WPC" 2MB%R  Z3|a Times New RomanTimes New Roman Bold P6G;P]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^+2;II{r222IR&2&)IIIIIIIIII))RRRAjaaj[Rjj28j[jjRjaR[jjjj[2)2CI2AIAIA2II))I)rIIII28)IIjIIAFFO2&OC222&222222I2I)jAjAjAjAjA_aA[A[A[A[A2)2)2)2)jIjIjIjIjIjIjIjIjIjIjAjIjHjIjIjIRIjAjAjAaAaAaOaAj\[A[A[A[AjIjIjIjOjIjOjI2)2I222IgROOjI[)[;[2[2[)jIWjIjIjIjIja2a2a2R8R8R8RO[>[)[CjIjIjIjIjIjIjjO[A[A[AjI[2jIR8[2jI\&II11WggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN5XX5CI2AIIIII)/ooI,/ooIo,22AAI22XIIXo5XX5WxxRR2AI{,"aaaaooIoXUOIRXXI2KZIeK"i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>jaaj[Rjj28j[jjRjaR[jjjj[X%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\y.X80,-.X\  P6G;P2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&P2e=5,&e4  pG;&k(N1+,N\  P6G;P2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&P\0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&XxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\2  S(  @-  -@ %|xc Ԋ %|xc #&G\  Pu&P# v United States Court of Appeals ă  S( EFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUITă Q ,Argued November 6, 1998 Decided December 15, 1998 No. 981061  S(Leticia Jaramillo and Joseph Rey,  Sp(`Appellantsă v.  S (%fFederal Communications Commission,  S (Appelleeă  SX(Press Communications LLC,  S0(mIntervenoră Appeal of an Order of the [uFederal Communications Commission  Sh(Bruce A. Eisen argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellants.  S(  Gregory M. Christopher, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, argued the cause for  S( xappellee. With him on the brief were Christopher J. Wright, General Counsel, and Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate General Counsel.  S~(Harry F. Cole was on the brief for intervenor Press Communications LLC.  S0(Before: Wald, Williams and Henderson, Circuit Judges.  S(Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Williams.  S(  Williams, Circuit Judge: Leticia Jaramillo and Joseph Rey petition for review of a Federal  xCommunications Commission decision to authorize assignment of a radio license; we dismiss for lack of standing.   Press Broadcasting Company sought the FCC's permission to assign its license for station  xWTKS(FM), in Cocoa Beach, Florida, to Paxon Broadcasting of Orlando, L.P. The petitioners here filed  xa Petition to Deny, arguing that Press was not qualified to be a licensee because of alleged deception in  xfa decade-old transaction involving the acquisition of a completely different station, and that under the  SV$( xCommission's "Jefferson Radio" policy, see Jefferson Radio Co. v. FCC, 340 F.2d 781 (D.C. Cir. 1964),  xthe assignment must be held up until the Commission had resolved that claim. The FCC's Audio Services  xDivision dismissed the petition on the merits and granted Press's application to transfer. The Commission denied review. 13 F.C.C.R. 1026 (1998). "'0*0*0*$"Ԍ  vPetitioners, of course, bear the burden of establishing the three elements of constitutional standing  S( xin this court: injury in fact, causation, and redressability. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 56061 (1992). They claim to have done so in two ways: as listeners and as competitors.   The only assertions of fact on which petitioners base their claim to listener standing is that they  xBare "residents of Orlando, Florida" and "listeners of WTKS(FM)." (Orlando is near Cocoa Beach.) But  x8they have identified no serious causal link between FCC scrutiny of the conduct of a licensee who seeks  S( x`to depart from operation of a station and any possible material impairment of their hopes or expectations as listeners.   vWe assume arguendo that petitioners may have suffered a cognizable injury from being within the  x listening range of a radio station held by a licensee that acquired the station in violation of the FCC's  xstandards of candor. But past injury is not enough to support the standing of a party who doesn't seek  S ( xpdamages or similar compensation for that injury. See Branton v. FCC, 993 F.2d 906, 909 (D.C. Cir.  x1993). If a petitioner cannot obtain compensation to himself for a past injury, he has failed to show its  S (redressability. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 118 S. Ct. 1003, 101819 (1998).   Nor could there be any direct future injury, for the out-come"transfer of the license to  xVanother"is exactly the same as would eventuate if the Commission held up the assignment, found Press  xnot qualified, and took away its license. The case is thus completely different from prior decisions of this  xcourt where we found listener standing to object to Commission decisions that would create or extend  S( xsome arguably program-impairing circumstance, such as a duopoly, see Llerandi v. FCC, 863 F.2d 79,  S( x85 (D.C. Cir. 1988), or a renewal of a license for a firm guilty of broadcast policy violations, see Office  St( x\of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 359 F.2d 994 (D.C. Cir. 1966) (Fairness Doctrine challenge).   Here no such continuation is contemplated. What is at issue is simply an asserted  xunderenforcement of the Jefferson Radio policy, a policy intended to "enhanc[e] the deterrent effect of  S( xNwhatever substantive provision supports the attack on the incumbent licensee." Coalition for the  S( xPreservation of Hispanic Broad. v. FCC, 931 F.2d 73, 80 (D.C. Cir. 1991). The only adverse impact on  Sb( xlisteners of any such underenforcement would be a marginal reduction in the in terrorem effect of the  xpolicy on licensees, leading to some marginal increase in violations of FCC requirements. But just as in  S( xBranton whatever marginal weakening of the deterrent effect of a statute limiting indecent broadcasting  xmight flow from a specific non-enforcement of that statute was not "immediate" enough to meet Article  xIII standards, 993 F.2d at 90910, so too is the impact of a mistaken failure to catch a Jefferson Radio  S( x:violation. We note that if such a weak and indirect effect were enough, listeners anywhere could  Sx(challenge any underenforcement of the policy.   <We doubt that petitioners' alternative theory"competitor standing"is properly before us.  xAssuming that a footnote in petitioners' reply brief sufficiently raises such a theory, however, we reject  xit on the merits. Petitioners appear to argue that their ownership of a television station in the Orlando area  S"( xfmakes them competitors to WTKS(FM). Even assuming in petitioners' favor that competition with a  xviolator of FCC rules is more burdensome than competition with a true-blue follower, the effect of the  xzFCC decision here is to bring about the complete cessation of that competition the moment that Press  xRceases to be the licensee. Thus, petitioners as competitors are left with irremediable past injury from  xallegedly illegal competition and future deterrence of such competition; both are as deficient as their equivalents for listener standing. "'0*((@@$"Ԍ  NAt bottom petitioners appear to seek the simple satisfaction of seeing the laws enforced"perhaps  xpbecause years of litigation with Press have made them see their relation with it as a zero-sum game in which every blow to Press is a boon for petitioners. This is not the accepted reading of Article III. We dismiss the petition.  S(`(#/So ordered.