FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 23, Pages 6817 to 7015, November 9 - November 20, 1987 Page: 6,935
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
2 FCC Rcd Vol. 23
Federal Communications Commission Record
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
MM Docket No. 85-182
In re Applications of
File No. BPCT-850213KF
File No. BPCT-850215KL
File No. BPCT-850215KN
File No. BPCT-850215LA
File No. BPCT-850215LB
File No. BPCT-850215LG
File No. BPCT-805215LK
File No. BPCT-850215LL
File No. BPCT-850215LM
File No. BPCT-850215LN
For Construction Permit
Lauren A. Colby and Arthur V. Belendiuk on behalf of
Doylan Forney; Gene A. Betchel on behalf of Tolleson
Broadcasting Corporation: Thomas L. Root on behalf of
Tolleson-Gomez Communications, Inc.; Jerome S. Silber
on behalf of Alden Television, Inc.; Richard E. Wiley,
John C. Quale, Anne D. Neal and Diane Z. Goldman on
behalf of Hector Garcia Salvatierra, Limited Partnership;
William P. Bernton and M. Scott Johnson on behalf of
Aztec Broadcasting Corporation; William E. Zimsky and
Hugh P. Taylor on behalf of Estrella Communications.
Limited Partnership; James S. Kurz and Edward L. Hughes
on behalf of Maricopa Media, Incorporated; Robert B.
Jacobi, Mark L. Pelesh, and Robert Clifton Burns on behalf
of T.V. Broadcasters, Incorporated; James A. Gammon,
Mark W. Amerman, A. Wray Fitch, III, and Diane H.
Ming on behalf of LI-COM Limited Partnership; and Jerry
M. Hermele on behalf of the Chief, Mass Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission.
INITIAL DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE EDWARD LUTON
Issued: November 10, 1987; Released: November 18, 1987
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This proceeding involves ten competing applicants.l
All ten parties seek authority to construct a new television
broadcast station at Tolleson, Arizona. In a Hearing Designation
Order, released July 2, 1985, the issues for a
comparative hearing were designated as follows:
(a) To determine, with respect to Estrella Communications
Limited Partnership . . . whether the tower
height and location proposed would constitute a hazard
to air navigation.2
(b) To determine which of the proposals would. on
a comparative basis, best serve the public interest.
(c) To determine, in light of the evidence adduced
pursuant to the foregoing issues, which of the applications
should be granted.
In addition, the Order stated that the data submitted by
the applicants indicated that there would be differences in
the size of the areas and populations which would receive
service from the proposals. Accordingly, the Order indicated
that the areas and populations which would be
within the predicted 64 dBu (Grade B) contour, together
with the availability of other television service of Grade B
or greater intensity, would be considered under the standard
comparative issue for the purpose of determining
whether a comparative preference should accrue to any of
2. A prehearing conference was held on September 12,
1985. Hearing sessions were held on March 3 through
March 22, 1985. Hearing sessions were held on March 3
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 23, Pages 6817 to 7015, November 9 - November 20, 1987, book, November 1987; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1588/m1/136/: accessed October 17, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.