******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In re Application of ) ) KIN SHAW WONG ) File No. BMP-860718AB ) File No. BMP-880113AH For Extension and Modification ) of Construction Permit for Unbuilt Station) KPTO(AM), Citrus Heights, California) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: May 20, 1997 Released: May 23, 1997 By the Commission: 1. The Commission has under consideration the petition for reconsideration filed on October 25, 1996 by Kin Shaw Wong ("Wong"). Wong seeks reconsideration of the Commission's action denying his application for review of a decision by the Chief, Audio Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, denying his petition for reconsideration of: (1) the denial of an application for extension of construction permit for unbuilt station KPTO(AM), Citrus Heights, California, and cancellation of the construction permit; (2) dismissal of an application, as amended, to modify the KPTO(AM) facilities; (3) dismissal of an application to assign the unbuilt station to Rene de la Rosa ("de la Rosa"). See Kin Shaw Wong, 11 FCC Rcd 11,928 (1996) ("Memorandum Opinion and Order"). The petition for reconsideration is unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for reconsideration. 2. Wong argues that in denying his application for review, the Commission: (1) failed to consider the significance of minority ownership as it related both to Wong's extension of permit application and his proposal to assign KPTO(AM)'s construction permit to de la Rosa; (2) failed to consider an application for authorization to assign KPTO(AM) from Wong to de la Rosa filed on September 19, 1995; and (3) engaged in post hoc rationalization in holding that the relevant time period for evaluation of Wong's extension of construction permit application was the most recent authorized construction period and as a result erroneously denied Wong's extension of permit application. Accordingly, Wong requests that the Commission reinstate the KPTO(AM) construction permit and approve Wong's previously dismissed modification application. 3. Wong has no basis for reconsideration. To the extent that Wong merely repeats arguments concerning the importance of minority ownership as it related both to his extension of permit application and his proposal to assign KPTO(AM) to de la Rosa and concerning the merits of his construction permit extension request, his petition for reconsideration is repetitious and subject to summary dismissal. Sections 1.106(b)(2) and 1.115(g) of the Commission's rules provide that the Commission will entertain a petition for reconsideration of an order denying an application for review only if the petition relies on newly discovered facts or changed circumstances. 4. The only changed circumstance Wong presents is the filing of a September 19, 1995 assignment application. The Bureau initially cancelled Wong's construction permit for KPTO(AM) and dismissed an application to assign the permit to de la Rosa on May 29, 1992. The Bureau subsequently denied Wong's petition for reconsideration of the cancellation of the permit and Wong filed the September 19, 1995 assignment application following the Bureau's denial of his petition for reconsideration. Although the Commission was not aware that Wong had filed the 1995 assignment application when Wong's application for review was denied, we noted in the Memorandum Opinion and Order that because the new agreement by and between Wong and de la Rosa occurred after cancellation of the KPTO(AM) construction permit and after dismissal of the initially-filed assignment application had become final, the initially-filed assignment application was not subject to review. See 11 FCC Rcd at 11,930-31. 5. Likewise, the existence of the September 19, 1995 assignment application does not provide a basis for reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Commission will not accept for filing an application for authorization to assign a cancelled construction permit. In this regard, we note that Wong was on notice that the Commission does not entertain applications for authorization to assign cancelled construction permits when the Bureau in 1992 cancelled the KPTO(AM) construction permit and dismissed Wong's then-pending assignment application. Indeed, the Commission's records reflect that the September 19, 1995 application was submitted, but not accepted for filing. Because we otherwise conclude here that Wong has not presented a basis for reinstating his construction permit, the September 19, 1995 assignment application is not a circumstance warranting reconsideration. 6. In addition, Wong claims that the Commission engaged in post hoc rationalization when, in acting on Wong's application for review, it considered only the most recent construction period in analyzing his extension of permit application, while the staff previously had considered actions that occurred after the expiration of Wong's construction permit. Wong's claim is without merit. In holding that only the most recent construction period could be considered, the Commission applied established policy concerning the evaluation of construction permit extension applications. See, e.g., Mansfield Christian School, 10 FCC Rcd 12,589 (1995). The Commission has the authority, whether in the context of an application for review, or on its own motion, to ensure that an action taken pursuant to delegated authority is consistent with established Commission policy and precedent. 47 U.S.C.  155(c); 47 C.F.R.  1.115(b); see also Edmund Dinis, 11 FCC Rcd 11,074, 11,077 (1996)(In reviewing action pursuant to delegated authority, Commission excludes post- authorization construction efforts considered by the staff). It is well settled Commission policy that only those activities undertaken during the most recent construction period are relevant to the Commission's evaluation of an extension of permit application. Rainbow Broadcasting Company, 11 FCC Rcd 1167-1168 (1995)(subsequent history omitted); Panavideo Broadcasting, Inc., 6 FCC Rcd 5259 (1991); see also Miami MDS Co. v. FCC, 14 F.3d 658, 660 (D.C. Cir. 1994)(upholding Commission's refusal to credit post-authorization construction). The Commission appropriately considered only the most recent construction period and therefore did not engage in post hocrationalization. 7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That the petition for reconsideration filed by Kin Shaw Wong on October 25, 1996 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary