of the specified station location
are being met by existing standard broadcast stations;
(c) The extent to \vhich the applicant's program proposal will meet
the specific unsatisfied programing needs of its specified station loca 
tion ; and
(d) The extent to which the projected sources of the applicant's
advertising revenUeS witl1in its' specified station location me adequate
to support its proposal, as compared with its projected sources from all
other areas.
4. To determine, in the event that it is concluded, pursuant to the
foregoing issue (a), that the proposal 'NiH not realistically provide a local
trallsmiss-ion service for its specified station location, whether such pro 
posal meets all ,of the technical provisions of the rules for standardbroad~
cast stations assigned to the most populous community for which it is
determined that the proposal will realistically provide a local transmission
service, namely, Dayton, Ohio.
158 Federal Oommwnications Oommission Reports
5. To determine whether the proposal of the Gem City Broadcasting Co.
will realistically provide a local transmission facility for its specified station
location or for another larger community, in light o.f all the relevant
evidence, including, but not necessarily limited to, the showing with
respect to:
(a) The extent to wbich the specified startion location has been ascer 
tained by the applicant to have separate and distinct programing
needs:
('b) . The extent to which the needs of the sp€cified station location are
being met by existing standard broadcast stations;
(0) The extent to which the applicant's program proposal will meet
the specific uDsatisfied programing needs of its specified station locaw
tion; and
(d) The extent to which the projected sources of the applicant's
advertising revenues within its specified station location are adequate
to support its proposal, as compared with its projected SOUrces from all
other areas.
6. To d-etermine, in the event that it is concluded, pursuant to the fore 
going issue (a), that the proposal will not realistically provide a local
transmission service for its :specified station loeation, ,,,,bethel' such pro 
posal meets all of the technical provisions of the rules fDr standard broad 
cast stations assigned to the most populous community for which it is de 
termined that the prop.osal will realistically provide a local transmii'>sion
servic,~.namely, Dayton, Ohio.
7. To determine whether the antenna parameters proposed by ·Western
OhioBroad(;~;'ltingService, Inc., accurately depict the proposed directional
antenna 1!2'dii:{),on pattern.
8. To determine with respect to the application of Treaty City Radio, Inc.:
(a) The availahility to the applicant of a $25,000 bank loan from
the Oitiz.ens State Bank of Greenville, Ohio.
(b) To determine the financial ability of Clarence E., Anna Lou, and
Craig E. Plessigner to meet their commitment'S to purChase stocli: of
the Treaty City Radio, Inc.
(0) To determine the basis for the applicant's estimate of revenue in
its first yearo! operation, wbether such estimate is reaS'onable, and
the extent to which revenues may be relied upon to yield necessary
funds for the operation of the proposed station fO'r the first year.
(4) In light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the above issues
whether Treaty City Radio, Inc., is financially qualified to construct
and operate its proposed station.
9. To determine whether the transmitter site proposed by Treaty City
Radio, Inc., is satisfactory with particular regard to any conditions that
may exist in the vicinity of the antenna system which would preclude adjust 
ment and maintenance of 'the proposed directional antenna system.
10. To determine, with respect to the application of Bloomington Broad 
casting Co.:
(a) The ahility of James and Phyliss Schmalz to meet their commit 
ments to contribute $19,000 in capital to the partnership.
(b) The basis for the applicant's basis of revenue in its first year
of ·operation, whether such estimate is reasonable, and the extent to
which such revenues may be relied upon to yield necessary funds for
the operation of the proposed station for the first year.
(0) Whether, in light {l;f the evidence 'adduced pursuant to the above
issues, the applicant is financially qualified to· construct and operate its
proposed station.
11. To determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the tower
height and location propDsed by Bloomington would constitute a menace
to air navigation.
12. r!,o determine whether tbereis a reasonable possibility that the tower
height and location proposed by Kittyha,,\'k Broadcasting Corp. would con 
stitute a mena'Ce to air navigation.
7 F.e.C. 2d
KittyhCl10k Broadcasting Oorp. et al.
159
13. To determine, with respect to the application of Voice of the Ohio
Valley, Inc.:
(n) The ability of Jack L. Gibson and John O. Bland, Jr., to meet
their commitments to purchase stock in the Voice of Ohio Valley, Inc.
(b) The basis for the applicant's estimate of revenue in its first year
of operaUon, whether such estimate is reasonable, and the extent to
which revenues may be relied upon to yield necessary funds for the
operation of the proposed station for the first year.
(c) To determine, in the light of the evidence adduced pursuant to
the aforesaid issue, whether the 'applicant is financially qualified to
construct and operate ilts proposed station.
14. To deteTmine whether Voice of Ithe Ohio Valley, Inc., will be able
to adjust and maintain the proposed directional antenna system within
the maximum expected operating values of radiation, as proposed.
15. To determine, with respect to the application of Shively Broadcasting
Co.:
(a) The ability of ",V. V. Ramsey and Louis Young to meet their fi 
nancial commitments to contribute sufficient capi'tal which would enable
them to oonstruct and operate a standard station, as proposed.
(b) The basis for the applicant's estimate of revenue in its first year
of operation, ,,,hether such estimate is reasonable, and the extent to
which revenues may be relied upon to yield necessary funds for the
operation of the proposed station for the first year.
(0) vVhether the deferred credit of Collins Radio Co. is a vaUable,
(d) V/hether, in light of the evidence 'adduced pursuant to the fore 
going issue, the applicant is financially qualified to construct and
operate its proposed station.
16. 'Vhether the proposal of Shively Broadcasting Co. will realistically
provide a local transmission facility for Hs specified station looation or
for another larger community, in light of all relevant evidence, inclUding,
but not necessarily limited to, the sho"vhlg with respect to:
(a) The extent to which the specified station location has been ascer 
tained by the applicant to havesepal~ateand distinct programing needs;
(b) The extent to which the needs of the specified station location
are being met by existing standard broadcast stations;
(c) The extent to ,vhich the applicant's llrogram proposal will meet
the specific Ul1satisJied programing needs of its specified sbationlocation;
and
(d) The ex'tent to which the projected sources of the applicant's ad 
vertising revenues within its specified station location are adequate
to support its proposal, as compared with its projected sources from
all other areas.
17. To determine, in the event that it is concluded, pursuant to the fore 
going issue (a), that the proposal will not realistically provide a local trans 
mission service for its specified station location. whether such proposal meets
all of the technical provisions of the rules, for standard broadcl:tst statiollB
assigned to the most populous community for which it is determined that
t.he proposal will realistically provide a local transmission service, namely,
Louisville, Ky.
18. To determine, in the light of section 307 (b) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, which of the proposals wonld best provide a fail',
efficient, and equitable distribution of radio service.
19. To determine, in the event it is concluded that a choice between the
applications s'hould not be based solelY on considerations relating to' section
:)07 (b), which of the o'perations proposed in the aboye-c.aptioned applications
would better serve the public interest.
20. To determine, in the light of the evidence adduced pursuant t'O' the
foregoing issues, which, if any, of the applications should be granted.
I t ,is tUTther orde?'ed, That, in vie\v of the engineering showings COll 
tained in BP-16878, BP-16877, BP-16876, BP-16881, and BP-16816,
the provisions of section 1.569 (b) (2) Are 10ah.'ed with respect to these
applications.
7 F.C.C. 2d
160 Federal Oommunications Oommission Reports
It is further ordered, That Bloomington Broadcasting Co.'s motion
to dismiss the application of Cook, Inc., Is granted, and the Cook
application Is returned as unacceptable for filing.
It is further ordered, That the Federal Aviation Agency is made a
party to this proceeding.
It is further ordered, That, in the event of a grant of any of the
above-captioned applications, the construction permit shall contain
the following condition:
Pending a final decision in docket No. 14419 with respect to pre 
sunrise operation with daytime facilities, the present provisions
of se,ction 73.87 of the COlll111ission's rules are not extended to this
authorization, and such operation is precluded.
It is further ordered, That, in the event of a grant of the application
of Voice of the Ohio Valley, Inc., the permittee shall assume respon 
sibility for the elimination of interference due to external cross 
modulation and for the installation and adjustment of filter circuits
or other equipment in the antenna system of the proposed operation
and of station WXVlV, or any other stations, which Inay be necessary
to prevent adverse effects due to reradiation. In addition, field ob 
servations shall be made to determine whether spurious emissions
exist, and any objectionable interference problems resulting therefrom
shall be eliminated.
It is further ordered, That, in the event of a grant of the application
of Albert S. Tedesco, the construction perm_it shall contain a condition
that, prior to program tests being authorized, the permitee shall
dismantle tIm unused antenna towers located on the vv"'WCM antenna
site or, in the alternative, submit satisfactory evidence that they have
been detuned in a manner which would eliminate any problems of
reradiation.
It is fifrther ordered, That, to avail themselves of the opportunity
to be heard, the applicantB and party respondent herein, pursuant to
section 1.221 (c) of the Commission's rules, in person or by attorney,
shall, within 20 days of the mailing of this ordN', file with the Com 
mission, in triplicate, a written appearance stating an intention to
appear on the date fixed for the hearing and present evidence. on the
issues specified in this order.
It is further ordered, That the applicants herein shall, pursuant
to section 311 (a) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
and section 1.594 of the Commission's rules, give notice of the hea.ring,
either individually or, if feasible and consistent with the rules, jointly,
within the time and in the manner prescribed in such rule, and shall
advise the COlumission of the publication of such notice as required
by section 1.594(g) of the rules.
FEDERALC01l-1MU~TOATIO~SCOMMISSION,
BEN F. ViTAPLE,Secretary.
7 F.C.C. 2d