Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Revival Christian Ministries, Inc.

Download Options

Released: February 28, 2014

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

February 28, 2014

DA 14-278

In Reply Refer to:
Released: February 28, 2014
Susan A. Marshall
Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C.
1300 North 17th Street
11th Floor
Arlington, VA 22209
Jeffrey D. Southmayd
Southmayd & Miller
4 Ocean Ridge Boulevard South
Palm Coast, FL 32137
Scott Woodworth
Edinger Associations PLLC
1875 I Street NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006
In re:

Revival Christian Ministries, Inc.

W283BW, New London, Connecticut
File No. BMPFT-20130528AAC
Facility ID No. 147684

Petition for Reconsideration

Dear Counsel:
Red Wolf Broadcasting Corporation (“Red Wolf”) challenges our grant of an application
(“Application”) filed by Revival Christian Ministries, Inc. (“Revival”) to modify the construction permit
for W283BW, New London, Connecticut (“Station”).1 Red Wolf alleges that the facilities authorized in
the Station’s modified construction permit will cause interference to the direct reception of one of Red
Wolf’s stations. For the reasons discussed below, we find Red Wolf lacks standing to challenge our grant
of the Application and dismiss its challenge to that grant.


We granted Revival a construction permit for the Station on May 2, 2013.2 Less
than a month later, Revival filed the Application, which sought authority to relocate the Station’s antenna
and increase the Station’s effective radiated power. We put this application on public notice on May 30,
2013,3 and granted it on July 2, 2013.4

1 Red Wolf filed a Petition for Reconsideration (“Petition”) challenging our grant of the May Application on August
7, 2013. Revival and Hall Communications, Inc. (“Hall”) filed a Joint Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration
(“Opposition”) on September 17, 2013. The Commission had authorized Revival to assign the Station’s license to
Hall. See File No. BAPFT-20130723ADO; Broadcast Actions Report No. 48069 (rel. Sept. 9, 2013). Red Wolf
filed a Reply (“Reply”) on September 27, 2013.
2 See Broadcast Actions, Report No. 47983, Public Notice (rel. May 7, 2013).
3 See Broadcast Applications, Report No. 27999, Public Notice (rel. May 30, 2013).

On August, 7, 2013, Red Wolf challenged our grant of the Application. Red Wolf claims that the
facilities authorized in the modified permit will cause interference to the direct reception of its station –
WMRQ-FM, Waterbury, Connecticut – in violation of Section 74.1204(f) of the Commission’s rules
(“Rules”).5 Red Wolf attaches statements from listeners of WMRQ-FM along with contour maps that
identify the locations of these listeners, and calculations of the undesired-to-desired signal strength ratios
(“U/D ratios”) at these locations with respect to the facilities authorized in the modified permit.6 Red
Wolf requests that we rescind our grant of the Application.
Revival and Hall opposed the Petition. They assert that, because the Station is on a second-
adjacent channel to WMRQ-FM, it is unlikely to cause interference.7 They also assert that it is unlikely
that the signal of WMRQ-FM actually is regularly received at the locations identified by Red Wolf.8 In
addition, they question the adequacy of the listener statements, noting that the statements are unsworn and
not in the form of a declaration or affidavit.9
In response, Red Wolf notes that, if constructed as authorized, the translator will operate at a
location a significant distance from WMRQ-FM’s tower.10 Given this, Red Wolf argues that second-
adjacent channel interference would not be unusual.11 Red Wolf includes statements from additional
listeners that it claims will experience interference from the facilities authorized in the permit along with
contour maps identifying the locations of these listeners and calculations of the U/D signal strength ratios
at these locations.12


The Commission will consider a petition for reconsideration only when the
petitioner shows either a material error in the Commission's original order, or raises additional facts, not
known or existing at the time of the petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters.13 A petitioner
who is not a party to the proceeding must state with particularity the manner in which its interests are
adversely affected by the action taken, and show good reason why it was not possible to participate in the
earlier stages of the proceeding.14 As discussed below, we find Red Wolf has not met this threshold

4 See Broadcast Actions, Report No. 48025, Public Notice (rel. July 8, 2013).
5 Petition at 1, citing 47 C.F.R. § 74.1204(f).
6 Red Wolf claims one listener will experience interference from the facilities authorized in the modified permit.
Petition at 1.
7 Opposition at 2.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Reply at 2.
11 Id.
12 Reply at 3.
13 See 47 C.F.R § 1.106(c), (d); see also WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964),
aff'd sub nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 967 (1966).
14 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(1).

Red Wolf itself acknowledges that it did not object to the Application prior to its grant. Red Wolf
explains that it did not do so because “it was still gathering information on the proposed operation of
W23BW when the permit was granted.”15 This, however, does not constitute a good reason for Red
Wolf’s failure to participate earlier. In addition, while the Commission has accorded standing to
petitioners for reconsideration who failed to file pre-grant objections when prompt staff action
“effectively precludes participation during the initial consideration of an application,”16 we will not award
Red Wolf such standing here. Red Wolf had more than 30 days to object to the Application but failed to
do so. Moreover, while Red Wolf asserts that we have consistently rescinded grants of FM translator
construction permits on Section 74.1204(f) grounds regardless of whether the full-power FM station
making the interference claim objected prior to grant, that is not the case.17


For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED, that the Petition for
Reconsideration filed by Red Wolf Broadcasting Corporation on August 7 2013, IS DISMISSED.
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau

15 Petition at 2 n.3.
16 See, e.g., Aspen FM, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17852, 17854 (1997) (standing awarded
to file petition for reconsideration without pre-grant objection when application granted five days after Public Notice
of its acceptance); Ted and Jana Tucker, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 2816 (1989) (standing to file
petition for reconsideration without pre-grant objection when application granted four days after Public Notice of its
17 See The Association for Community Education, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 12682 (2004)
(refusing to treat an untimely informal objection to an FM translator application on Section 74.1204(f) grounds as a
petition for reconsideration because the objector had failed to participate earlier and had not shown good reason for
its failure to participate). We note that the three cases Red Wolf cites to support its claim were unpublished and thus
lack any precedential value. See Petition at n.3, citing Jacobs Radio Programming, LLC, Letter, File Nos. BPFT-
20111219AAF and BLFT-20120208AEA (dated Mar. 7, 2012), Hope Christian Church of Marlton, Inc., Letter, File
No. BPFT-20110711AAP (dated June 8, 2012), Edgewater Broadcasting, Inc., Letter, File Nos. BPFT-
20091116ADB and BMPFT-20091229AER (dated Feb. 26, 2010). See also 47 C.F.R. § 0.445(e).

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.