WPCt 2 B-J Z >urierCourierTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldX@HP LaserJet 4Si (Additional)HPLA4SAD.PRSx  @\ NX@26FHS3|x>CourierTimes New Roman^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDddddddFx6X@`7X@7jC:,+Xj\  P6G;XP@ND,,ʼ4  pG;y.\80, {\4  pG;d|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4M (PCL)HPLA4MPC.PRSx  @\ ChX@2 vD p k* k a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2[ 2 v tM  a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 28  0  a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2 j)a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2#Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 21a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2 Q3 a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNFx6X@`7X@7jC:,+Xj\  P6G;XP@ND,,ʼ4  pG;y.\80, {\4  pG;a$G,',YG\  P6G;Pa$I,',iI4  pG;W!@(#,9h@\  P6G;hP      x     hHWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNp00x000x0MMPx"00p0<?xxx,>Fx6X@`7X@7jC:,+Xj\  P6G;XP@ND,,ʼ4  pG;y.\80, {\4  pG;a$G,',YG\  P6G;Pa$I,',iI4  pG;W!@(#,9h@\  P6G;hP 7nC:,Xn4  pG;X!#mt,Xհ\  P6G;P #mt,4  pG;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNx00x((0x0MMPx"00p0",^tP8hhpppp     `     x  pppp8p Phhp     `pppp                           p pp     ` p      x     hHWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNp00x000x0MMPx"00p022O tb= tA^JF tJ",^tPhhpx   888x 88     pppP Xhhp       pppp 8888       48          (8888888pD8pp    88               $hlWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNx00x((0x0MMPx"00p0",^@p`@@@@0@@@@@@@@p```p0@`p@`@`@`@`@``````@@@@@@@@@@@`@@@@@@`@`@````@````@@@@@@@0@@@@@@@@000Pp@@@@@@@@```@@0@  W000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN  p````````  _     ` "``  `  <?xxx,>Fx6X@`7X@7jC:,+Xj\  P6G;XP@ND,,ʼ4  pG;y.\80, {\4  pG;a$G,',YG\  P6G;Pa$I,',iI4  pG;W!@(#,9h@\  P6G;hP 7nC:,Xn4  pG;X!#mt,Xհ\  P6G;P "#mt,4  pG;F ,(` \  P6G;` P #F ,^` 4  pG;` P,P\  P6G;P",^ @@@pp0p@pp@@@ @@```0@`@@@@@@@ @@`````((((@pppp@@@@@@@hp@@@@@@`@`@@`@P````ppppppp0000ph@@@@@pp@@`@`@`000@@@@@@ @@```@@0@H  W000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN  ``PP`   _      "``  `  24a tdO tStLXt\",^   @                  `                `    @` `                                   `    ` `        ```              ````      `   `     W````````````````````````````````````````````````xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN@@            @$$@   @@@@55@  @@"    @@ @`  @ ",^   @@                    `   @         @ `    `@ @                @    PPPP             @       @ ``` `@@        0```@ 0   @@     `     W````````````````````````````````````````````````xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN@@P                 @$$@  @@@@@55@   @@"    @@ @`  @ ",^WfxfffNfNTTTfrfTfffTTTfrT<fNfffNffffffffTfTfTfTfTfTffffTxffTfffrrr~TfrfNd6dWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNllf T`Z`Zff,gg,&,l,l,f,Z",,,&,",^Wf,fffNfNTffr,fTfffTfTrfxBxfNfffNfffffffT,oToToToTrTrrfrTfxT)rrrf,frfNdQdWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNllf ZfZfZff,gg,,,l,l,f,Z",,,&,2@ntfate3`",^\XXX88PXXXXXXXXXXPPP````` `````h``P(XXXXXPPXPXXXXPXX`XX@@8(8XP`````  PPPP`X`X`X`X`X`X`X`X`X`X``X`L`X`X`XX`````X`X`X``X``XPXXH`XPP`X`X`X`X`X `P(`X`X`X`X`X`Xh```X`X`X8XXWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(XXXXXXPXhXhXXXXh"PXXX",^,,,P,,,,,,,,,,PPP(tPtPPt4t,,,,,,,,,,,,,, x DD,tttt,,,,,,,,,,,&,,,P,Dztttt,,,D,D,,,PDD,ttttt,b,,,,PPPPDttt,,,,,,4Dttt,t,Pt,z,,lWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNhh,,,,,@,,,,XhX,,LoXXhhcPPX,X"(XX,Xh\D,PLhhX,lp4  pG;'RdW, !\  P6G;P(RdW,L4  pG;_F ,` \  P6G;` P`F ,^` 4  pG;` nP,P\  P6G;Pmp,Lp4  pG;|iG|\,#|\  P6G;P}iG\,4  pG;>,>\  P6G;PJ,tJ4  pG;???<r2brnNjt<?xxx,>Fx6X@`7X@7jC:,+Xj\  P6G;XP@ND,,ʼ4  pG;y.\80, {\4  pG;a$G,',YG\  P6G;Pa$I,',iI4  pG;W!@(#,9h@\  P6G;hP 7nC:,Xn4  pG;X!#mt,Xհ\  P6G;P "#mt,4  pG;&F ,(` \  P6G;` P  #F ,^` 4  pG;` %P,P\  P6G;P $p,lp4  pG;'RdW, !\  P6G;P(RdW,L4  pG;)iG|\,|\  P6G;P*>,>\  P6G;PyAiO]Auu稨gggYYYywO騨ygggOY a<   8 #Xj\  P6G;+XP# #x6X@`7>FX@##4  pG;,ʼ#FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  a <:#4  pG;,ʼ#WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554#\4  pG; {#у  aEx` `  hh@hpp  #G\  P6G;YP#  X-1#Xj\  P6G;+XP#May 21, 1996#G\  P6G;YP#у  aEIx` `  hh@hpp  IN REPLY REFER TO:#I4  pG;i#  aEx` `  hh@hpp   #G\  P6G;YP# 1800B2AJS#I4  pG;i#  X-#o\  PC+XP#Dallas M. Tarkenton c/o Jerrold Miller, Esq. Miller and Miller P. O. Box 33003 Washington, D.C. 20033 SFR Group, Inc. c/o Cary S. Tepper, Esq. Booth, Freret, & Imlay, 1233 20th Street, N. W. Suite 204 Washington, D.C. 20036  X-x` `  hh@In re:hStation KIXK (FM) x` `  hh@hCanton, South Dakota x` `  hh@hpp x` `  hh@hReinstatement of  X%-x` `  hh@hConstruction Permit x` `  hh@hFile No. BPH930929JE x` `  hh@hModification of x` `  hh@hConstruction Permit x` `  hh@hFile No. BMPH930514IH x` `  hh@hPetition for Reconsideration Gentlemen:   xThis concerns the referenced applications filed by Dallas Tarkenton ("Tarkenton") to reinstate and modify the construction permit for Station KIXK(FM), Canton, South Dakota. By letter dated September 22, 1995, the Chief of the Audio Services Division granted the subject applications and denied the informal objection of XMT Group, Inc. On October 18, 1995, SFR Group, Inc. ("SFR"), the successor of XMT Group, Inc., filed a petition for  X!-reconsideration of the grants._! XE$-#Xj\  P6G;+XP#э XMT Group, Inc. was precluded from filing a petition to deny against Tarkenton's minor change application because petitions to deny may not be filed against such applications. 47 U.S.C.  309(c)(2)(A)and 309(d)(1). However, since XMT Group, Inc. participated to the extent possible, and because SFR, the successor in interest to XMT Group, Inc., is the licensee of an existing KIXK competitor, SFR has standing to file its petition for  X(-reconsideration. See Robert Lewis Thompson, Esq., Counsel for Cloud Nine Broadcasting,  X)-Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 11555 (1965). Tarkenton opposes the request for reconsideration. "!*** "ԌxA petition for reconsideration must be based upon newly discovered evidence or upon  X-errors of fact or law in the action for which reconsideration is sought.  See 47 C.F.R.  1.106((c) and (d). It is firmly established that reconsideration need not be granted merely to  X-permit a party to reargue matters previously considered and resolved. See WWIZ, Inc., 37  X-FCC 685, 686 (1964), aff'd sub nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir.  X-1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 967 (1966). xSFR argues that under existing policy the Commission must take a hard look at all requests for extensions of time to construct or to replace expired construction permits. SFR contends that the staff did not do so in the instant case and that as a result, the staff's action was arbitrary and capricious, not supported by the facts in the record, and inconsistent with established policy. SFR further contends that Tarkenton misled the Commission concerning whether he had acted diligently in his efforts to construct KIXK, that Tarkenton failed to act diligently in finding a new transmitter site, and that Tarkenton's failure to act diligently in constructing KIXK suggests that Tarkenton's real objective was to warehouse spectrum and not initiate new service. However, SFR has offered no facts or evidence of any intent by Tarkenton to mislead the Commission, that Tarkenton failed to act diligently, or that Tarkenton had an intent to warehouse spectrum instead of initiating new service. Based on SFR's unsubstantiated, conclusory arguments, and on our analysis of the overall record in this case, we determine that reconsideration is not warranted.  X-x Background . On September 5, 1991 Tarkenton filed an application to upgrade KIXK from a Class A to a Class C2 facility (BMPH910905IN). During the time that application was pending, Tarkenton filed two amendments and an application for extension of time to construct. The second amendment, filed August 10, 1992, sought authority to construct the KIXK radio tower on property owned by Dwayne Pederson. On March 1, 1993, the Commission granted the upgrade application, as amended, and the extension request, with construction to be completed by September 22, 1993. On May 14, 1993, during the period of authorized construction, Tarkenton filed the referenced application to specify yet another transmitter site and on September 29, 1993, filed an application to reinstate the expired permit. Because of questions raised by Tarkenton's proposed move to a different site, the Division Chief sought additional information from Tarkenton (Letter from Larry D. Eads, Chief Audio Services Division, to Jerrold Miller, Esq., dated May 25, 1995). Tarkenton responded by letter dated June 16, 1995, wherein he explained that although he had an option to lease the Pederson property, Pederson had withdrawn his offer in February, 1993, in the face of local opposition to use of the site for a radio tower. At that point, Tarkenton elected to find a new site instead of engaging in a lengthy legal battle to enforce his right to lease the Pederson property. Tarkenton immediately had an engineering study done to find a new site. By May, 1993, a new site had been secured and the referenced application seeking approval to use this site had been filed with the Commission. Based on Tarkenton's explanation of the circumstances surrounding the need for a new site, the Chief of the Audio Services Division granted the requested modification and reinstated the permit on September 22, 1995. SFR's petition for reconsideration followed.  X (- " (*))&"Ԍ X-xDiscussion . The above facts demonstrate that the staff's decision was supported by the facts in the record and was consistent with established policy. After close scrutiny, it was determined that Tarkenton had made the showing required by Section 73.3534(e) of the  X-Commission's rules, i.e., that he had not completed construction because the landowner's (Pederson) decision to withdraw his offer to lease was beyond Tarkenton's control and that Tarkenton took immediate steps to resolve his problems as soon as the offer to sell was withdrawn by seeking and obtaining a new site, by filing the requisite modification with the Commission, and by obtaining Commission approval to construct his transmitter tower at this  XH-new site.^ HI X -#Xj\  P6G;+XP#э Until a decision is made by the local zoning authority, that a specified site cannot be used for construction of a transmitter tower, it is reasonable for an applicant to assume that  X -the site will be available for its intended purpose. Gainesville Media, Inc., 37 RR 2d 178 (Rev. Bd. 1976). SFR provided no evidence that potential opponents would prevail in any ensuing zoning hearing or that the local zoning authority would likely deny use of the Pederson site. Instead, SFR merely demonstrated that the proposal would likely have been opposed by local residents whose views would have been considered by the local zoning  X -authority. Cf. Artichoke Broadcasting Corporation, 10 FCC Rcd 12631, 12634 (1995). Thus, even though Pederson withdrew his option to lease to avoid a possible zoning battle with his neighbors, there was no indication that the local zoning authority would have denied a formal request to use the Pederson property for constructing a transmitter tower.^ The one case cited by SFR in support of its contention, Michael C. Gelfand, M.D.,  X1-64 RR 2d 403 (MMB 1987), is inapposite. In that case the assignee took no steps to verify the availability of the site until one month before the permit was to expire. In contrast, Tarkenton had personally contacted the landowner (Pederson) before filing his August 10, 1992 amendment, obtained a signed option to lease from Pederson prior to filing the amendment and, upon learning that Pederson would not allow use of his land for the KIXK tower, subsequently completed all steps necessary to obtain a new site expeditiously and prior to the expiration of his construction permit. SFR has not demonstrated that our action in granting Tarkenton's applications for a replacement construction permit and to specify a new transmitter site was inconsistent with established policy, or otherwise warrants  Xb-reconsideration.( b I X-#Xj\  P6G;+XP#э SFR's contention, that Tarkenton has a history of warehousing spectrum, is unsubstantiated by the record. SFR merely provides a broad litany of dates associated with the construction of two other permits held by Tarkenton and leaves it to the Commission to conclude that this constitutes sufficient proof that Tarkenton has a history of warehousing spectrum. Based on this "history of warehousing" SFR urges that the Division's action granting the instant replacement and minor modifications applications should be reversed and the applications denied. However, SFR has provided no analysis of the underlying reasons why construction may have been delayed in those cases or whether Tarkenton was unable to complete construction because of acceptable circumstances. We also note that Tarkenton has completed construction of KIXK, has filed an application for license to cover (BLH960311KE), and has been operating under automatic program test authority since February 1, 1996. ( "bG*))"ԌxIn sum, Tarkenton has failed to demonstrate any errors of law or fact in our decision denying its informal objection, and has not otherwise demonstrated under 47 C.F.R. 1.106 that reconsideration is warranted. Accordingly, the petition for reconsideration filed by SFR Group, Inc. on October 18, 1995, IS DENIED. x` `  hh@hSincerely, x` `  hh@hLinda Blair, Chief x` `  hh@hAudio Services Division x` `  hh@hMass Media Bureau