FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 1, Pages 1 to 409, January 5 - January 16, 1987 Page: 44
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Communications Commission Record
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In re Applications of
ONE RADIO, INC.
LEE OPTICAL Released: January 8, 1987
By the Commission:
1. This proceeding involves mutually exclusive applications
for a new FM station in either Glendale or Peoria,
Arizona. In a Decision, FCC 86R-16, 103 FCC 2d 550,
released March 26, 1986, the Board granted the application
of Newmountain Broadcasting Corporation
(Newmountain). Now before the Commission are: (a) an
Application for Review, filed April 21, 1986, by Arizona
Number One Radio, Inc. (Arizona Radio); (b) an Application
for Review, filed April 24, 1986, by Diane M.
Greenlee (Greenlee); (c) Applications for Review, filed
April 25, 1986, by Interstate Broadcasting System of Arizona,
Inc. (Interstate), Compadres Communications Corp.
(Compadres), and Lee Optical and Associated Companies
Retirement and Pension Fund Trust (Lee Optical); (d) a
Supplement to Application for Review, filed June 9,
1986, by Lee Optical; (e) Motion for Leave to File Response
and Response, filed June 26, 1986, by Compadres;
(f) Consolidated Oppositions, filed on May 16, 1986, by
Compadres, Greenlee, and Lee Optical; (g) an Opposition
to Arizona Radio's Application for Review, filed May 14,
1986, by Newmountain; (h) an Opposition to Compadres'
Application for Review, filed May 14, 1986, by
Newmountain; (i) an Opposition to Greenlee's Application
for Review, filed May 14, 1986, by Newmountain; (j)
an Opposition to Lee Optical's Application for Review,
filed May 14, 1986, by Newmountain; (k) an Opposition
to Interstate's Application for Review, filed May 14, 1986,
by Newmountain; (1) Notification Pursuant to Section
1.65, filed July 1, 1986, by Arizona Radio; 2 and (m)
Comments on Notification Pursuant to Section 1.65, filed
July 22, 1986, by Compadres.
2. Having examined the contentions of the parties, we
agree with the Board's result in this case). Like the Board,
we find that, pursuant to the Huntington 3 doctrine, none
of the applicants is entitled to a dispositive Section 307(b)
preference. Under Huntington no Section 307(b) preference
is warranted where an applicant specifies as its
proposed community of license a suburban community
that is integrally part of a large metropolitan area and
seeks sufficient power to cover the larger area. We have
recently reaffirmed the continued viability of Huntington
doctrine. See Debra D. Carrigan , 100 FCC 2d 721 (Rev.
Bd. 1985), review denied, FCC 86-317, released July 14,
1986, appeal pending, Las Vegas Electronics, Inc. v. FCC,
Case No. 86-1451 (Aug. 12, 1986).
3. This is a classic Huntington case. The available frequency
is a high-powered Class C FM channel expressly
intended for regional rather than purely local use. 4 Both
Peoria and Glendale are situated within the Phoenix
urbanized area, and the Peoria applicant as well as most
of the Glendale applicants would place a city grade signal
over the entire Phoenix metropolitan area. Notwithstanding
Lee Optical's contention, the record establishes that
Glendale and Peoria are integral parts of the Phoenix
metropolitan area for Section 307(b) purposes. Peoria is
adjacent to Glendale and borders Sun City on the west.
(Newmountain Ex. 1, p. 2). It shares the services of 57
social welfare agencies with the Phoenix metropolitan
area. (Newmountain Ex. 1, p. 6-7), and does not have a
separate school system, s or hospital. 6 While the city of
Peoria provides some limited sewage and water services to
its residents, it does not provide its own electric, natural
gas or telephone service, 7 and it shares a waste water
treatment plant with Tolleson and a sewage trunk line
with Glendale.8 Peoria has no financial institutions, no
separate train or bus service, 9 and no separate zip code,
telephone book. electoral precinct or legislative districts.
4. Finally, Lee Optical's reliance upon ArchillaMarcocci
Spanish Radio Co., 101 FCC 2d 522 (Rev. Bd.
1985), review denied, FCC 86-271, released May 30, 1986,
and Public Service Broadcasting of West Jordan Inc., 97
FCC 2d 960 (Rev. Bd. 1984), review granted, FCC 86-105,
released March 8, 1986, is misplaced because neither case
involved a Huntington question. " In Archilla-Marcocci
the specified channel was not a "regional" frequency
intended for wide area use, and the applicants proposed
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
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. 1, Pages 1 to 409, January 5 - January 16, 1987, book, January 1987; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1597/m1/51/: accessed February 25, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.