An original and two (2) copies of petitioner's reply to the comments in the record is due 20 days after the comment deadline. Electronic filing is not available at this time. In addition, replies to comments or oppositions shall be served on the commenting or opposing party and shall include a certification that the commenter was served with a copy. All comments, oppositions, and replies must contain a detailed, full showing, supported by affidavit, of any facts or considerations relied on. The petition, comments, oppositions and replies will be available for public inspection in the 445 12th Street, S.W. The petition, public notice, and decision (when issued) can also be found at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/caption_exemptions.html. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY). This Public Notice can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro. Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Contact: Amelia Brown (202) 418-2799 (voice), (202) 4187804 (TTY); e-mail amelia.brown@fcc.gov or Traci Randolph (202) 418-0569 (voice), (202) 418-0537 (TTY); e-mail traci.randolph@fcc.gov. -FCC USA REGION 20 (DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARYLAND AND NORTHERN The Region 20 (District of Columbia, Maryland and Northern Virginia area)' 700 MHz Regional Planning Committee announces that the next meeting will be held on Monday, August 14, 2006, beginning at 10:00 a.m., in the lower level conference room at the Office of Traffic and Highway Maintenance, Maryland State Highway Administration, Hanover Complex, 7491 Connelley Drive, Hanover, Maryland. The agenda this meeting includes: 1. 700 MHz - Status and update 2. 700 MHz Region 20 Plan update, discussion and vote 3. Regional ID standardization plan for P25 systems - Tom Provenza 4. New Business 5. Adjourn The Region 20 700 MHz Public Safety Planning Committee meeting is open to the public. All eligible public safety providers in Region 20 whose sole purpose or principal purpose is to protect the safety of life, health, or property may utilize these frequencies. It is essential that not only public safety, but all government, Native American Tribal, and non-governmental organizations eligible under Section 90.523 of the Commission's Rules be represented in order to ensure that each agency's future spectrum needs are considered in the allocation process. The Region 20 area includes the District of Columbia, Maryland and Northern Virginia (Arlington, Fairfax, safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band within Region 20 should plan to attend. For further information, please contact: Office of Maintenance, Office of Traffic & Safety, State Operations Center 7491 Connelley Drive, Hanover, MD 21076 Take 95 south to 295 south to 195 east (towards BWI). Take the first right exit 170 south Follow 170 south and turn left onto 176 - Dorsey Road. Continue on Dorsey Rd. approximately 1/2 mile and turn right onto Connelley Dr. The complex is on your left. - FCC 1. The Audio Division issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order to Show Cause in response to a Petition for Rule Making filed by Dana J. Puopolo ("Puopolo").' The Notice and OSC proposed the allotment of FM Channel 240A at Americus, Kansas, and, in order to accommodate the use of Channel 240A at Americus, the Notice and OSC required C&C Consulting, Inc. ("C&C"), the licensee of Station KANS(FM), Channel 241A, Emporia, Kansas, to show cause why its KANS(FM) license should not be modified to specify operation on Channel 244A, in lieu of Channel 241A, at Emporia, Kansas.2 2. In his petition for rule making, Puopolo stated his intention to apply for Channel 240A at Americus. Consistent with Circleville, Ohio, Puopolo committed to compensate the licensee of KANS(FM) for the reasonable expenses necessary to move to Channel 244A from Channel 241A, should he become the permittee of Channel 240A at Americus. Puopolo filed comments supporting the allotment of Channel 240A at Americus and reaffirming his intention to apply for the channel if it is allotted and, if authorized, to build and operate a station on that channel. 3 1 Americus and Emporia, Kansas, Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order to Show Cause, 20 FCC Rcd 6265 (MB 2005) ("Notice and OSC"). 2 At the time that Puopolo filed his petition for rulemaking, Channel 241A was reserved for use by Station KRWVFM, Emporia, Kansas. The licensee, C&C, subsequently has constructed facilities and has been granted a license for the use of Channel 241A, Emporia, Kansas, by Station KANS(FM). 3 Circleville, Ohio, Second Report and Order, 8 FCC 2d 159 (1967). 3. C&C filed comments in opposition to the substitution of Channel 244A for Channel 241A at Emporia. C&C notes that, in 2001, Station KANS(FM) was required to change from Channel 258A to Channel 241A, and that modification was implemented in 2004. The license, C&C states, was granted on October 20, 2004, less than one year prior to the issuance of the Notice and OSC in this proceeding. C&C contends that in this situation, where the FM station recently has been forced to change channels involuntarily, a hearing should be held to determine whether a second channel change is in the public interest. C&C asserts that the proposed channel change would cause serious additional disruption to the operations of Station KANS(FM) and to KANS(FM)'s listeners. C&C argues that requiring a second channel change in such a short time period is an undue imposition upon C&C as an existing licensee. Finally, C&C states that Puopolo has no ability to consent to compensate KANS(FM) for the reasonable expenses of moving from Channel 241A to Channel 244A, because he cannot know whether he will be the ultimate permittee of Channel 240A at Americus. 4. We find that C&C has not raised a substantial and material question of fact to warrant a hearing on the proposed channel substitution. It is well-settled that the substitution of an existing station's channel serves the public interest where the substitution permits the provision of new or expanded service at another community. In Ava, Branson, and Mountain Grove, we considered and rejected the argument that a station should not be required to change channels again after a recent involuntary channel change, and, in that case, we denied the licensee's request for a hearing. C&C has not alleged any material facts in this proceeding that would justify a departure from our holding in Ava, Branson, and Mountain Grove. 5. We also reject C&C's contention that Puopolo's commitment to reimburse C&C for its reasonable costs of changing channels is inadequate. C&C cites several cases in support of its argument, but none of them is on point with the circumstances of this proceeding. Three of those cases involved requests for channel upgrades pursuant to Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's rules, and we held that the wording of Section 1.420(g) conveys the Commission's intent to restrict the rule's applicability to licensees and permittees. The fourth case turned on the Commission's holding that upgrades requested while applications are pending should not be allowed. None of those cases involved circumstances such as those presented here, where a new allotment would require a channel substitution at another 5 4 See Ava, Branson, and Mountain Grove, Missouri, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13,035 (MMB 1995) (“Ava, Branson, & Mountain Grove”), and cases cited therein. 5 See Santa Margarita and Guadalupe, California, Report and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 6930 (MMB 1987), aff'd, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 7887 (MMB 1989); Arlington, McKinney, Celina, Terrell, Daingerfield, College Station, Caldwell, and Howe, Texas, and Durant, Oklahoma, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 4281 (1993); and Mount Pleasant, Iowa, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 12,069 (MMB 1995). In Mount Pleasant, Iowa, we denied an upgrade request from a person who was not the permittee nor licensee of the existing FM station for which he proposed a channel upgrade, and we denied his petition for reconsideration because he was not a party in the earlier proceeding nor an authorized representative of the station for which he purported to work. 6 Lafayette, Louisiana, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 5073, 5075 (1989). |