Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Commission Upholds Assignment of WQYZ(FM) to Capstar TX

Download Options

Released: February 20, 2014

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-14

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

Golden Gulf Coast Broadcasting, Inc.,

File No. BALH-20031125ALX


Facility ID No. 24513

Capstar TX Limited Partnership,




Application for Assignment of License of
WQYZ(FM), Ocean Springs, Mississippi

Golden Gulf Coast Broadcasting, Inc.

File No. BRH-20040202AHI
Facility ID No. 24513
Application for Renewal of License of
WQYZ(FM), Ocean Springs, Mississippi


Adopted: February 20, 2014

Released: February 20, 2014

By the Commission:
The Commission has before it an Application for Review filed by WJZD, Inc. (“WJZD”).
WJZD seeks review of a March 12, 2007, action by the Media Bureau (“Bureau”) (“Reconsideration
”)1 dismissing WJZD’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Bureau’s May 26, 2005, grant of the
above-captioned applications (“Applications”) filed by Golden Gulf Coast Broadcasting, Inc. (“Golden”)
for assignment and renewal of the license for station WQYZ(FM), Ocean Springs, Mississippi.2 In the
Reconsideration Decision, the Bureau affirmed its prior finding that WJZD had failed to raise a
substantial or material question of fact whether Golden and the assignee, Capstar TX Limited Partnership
(“Capstar”), had engaged in an unauthorized transfer of control of station WQYZ(FM).3 The Bureau
found on reconsideration that it had applied the correct legal standard by looking beyond the contractual
terms of the parties’ local marketing agreement and examining which party had exercised actual
operational control over the personnel, programming, and finances of the station, concluding that Golden
had properly done so.
In the Staff Decision and Reconsideration Decision, the Bureau thoroughly addressed
each of WJZD’s factual allegations regarding de facto control, including the relocation of the station’s

1 Lawrence E. Steelman, Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 4866 (MB 2007).
2 WJZD, Inc., Letter, 20 FCC Rcd 9941 (MB 2005) (“Staff Decision”). To the extent that the Application for
Review purports to seek review of the Staff Decision, it is untimely and is hereby dismissed. See 47 C.F.R. §§
1.115(d), 1.4(b)(2); Application for Review at 1-2.
3 See 47 U.S.C. § 310(d).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-14

main studio, understaffing of its main studio, identity of its program director, its use of an unauthorized
studio transmitter link and ex parte rule violations. The Bureau held that these various allegations, taken
together with all the facts on record, did not raise a substantial and material question of fact such as would
require an evidentiary hearing.4 In so holding, the Bureau rejected WJZD’s contention that the Staff
was deficient because the Bureau did not distinguish the instant facts from those present in the
cases string-cited by WJZD in its Petition to Deny, noting that, applying the Commission’s appropriate
analysis regarding transfer of control allegations, WJZD had failed to demonstrate that Capstar had
ultimate control over WQYZ’s programming, finances or personnel. 5 We agree with the Bureau’s
analysis. 6
We also agree with the Bureau’s rejection of WJZD’s allegation that, WJZD having
raised the issue of whether Clear Channel Communications and its subsidiaries, including Capstar, have
the requisite character to become Commission licensees as a result of their alleged broadcast of indecent
material, Clear Channel violated the ex parte rules in subsequently negotiating a consent decree with the
Commission resolving those matters without allowing WJZD to be present.7 In rejecting that contention,
the Bureau noted that the communications at issue had been requested by the Commission for the purpose
of resolving settlement issues and therefore were exempt from the general prohibition on ex parte
Upon review of the Application for Review and the entire record, we conclude that
WJZD has not demonstrated that the Bureau erred. The Bureau, in the Reconsideration Decision,
properly decided the matters raised, and we uphold its decision for the reasons stated therein.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 5(c)(5) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,9 and Section 1.115(g) of the Commission’s rules,10 the
Application for Review IS DISMISSED for the reasons stated in note 2 above and IS otherwise DENIED.
Marlene H. Dortch


4 The Bureau did, however, propose a forfeiture, which Golden has paid, for Golden’s failure to maintain a
“meaningful presence” at the main studio, including managerial and staff level employees, in violation of 47 C.F.R.
§ 73.1125. The Bureau determined that, contrary to WJDZ’s contention, this violation did not establish that an
unauthorized transfer of control of the station had occurred. Reconsideration Decision, 22 FCC Rcd at 4870. We
agree with this conclusion.
5 Reconsideration Decision, 22 FCC Rcd at 4869.
6 WJZD failed to discuss the operative facts in any of those cases, much less demonstrate that the precedent
mandates designation for hearing here, falling far short of the requirement that it “specify, with particularity,” why
the Bureau’s grant of the applications was in conflict with that precedent. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(b)(2)(i).
7 Application for Review at 13-15.
8 Reconsideration Decision, 22 FCC Rcd at 4871 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.1204(a)(10)).
9 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5).
10 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(g).

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.


You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.