WPC) 2MBERKZ3|a  S'#&J\  P6Q&P#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]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\ y.X80,QwX\  P6G;P2a=5,&a\  P6G;&PTimes New RomanxxWPC 2BVRKTimes New Romany.X80,QwX\  2 K K K? 3|a "i~'^ %.77\V%%%7K%7777777777%%KKK7eDDIODDOO%0I>\IODOD7>OD\D>>**.7%77070770O7777**70I00*,,;%;.%%%%%%%%%7%7D7D7D7D7D7aII0D0D0D0D0%%%%I7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7>0D7O7O7O7>0O7D7D7D7D7I0I0I;I0OBD0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7T7;;I0>>(>%>#>I7@I7I7O7O7gID*D*D*7*7*7*;;>(>>.O7O7O7O7O7O7\I>;>*>*>*O7>%I77*>%>7B77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN(BB(97*77777l7#TT7!#TT7T!%%>>7a&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(;TT77a%>7\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7KlBBn7"i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNI\\>>>\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\Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold Italic S' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&J\  P6Q&P#2KK KVK"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~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNM\\>>>\}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\"i~'^5Fg\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyyyyF\yrrygryyrr>3>g\>\\Q\Q>\g33\3g\\\FF3gQy\QF>(>g>0gg>>>0>>>>>>\>\3y\y\y\y\y\yQyQyQyQyQF3F3F3F3g\\\\ggggrQy\\\\rQ\r\y\y\y\yQyQygyQyQyQyQyQ\\\g\ggF3F\F>F\gggy\r3r_r>rFr3ggg\\yFyFyFgFgFgFggrcr3rgggggggyrgrFrFrF\r>ggFr>r\0\\=3=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB\\F\\\\\\07\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBigg>\\7"yyyy\nyc\gnn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%7%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(AZZ>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn72^|%)y.X80,X\  P6G;P 2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P 2e=5,=&e4  pG;&7jC:,xXj\  P6G;XP7nC:,=&Xn4  pG;Xy.\80,\4  pG;\0_=5,%A&_*f9 xr G;&X1a=5,<5|&a9 xOG;&H5!,(u,5\  P6G;,PP:% ,jJ:\  P6G;JP \{,W80,%CW*f9 xr G;X\Q9% ,%;J9*f9 xr G;JX2e=5,=&e4  pG;& yO' X   )3 X'w  #Xj\  P6G;xXP#Federal Communications Commission`)(#[DA 992214 ă   yxdddy )#X\  P6G;P#vf Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO'}9Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  S '#&a\  P6G;&P#In the Matter of) )  S'COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.)ppCase No. 94F559 ) Finder's Preference Request) Regarding Station WNLI362) San Diego, California)   S 'm ORDER \  S@ 'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:(>(ZZ"  S'5. On April 18, 1995, CLC filed a reply to Cox's Opposition and a motion to accept its late  S'filed pleading.SD yO@'ЍCLC Reply (filed April 18, 1995).S In its reply, CLC requested leave to amend its finder's preference request to expand the scope of possible rule violations by Cox to include permanent discontinuance of service as  S'proscribed by Section 90.157 of the Commission's Rules.XD yO'Ѝ47 C.F.R.  90.157(b). "For the purposes of this section, any station which has not operated for 1 year or more is considered to have been permanently discontinued." Subsequently, both parties filed further  S`'supplemental information.(X`D yO 'ЍOn May 5, 1995, Cox filed a supplemental response to CLC's reply; On May 24, 1995, CLC filed a motion to strike the further information provided by Cox, comments on Cox's supplemental pleading and a motion to accept its unauthorized pleadings. ( On September 21, 1995, the former Office of Operations denied CLC's finder's preference request finding that since the request was "based solely on a violation of 47 C.F.R.  90.633, and the finder has not carried its burden of showing that a violation of that rule occurred,  S'the finder's request is denied."D yOX'ЍLetter from William H. Kellett, Attorney, Office of OperationsGettysburg, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to Dennis C. Brown, Esq, Brown and Schwaninger (dated September 21, 1995) (Denial Letter). On October 18, 1995, CLC filed a petition seeking reconsideration of  S'the Office of Operations denial of its finder's request.( D yO'ЍCLC Petition for Reconsideration, Case No. 94F559 (filed October 18, 1995) (CLC Petition). In response, Cox filed an opposition on  S'November 1, 1995.~ D yO'ЍCox Opposition to CLC Petition for Reconsideration (filed November 1, 1995).~  SH 'I III. DISCUSSION ă 6. First, CLC argues that the former Office of Operations failed to address CLC's request to amend its finder's preference request and "should acknowledge that Station WNLI362 was not operated at the authorized location for a period in excess of one year and should permit CLC to amend  S 'its finder's request to conform to those facts."N H D yOh'ЍCLC Petition at 3.N As the September 21, 1995, Denial Letter did not  SX'directly speak to the latefiled pleadings in this matter, we will address the issue in this Order. When the Commission implemented the finder's preference program it determined that Section 1.45 of the  S 'Commission's Rules would govern the filing deadlines for all pleadings. D {O 'ЍReport and Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 7306  55; see also Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 6694  30. Section 1.45 of the Commission's Rules requires parties to file a reply, if desired, "within 5 days after the time for filing  S'oppositions has expired."I2D yO$'Ѝ47 C.F.R.  1.45(b).I The former Office of Operations notified Cox of the finder's preference ",>(>(ZZ" request filed by CLC on March 6, 1995, thereby establishing an April 5, 1995 cutoff date for the  S'filing of an opposition and an April 10, 1995 deadline for replies.N\D {O@'ЍSee Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 6694  30. The Commission extended the filing period for a target licensee to file an opposition to thirty days and, also, affirmed that the reply period remained  {O'unchanged at five days. Id.N CLC's Reply was filed on April 18, 1995, clearly after the established deadline. 7. Moreover, from the inception of the finder's preference program, the Commission required a finder's request to contain certain specific information, including the rule section that the target  S'allegedly violated and a detailed statement regarding the nature of that violation.LD yO 'Ѝ6 FCC Rcd at 7306  51.L It would be unduly burdensome to both the Commission and the target licensee to allow a finder to rely on information provided in a target's opposition statement to amend its request to include additional rule violations. Allowing a finder to amend its request under these circumstances could result in an unwieldy pleading cycle. In this case, it appears that CLC was aware that Cox was transmitting from the San Miguel site, but elected not to ascertain if a discontinuance of operation violation had occurred prior to submitting its finder's preference request regarding Station WNLI362. Accordingly, we affirm the decision by the former Office of Operations to consider neither the latefiled reply nor any of the  S 'further unauthorized supplemental information filed by the parties. |D yO'ЍPursuant to Section 1.45(c) additional pleadings may be filed "only if specifically requested or authorized by the Commission. 47 C.F.R.  1.45.  S '8. Moreover, assuming arguendo that we were able to authorize the latefiled pleadings and amend CLC's finder's request to reference the discontinuance of operation claim pursuant to Section 90.157 of the Commission's Rules, we find that the underlying merits of CLC's amended request do not warrant a reversal of the decision by the former Office of Operations. As the Commission has  S'previously discussed in Cassell, the primary motivation for the finder's preference program was to  S'"facilitate a means for recapturing unused channels so that licensing opportunities could be provided in  S'those areas where there is limited available spectrum."$D {O'ЍJames A Cassell and Kelley Communications, Inc., Finders Preference Request, 11 FCC 16720, 16724  10 (1996) (affirming denial of finder's preference request for SMR stations and finding substantial accordance  {O'benchmark of construction within 1.6 km of authorized coordinates reasonable) aff'd, 154 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir. 1998). The Commission went on to explain that the program should not be utilized "as a means to disrupt service being provided to the public by alleging  SD'license cancellation based on minor variations from authorized parameters.";D D {O!'ЍId.; Moreover, as discussed above, the Commission only anticipated the filing of a finder's preference request in response to  S'specific violations of the Commission's Rules governing construction and operation.$R D {O$' x ԍSee 6 FCC Rcd at 7305  49, n. 86. The Commission determined that the scope of rule violations applicable  x to the finder's preference program would be the construction, placed in operation and discontinuance of operation  x requirements found in the following Sections: 47 C.F.R.  90.155, 90.157, 90.629, 90.631(e) and (f), and 90.633(c)  {O@''and (d). Id. While Cox's">,>(>(ZZa"  S'unauthorized relocation appears to have been in violation of Sections 90.135D yOh'ЍSection 90.135 requires a license modification application to be filed in the event that a licensee makes a change in the authorized location. 47 C.F.R.  90.135. and R'SSection 90.169 D yO'ЍSection 90.169 requires Commission authorization prior to station construction and operation. 47 C.F.R.  90.169. of the Commission's Rules, it does not negate the fact that Cox presented sufficient evidence of both  S'construction and continuous operation.?xD {O'ԍSee supra  4.? 9. Second, CLC argues that the evidence provided by Cox in its opposition was tainted, because of CLC's failure to make its unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury as required by Section 1.16 of the Commission's Rules, and therefore, should not have been relied upon by the  S'former Office of Operations in making its decision.  D yO'ЍSection 1.16. states that "any document to be filed with the Federal Communications Commission and which is required by any law, rule or other regulation of the United States to be supported by a written sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath or affidavit by the person making the same, may be supported, evidenced, established or proved by the unsworn declaration, certification, verification, or statement in writing of such person. . . . Such declaration shall be subscribed by the declarant as true under penalty of perjury, and dated . . . ." 47 C.F.R.  1.16. We note that Cox's Opposition contained the  S'following Declaration by Paul R. Workman, Director of Technical Services for Cox:W! D yO'ԍCox Opposition, Declaration of Paul R. Workman.W I have read the forgoing "Opposition to Finder's Preference Request for Business Radio Station WNLI362" and the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. We find CLC's argument to be without merit. The Commission, because it was concerned that some parties might have used the finder's program to "harass other licensees or in other ways violate our  S 'rules or other federal laws,"Z" D {O2'ԍReport and Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 7306  55.Z required finder's requests to be "attested to by the applicant or a  SX'principal of the applicant either in the form of an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury."1#XD {O'ԍId.1 The target licensee, however, did not bear the burden of proof in a finder's proceeding and, therefore, while the Commission expects all pleadings submitted to be truthful, it did not require a similar filing requirement for the target licensee. Accordingly, we find the declaration submitted by Cox through Paul Workman to be sufficient. "6#,>(>(ZZ."  10. Finally, CLC argues that Cox failed to present any evidence of possession of transmitting equipment, and that therefore, the decision by the former Office of Operations to deny  S'CLC's finder's preference request was in error.:$D yO'ԍCLC Petition at 6.: We disagree. The Office of Operations correctly concluded that Cox provided sufficient evidence to rebut CLC's claim on nonconstruction, including  S`'information related to the possession or rental of the appropriate equipment.E%`XD {OX'ԍSee supra  4, n.10.E  S'  IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES ă  11. For the reasons discussed above, the denial of Agnes Pennington d/b/a Communications Licensing Consultants finder's preference request against Station WNLI362 is AFFIRMED.  12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 405 and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, that the petition for reconsideration filed by Agnes Pennington d/b/a Communications Licensing Consultants is DENIED.  13. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.131, 0.331. ` `  hhCqFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCqD'wana R. Terry ` `  hhCqChief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division ` `  hhCqWireless Telecommunications Bureau