WPC 2BVTZ 3|P)?xxxXUXx6X@DQX@HP LaserJet 4/4MCL) (ADD) RM 565-AHPLAS4.WRSSx  @,,h!tX@2@ ZP@3|PHP LaserJet 4/4MCL) (ADD) RM 565-AHPLAS4.WRSSC\  P6Q,,h!tP"5@^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSS I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)23@@) @i Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)"5@^*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW*7777CE7S]xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxJxJxJoJoJoJSSSS]]C]A]A7A]S]o.oEx]x]SxxJxJ]A]AN:*ZS7SSSSSS27}}S2}}S}277SSS77SS7S72t7[[[[_ee*C`_.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW7SSSS7]777SS:S7A7xx*7SSSS%S7}2S_7}SC[227`Z*727S}}}SxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf]SSSSSSxJJJJJ....S]SSSSS[S]]]]S]"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCdddddda community is insufficient for allotment purposes but sufficient for application processing  xkpurposes. In this regard, Rogers claims that the Commission has made allotments where no  xtransmitter site was available from which the predicted city grade contour would reach the entire  X7- x?community of license, citing Oak Beach and Bay Shore, N.Y. (Bay Shore), 57 RR 2d 1275  X - x(Policy and Rules Div. 1985) and Woodstock and Broadway, Virginia, (Woodstock), 2 FCC Rcd  xL7064, 7065 n.2 (Policy and Rules Div. 1987). Third, Rogers contends that he should be allowed to use terrain factors to enhance the predicted propagation of his 70 dBu signal.   x4. WLBI/WBAM filed an Opposition to Rogers' Petition for Reconsideration in which  X!- xthey disagree with each of Rogers' contentions. They argue, inter alia, that Rogers' Florence  xcounterproposal should be rejected because it would not provide 70 dBu coverage to the entire"",-(-(ZZ!"  xzcommunity of Florence and would thus violate Section 73.315(a) of the Commission's Rules.  xWLBI/WBAM also note that the licensee of Station WZLQ(FM), SanDow, filed an application  xzfor replacement of an expired construction permit on November 21, 1995, which is more than  x30 days after the expiration date of the authorization and in violation of Section 73.3534(e) of  x=the Commission's Rules. WLBI/WBAM argue that the Commission should not reconsider the  xexpiration of the WZLQ(FM) authorization and grant Rogers' Florence counterproposal if doing  Xv- x[so would alter WLBI's authorization to operate on Channel 254C1 as ordered in the Report and  X_- xOrder. WLBI/WBAM contend that the grant of authority to WLBI to operate on Channel 254C1,  xjin part because of the expiration of the WZLQ(FM) authorization, is a perfect illustration of the  xCommission's concern with providing expeditious service to the public and therefore should not be rescinded.   x5. After having reviewed all the facts, circumstances, and arguments raised by the parties,  X - x we have decided to affirm the Report and Order in this proceeding in all respects. First, we  xconcur that Rogers' counterproposal does not provide 70 dBu coverage to Florence as required  xby Section 73.315(a) of the Rules and that Rogers has failed to present any compelling reason  xfor waiving that coverage rule. It is standard Commission practice to deny waivers of Section  Xy- x73.315(a) of the Rules at the allotment stage. See Greenwood, Seneca, Aiken and Clemson, South  Xb- xCarolina, and Biltmore Forest, North Carolina (Greenwood), 3 FCC Rcd 4108 (1988). In  XK- x.Greenwood, the Commission explained that it is only at the application stage that it has before  xKit the information necessary to make informed judgments regarding requests for waiver of the city  X- xgrade coverage requirement.pM6 yO-#C\  P6QP#эxGreenwood at 4109.p Further, as WLBI/WBAM observes, the Greenwood case states:  X- x"The Commission generally cannot, in the course of rulemaking proceedings, evaluate the actual  X- xtransmitter sites that will be specified in applications not yet filed."bXM6 yO-#C\  P6QP#эxId. b We note that in Bay Shore,  X- xsupra, the Commission waived the city grade coverage requirement in the rule making context  xjbecause the evidence in that case showed that there was only one site from which to operate a  xstation serving the affected community and thus no reason to limit consideration of a Section  X- x 73.315(a) waiver to the application stage.M6 yO,-  >#C\  P6QP#эxFurther, we note that in Woodstock, supra, 2 FCC Rcd 7064, 7065 n. 2, the Commission explained that,  yO- xin recent years, the only situation other than Bay Shore where a waiver was granted was in Docket 84231,  yO- xMemorandum Opinion and Order, 59 RR 2d 679 (1985). There, the Commission granted waiver of its city grade  xrequirements due to the uniqueness of the proceeding and noted that it was waiving those requirements "for that proceeding only."  No similar facts are presented here. Second, we  x?observe that the Commission's rationale for not permitting the petitioner in a rulemaking  xxproceeding for an allotment for a new station to use terrain enhancement to demonstrate coverage  XN- x>of the city of license is the lack of certainty as to the eventual transmitter site location. See  X7- x\Woodstock and Broadway, Virginia, 3 FCC Rcd 6398 (1988). Therefore, we affirm the staff's  xLruling that Rogers cannot use terrain enhancement to demonstrate coverage of Florence at the allotment stage. " ,-(-(ZZ["Ԍ  ԙx6. Third, even if the licensee of Station WZLQ(FM) had filed a timely request to  xreinstate the expired construction permit, the Commission would not be under any obligation to  x<withhold action in this proceeding until it determines whether to reinstate the construction permit  xin question and the facilities authorized under that permit are built and licensed.  xCounterproposals are required to be "technically correct and substantially complete" at the time  X- xthey are filed. See, e.g., Fort Bragg, California, 6 FCC Rcd 5817 (Allocations Br. 1991),  Xv- x.Provincetown, Dennis, Dennis Port, West Yarmouth and Harwich Port, Massachusetts, 8 FCC  X_- x>Rcd 19 (Policy and Rules Div. 1992), and Sanford and Robbins, North Carolina, 12 FCC Rcd  x1 (Allocations Br. 1997). Clearly, Rogers' counterproposal was not technically correct and  x.substantially complete at the time it was filed, because it was shortspaced to the licensed site  xof Station WZLQ(FM). Further, proposals and counterproposals are supposed to be capable of  xbeing effectuated at the time they are granted and cannot be contingent upon future actions by  xkthird parties. In this regard, since some authorized facilities are never built and licensed, we  x<cannot assume that such facilities are in existence for the purpose of resolving related rulemaking  X - xmatters. See, e.g.,  Cut and Shoot, Texas, 11 FCC Rcd 16383 (Policy and Rules Div. 1996).  xFinally, we observe that even if Station WZLQ(FM)'s expired construction permit were reinstated  xand the facilities authorized by that permit were built and licensed at the time Rogers filed his  xcounterproposal, we would still deny Rogers' counterproposal because it fails to comply with  Xb- xSection 73.315(a) of our Rules. See, e.g., Terrell and Daingerfield, Texas, 5 FCC Rcd 556 (1990).  X-  x7. Motion for a Waiver of Automatic Stay. At the time Rogers filed his petition for  xreconsideration, Section 1.420(f) of the Commission's Rules stated that the filing of a petition for  xireconsideration of an order modifying an authorization to specify operation on a different channel  xautomatically stayed the effect of a change in the rules pending action on the petition.  xyWLBI/WBAM correctly assumed that this rule would stay the effect of an upgrade for Warrior  xon Channel 254C1 and a downgrade to Channel 255C1 for Montgomery. Therefore,  xWLBI/WBAM filed a Motion for a Waiver of Automatic Stay on February 15, 1996, in which  xthey ask the Commission to remove the automatic stay and enable them to file their Form 301  Xe- xapplications for the Class C1 channels. On August 8, 1996, the Commission released a Report  XN- xand Order in MM Docket No. 95110j NM6 yO-#C\  P6QP#э 11 FCC Rcd 9501 (1996). j deleting the portion of former Section 1.420(f) of the  xCommission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.429(f), that provides for the automatic stay in question.  X - xjFurther, that Report and Order states that the Commission would apply this procedural change  xyto pending proceedings, thereby lifting automatic stays in effect pursuant to the former rule on  x=the date the procedural change takes effect. Since this procedural change is now in effect, the  x[automatic stay imposed in this proceeding pursuant to former Section 1.420(f) of the Rules has  xbeen lifted. Accordingly, the referenced Motion for a Waiver of Automatic Stay is dismissed as moot.   x8. In view of the above, IT IS ORDERED, That the Petition for Reconsideration filed  xby William P. Rogers IS DENIED and the Motion for a Waiver of Automatic Stay filed by North"h$X ,-(-(ZZF#"  xJefferson Broadcasting Company, Inc. and Deep South Broadcasting Company, Inc. IS DISMISSED as moot. x9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED.   "x10. For further information concerning the above, contact R. Barthen Gorman, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 4182180. puxuu;FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION xuu;Douglas W. Webbink xuu;Chief, Policy and Rules Division xuu;Mass Media Bureau