FCC Names Tentative Selectees of Mutually Exclusive LPFM Applications
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th St., S.W.
News Media Information 202 / 418-0500
Washington, D.C. 20554
Released: July 9, 2014
COMMISSION IDENTIFIES TENTATIVE SELECTEES IN 79 GROUPS OF
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE APPLICATIONS FILED IN THE LPFM WINDOW;
ANNOUNCES A 30-DAY PETITION TO DENY PERIOD AND A 90-DAY PERIOD TO
FILE VOLUNTARY TIME-SHARE PROPOSALS AND MAJOR CHANGE
By this Public Notice, the Commission considers 79 groups of mutually exclusive (“MX”) applications
filed in the recent low power FM (“LPFM”) window1 and uses a point system to tentatively select
applications for grant.2 The tentative selectees, i.e., the single applicant with the highest point total or the
applicants tied for the highest point total from each MX group, are identified, in bold, in Attachment A.
Upon the release of this Public Notice, the Commission initiates a 30-day period for filing petitions to
deny against the applicants tentatively selected and a 90-day period for the filing of voluntary time-share
proposals (point-aggregation requests) and major change amendments.3
Mutually Exclusive Groups: When the distance between the facilities proposed in two window-filed
applications does not meet the minimum distance separation requirements specified in 47 C.F.R. §
73.807, the applications are treated as MX. An MX group consists of all applications which are mutually
exclusive to at least one other application in the group. The Commission’s Media Bureau (the “Bureau”)
released a Public Notice on December 16, 2013, identifying the groups of MX LPFM applications filed
during the LPFM Window, and opened a 60-day window within which the applicants from each group
could communicate with each other and attempt to resolve the conflicts through three methods – technical
amendments, settlements, and time-share agreements.4
This Public Notice includes mutually exclusive applications for which no amendment, settlement, or
time-share agreement was timely filed, or for which the submitted resolution was determined to be
1 Each application in Group 1 through Group 401 was filed during the October 17, 2013, through November 15,
2013, LPFM open filing window (the “LPFM Window”).
2 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.872. The point system analysis must be considered by the Commission because this analysis is
considered a simplified “hearing” for purposes of 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(1).
3 In this Public Notice the Commission uses the point system to compare 248 applications from 79 MX Groups
comprising the western states of the United States. Two additional Public Notices, identifying the tentative selectees
from the remaining groups of mutually exclusive applications, will be released during the next several months.
4 See Media Bureau Identifies Mutually Exclusive Applications Filed in the LPFM Window and Announces 60-Day
Settlement Period, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 16713 (MB 2013); see also Media Bureau Provides Further
Guidance on the Processing of Form 318 Applications Filed in the LPFM Window, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd
16366 (MB 2013) (“Procedures PN”).
unacceptable. When conflicts remain, the Commission applies the LPFM point system to select among
the mutually exclusive applications.5
Point System Selection Criteria: The Commission compares mutually exclusive groups of LPFM
applications under the point system set forth in Section 73.872 of the Commission’s Rules (the “Rules”).
The LPFM point system awards a maximum of six merit points, based on six criteria, with one point
awarded under each criterion: (1) established community presence of at least two years; (2) commitment
to originate local programming; (3) commitment to maintain a main studio; (4) commitment to originate
local programming and to maintain a main studio; (5) diversity of ownership; and (6) tribal applicants
serving tribal lands. These criteria are described in more detail below.
Established Community Presence. The Commission awards one point to an applicant
that has had an established community presence, for a period of at least two years immediately prior to
the filing of the application, in the community that it proposes to serve. To qualify for this point, a
nonprofit educational organization applicant must be able to certify that, during the two years prior to the
application, (a) it has existed
as a nonprofit educational organization, and (b) it has been physically
headquartered, has had a campus, or has had 75 percent of its governing board members residing within
10 miles, for applicants in the top 50 urban markets, or 20 miles, for applicants outside the top 50 urban
markets, of the coordinates of the proposed transmitting antenna. A nonprofit educational organization
awarded a point for this criterion must submit evidence of its qualifications in an application exhibit.6
The evidence must demonstrate the date of commencement of the applicant’s existence and the location
of the applicant’s headquarters, campus, or governing board members’ residence during the two years
prior to the application filing.7 While there is some flexibility in the type of documentation a nonprofit
educational organization applicant may provide, no point will be awarded to such an applicant that does
not timely submit required documentation.
A Tribal applicant seeking this point need only certify that it is a Tribe and that its Tribal Lands are within
the service area of the proposed LPFM station; or that it is a Tribal organization whose controlling Tribe
or Tribes has its/their Tribal Lands within the service area of the proposed LPFM station. Tribal
organizations created by a Tribe to apply for a LPFM construction permit are not required to have been in
existence for two years.8 A public safety radio applicant must only be able to certify that during the two
years prior to the application it had jurisdiction within the service area of the proposed LFPM station.9
Local Program Origination. The Commission awards one point to an applicant that
pledges to originate locally at least eight hours of programming per day. Locally originated programming
is programming produced by the licensee within ten miles of the coordinates of the proposed transmitting
antenna. Such programming may include licensee produced call-in shows, music selected and played by
5 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.872; see also Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 2205,
2260-64 (2000); Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 15
FCC Rcd 19208, 19246-47 (2000) (“Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration”); Creation of a Low
Power Radio Service, Fifth Order on Reconsideration and Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 15402, 15459-
15471 (2012) (“Sixth Report and Order”).
6 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.872(b)(1); 73.853(b)(1)-(2); see also FCC Form 318, Section III, Question 1a; Instructions to
FCC Form 318 at 8-9.
7 Such evidence may consist of copies of corporate charters, articles of incorporation, association, or partnership,
bylaws, or other written instruments filed with the appropriate governmental agency (e.g., Secretary of State)
documenting the applicant’s period of existence. See Instructions to FCC Form 318 at 9.
8 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.872(b)(1); 73.853(b)(4); see also FCC Form 318, Section III, Question 1b.
9 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.872(b)(1); 73.853(b)(3); see also FCC Form 318, Section III, Question 1c.
a disc jockey present on site, broadcasts of events at local schools, and broadcasts of musical
performances at a local studio or festival, whether recorded or live.10
Main Studio. The Commission awards one point to an applicant that pledges to maintain
a publicly accessible main studio that has local origination capability, is reachable by telephone, is staffed
at least 20 hours per week between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and is located within 16.1 km (10 miles) of the
station’s proposed transmitter site for applicants in the top 50 urban markets and within 32.1 km (20
miles) for applicants outside the top 50 urban markets. To be awarded the main studio point, the
applicant must specify the proposed address and telephone number for the proposed main studio in the
FCC Form 318 at the time of filing the application.11
Local Program Origination and Main Studio. The Commission awards one point to an
applicant that can certify that it qualifies for one point under both the local program origination and the
main studio criteria described in (2) and (3) above.12
Diversity of Ownership. The Commission awards one point for diversity of ownership
(the “new entrant” point) to an applicant that can certify that it holds no attributable interests in any other
broadcast station.13 Any applicant, including a national organization, however, can qualify for a new
entrant point if it submits in its LPFM application, prior to the close of the LPFM Window, a commitment
to divest all of its existing media interests (both owned and attributable) before the commencement of
operations of its new LPFM station.14
Tribal Applicants Serving Tribal Lands. The Commission awards one point to a Tribal
Applicant proposing to locate its transmitter site on its “Tribal Lands,” as defined in Section 73.7000 of
The Commission tallies the total number of points awarded to each mutually exclusive applicant. The
applicant(s) with the highest score in an MX group is designated the “tentative selectee.” Applicants tied
for the highest point total in a MX group are subject to voluntary and involuntary time-sharing, discussed
Point System Review Process. The LPFM application, FCC Form 318, is certification-based, but for
some criteria, requires applicants to document their claims by submitting supporting information to the
10 47 C.F.R. § 73.872(b)(2).
11 47 C.F.R. § 73.872(b)(3); FCC Form 318, Section III, Question 3.
12 47 C.F.R. § 73.872(b)(4).
13 47 C.F.R. § 73.872(b)(5). Although a broadcast interest of a national organization will not be attributed to the
local chapter if the local chapter “is separately incorporated and has a distinct local presence and mission” (47
C.F.R. § 73.858(b)), “local chapters” of larger organizations that hold broadcast interests do not qualify for a “new
entrant” point. Any broadcast interests held by the “parent” organization are considered attributable for the purposes
of this criterion only. See, e.g., Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15459. Similarly, although a director of an
LPFM applicant may hold otherwise attributable interests in a broadcast licensee or media entity without making the
LPFM applicant ineligible for a license, provided that the director recuses himself/herself from any matters affecting
the LPFM station (47 C.F.R. § 73.858(a)), the director’s broadcast interests are still considered attributable to the
LPFM applicant for the purpose of the “new entrant” point.
14 See, e.g., Creation of Low Power Radio Service, Sixth Order on Reconsideration, 28 FCC Rcd 14489, n.26
15 47 C.F.R. § 73.872(b)(6); see also 47 C.F.R. § 73.853(c) (defining a “Tribal Applicant” as a “Tribe or an entity
that is 51 percent or more owned or controlled by a Tribe or Tribes”); 47 C.F.R. § 73.7000.
Commission. The Commission’s comparative review of MX applications is based on applicant-provided
information. The Commission relies on the certifications, does not independently confirm the accuracy
during the review process, but may use random audits to verify the accuracy of the certifications and
adherence to the pledges.16
Applicants were required to report their comparative qualifications as of the date of the filing of an
application. Any changes made thereafter may potentially have diminished, but cannot enhance, an
applicant’s comparative position. Accordingly, amendments that were filed after the close of the LPFM
Window and improved an applicant’s comparative position have not been considered for purposes of the
point system.17 Amendments that adversely affected an applicant’s comparative position have been
We have generally awarded the number of points claimed by each applicant in Section III of its
application. Certifications, however, which require the applicant to submit documentation or additional
information, but which are not supported with any such timely submitted documentation, cannot be
credited. For example, the Commission rejects claims where a nonprofit educational organization
applicant certifies that it qualifies for a point as an established local applicant but fails to supply the
requisite documentation19 to support its claim.20 Similarly, we reject claims where an applicant certifies
that it qualifies for a main studio point but neglects to provide the proposed address and telephone number
for the proposed main studio. We have also rejected claims where an applicant certifies that it is eligible
16 The Commission staff may issue letters of inquiry requiring submission of documentation in connection with such
audits. Applicants that fail to fulfill their pledges will be potentially subject to administrative sanctions including
the possibility of monetary forfeitures and revocation proceedings. See Instructions to FCC Form 318, Section IIIC
17 See Instructions to FCC Form 318, Section IIIA at 8; 47 C.F.R. § 73.871(b). For example, if an applicant certifies
that it does not qualify for a point under one of the point system factors by answering “No” to one of the questions in
Section III, it cannot later amend its application to respond “Yes” to that question. This is the case even if the
applicant actually would have qualified for the point it is seeking at the time it filed the application.
18 For example, an LFPM applicant may lose claimed points, such as the new entrant credit, as a result of changes
made after the application filing.
19 See Instructions to FCC Form 318, Section III, Question 1, at 9. Applicants must submit the requisite
documentation prior to the close of the window. The Commission does not consider documentation to support a
claimed comparative point if it is submitted in a post-window amendment.
20 See MX Group 42, File No. BNPL-20131029AHL and MX Group 57, File No. BNPL-20131114BPU. In both of
these cases, to support its established community presence claim, each applicant merely submitted a declaration
stating that it has been local and operating for X number of years. Each applicant neglected to submit any
documentation to establish its non-profit status and period of existence. We note that each of these applications has
been dismissed for failure to document the applicant’s non-profit status and eligibility to hold an LPFM license. See
FCC Form 318, Section II, Question 2, Eligibility; Instructions to FCC Form 318, Section II, Question 2, at 3; 47
C.F.R. § 73.853(a). Each application was either dismissed within the last 30 days or has a pending petition for
reconsideration, and therefore, is currently in a non-final dismissed status. In MX Group 146, File No. BNPL-
20131115ASE, the applicant claims a point as an established local applicant, but inconsistently acknowledges, at
Exhibit 10 to its application, that it was not established until 2013 and is therefore “ineligible for an established
community presence” point.
for a point for diversity of ownership, but fails to satisfy this criterion.21 In these cases, we have adjusted
the points of such applicants downward.22
Attachment A – MX Group Point Totals. Attachment A lists, by group number and state, each of the
applicants in the mutually exclusive groups analyzed in this Public Notice. The Commission reviewed
each listed application pursuant to the LPFM point system comparative process and awarded each
applicant a maximum of six merit points applying the criteria discussed above. Attachment A identifies,
by applicant name and number of points, the tentative selectee(s) in each MX group. The tentative
selectees are identified in bold.23
In cases where an applicant claimed points, but failed to satisfy the respective requirements for receipt of
such points, Attachment A lists the points claimed followed in parenthesis by the points credited. For
example, an applicant that claimed a point for established community presence, but failed to submit the
requisite documentation to support its claim would have the notation 1(0) in the established community
presence column, i.e., it claimed one point but received none. A note “no exhibit” or “defective exhibit”
in the Notes column would indicate that the applicant did not support its established community presence
claim, either because it submitted no exhibit or because an exhibit was deemed defective for lack of the
most basic information necessary. The Notes section is also used to describe certain application
characteristics. For example, the note “Divest Pledge” is used to identify an applicant that pledged to
divest all of its media interests before the commencement of operation of its new LPFM station.24 The
note “TIME SHARE” identifies tied applicants that are subject to the voluntary and involuntary time-
Tied Applicants: Voluntary and Involuntary Time-Sharing. The point system analysis of many of the
Attachment A MX groups resulted in a tie among several applicants. When mutually exclusive
applications have the same point total, the Commission gives the tied applicants a 90-day opportunity to
propose voluntary time-sharing arrangements. If the applicants do not enter into a voluntary time-sharing
agreement, the Commission will assign involuntary time-sharing arrangements to no more than three of
21 See MX Group 282, File No. BNPL-20131113BPL. Although the applicant, Portland State University, a local
chapter of the statewide Oregon University System, is eligible for a LPFM station, the broadcast interests of the
University System are attributable to it for purposes of the new entrant point criterion. Accordingly, it does not
qualify for this point. See also note 13, infra.
22 Conversely, any applicant awarded an established community presence or main studio point has provided support
for its certification at the time it initially filed the application.
23 We note that in MX Group 45 and MX Group 71, the County of Ventura and the City of Louisville, public safety
applicants, are each tied for the highest point total, but are not identified in bold as tentative selectees. See FCC File
Nos. BNPL-20131112BFQ and 20131114AQP. Not-for-profit organizations and governmental entities proposing to
operate a public safety or emergency radio service were permitted to submit multiple applications in the LPFM
Window, but were required to designate the “priority” application. Non-priority applications are dismissed if
competing applications are filed in the same window. The County of Ventura and the City of Louisville each filed
two applications and identified its other application (File Nos. BNPL-20131112BFM and BNPL-20131114AQU,
respectively) as the priority application. Accordingly, FCC File Nos. BNPL-20131112BFQ and 20131114AQP will
be dismissed upon release of this Public Notice. See Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC
Rcd at 19239-40; Media Bureau Announces Availability of the Revised FCC Form 318 and the Filing Procedures
for the October 15 – October 29, 2013, Low Power FM Filing Window, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 8854 (MB
24 See, e.g., MX Group 43, FCC File No. BNPL-20131112ANI (Calvary Chapel Victor Valley’s diversity claim is
based on a pledge to divest its current LPFM station, KPTG-LP).
the tied applicants in each MX Group. The voluntary and involuntary time-sharing procedures are
discussed in more detail below.
Voluntary Time-Sharing/Point Aggregation. Any two or more of the tied applicants in each MX
Group may propose to share use of the frequency by filing, within 90-days of the release of this Public
Notice, a time-share proposal. The proposal must be electronically submitted through the Commission’s
Consolidated Database System (“CDBS”) and will be treated as minor amendments to the time-share
proponents’ applications and become part of the terms of the station authorization.25 Only those
applicants tied for the highest point total in an MX Group may enter into a time-sharing agreement
and aggregate their points.26 No point-aggregation requests will be considered from non-high point total
applicants.27 Where proposals include all of the tied applications, all of the tied applicants will be treated
as tentative selectees; otherwise, time-share proponents’ points will be aggregated. The Commission will
aggregate the point totals of applicants that submit acceptable time-share proposals for the purpose of
breaking a tie within a mutually exclusive group.28
Time-share proposals must be in writing, signed by each time-share proponent, and satisfy the following
requirements: (1) the proposal must specify the proposed hours of operation of each time-share
proponent; (2) the proposal must not include simultaneous operation of the time-share proponents; and (3)
each time-share proponent must propose to operate for at least 10 hours per week.29
Involuntary Time-Sharing. If the tied applicants do not enter into a voluntary time-share
agreement, or if a tie still remains following the submission of voluntary time-sharing arrangements, the
applicants with tied, grantable applications will be eligible for equal, non-renewable license terms.30
MX Groups with Three or Fewer Tied and Grantable Applications. If there are three or
fewer tied and grantable applications in an MX group, the Commission will simultaneously grant the
applications, assigning an equal number of hours per week to operate the proposed station to each
applicant.31 The Commission will determine the hours assigned to each applicant by first assigning hours
to the applicant that has been local for the longest uninterrupted period of time,32 then assigning hours to
the applicant that has been local for the next longest uninterrupted period of time. The Commission will
offer the applicants an opportunity to voluntarily reach a time-sharing arrangement. If they are unable to
do so, we will ask the applicants to simultaneously and confidentially submit their preferred time slots to
25 47 C.F.R. § 73.872(c).
26 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.872(c)(explaining the procedures for tied applicants to propose voluntary time-sharing
arrangements and aggregate their points). Applicants aggregating points must specify the same frequency.
27 Such applicants, however, may continue to file amendments, settlement agreements, and voluntary, non-point
aggregation, time-sharing agreements at any time.
28 47 C.F.R. § 73.872(c).
29 47 C.F.R. § 73.872(c)(1)(i) – (iii). The agreement can only be modified if all of the parties submit a written
agreement, signed by each party, to the Commission, Attention: Audio Division, prior to the change.
30 47 C.F.R. § 73.872(d).
31 47 C.F.R. § 73.872(d)(2); see also Instructions to FCC Form 318, Section IV at 9; Sixth Report and Order, 27
FCC Rcd at 15475.
32 47 C.F.R. § 73.853(b); FCC Form 318, Section IV, Question 1 (requiring applicants to provide the date on which
the applicant qualified as local).
the Commission. The staff will use the information provided by the applicants to assign time slots, giving
preference to the applicant that has been local for the longest uninterrupted period of time.33
MX Groups with More than Three Tied and Grantable Applications. If there are more
than three tied and grantable applications, the Commission will dismiss all but the applications of the
three applicants that have been local for the longest uninterrupted periods of time. The Commission will
then process the remaining applications in accordance with Section 73.872(d)(2) of the Rules, the
procedures for mutually exclusive groups with three or fewer tied, grantable applications.34
Major Amendments. Starting July 10, 2014, at 12:01 a.m. EDT, the first business day after the date of
release of this Public Notice, we open a 90-day period to permit the MX applicants listed in Attachment A
to file major amendments, such as non-adjacent channel changes and otherwise prohibited site relocations
of greater than 5.6 kilometers.35 This 90-day period for filing major change amendments ends October 8,
2014, at 6:00 p.m. EDT. During this filing period, the Commission will waive Section 73.871 of the
Rules36 to permit these applicants to file such major change amendments. Major change amendments will
be processed in accordance with established first-come, first-served licensing procedures.37
Applicants filing technical amendments should carefully consider all legal, e.g., maintaining eligibility as
a “local” applicant,38 and technical requirements. Amendments may not create any new application
conflicts and must specify rule-compliant facilities.39 Major amendments will only be allowed during this
90-day period.40 Applicants may continue to file minor amendments41 and non-point aggregation
settlement agreements42 at any time.
33 47 C.F.R. § 73.872(d)(2). If there are only two tied, grantable applications, the applicants must select between the
following 12-hour time slots: 3 a.m.-2:59 p.m., or 3 p.m.-2:59 a.m. If there are three, tied, grantable applications,
each applicant must rank their preference for the following 8-hour time slots: 2 a.m.-9:59 a.m., 10 a.m.-5:59 p.m.,
and 6 p.m.-1:59 a.m. The Commission will award time in units as small as four hours per day. In the event an
applicant neglects to designate its preferred time slots, staff will select a time slot for the applicant.
34 47 C.F.R. § 73.872(d)(3) and (d)(2); see also Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15475.
35 All applicants listed in this Public Notice, whether or not a tentative selectee, are permitted to file major change
amendments during this period.
36 47 C.F.R. § 73.871. This limited waiver policy will allow applicants to use all available FM channels to resolve
technical conflicts, eliminate ties, and obtain construction permits.
37 The Bureau will process and review the major change amendments in the order that they are filed on a daily basis.
If the first-filed amendment is acceptable, the Bureau will return all subsequently-filed conflicting amendments,
giving the second-filed applicant the opportunity to pursue other options, including settlements, other major
amendments, and minor amendments, to remove application conflicts. All amendments filed on July 10, 2014, must
be protected by any amendment filed after July 10, 2014. Amendments filed on weekends or holidays are
considered to be filed the next business day. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.4.
38 See 47 C.F.R. 73.853(b).
39 Amendments may, however, request waivers of the second-adjacent channel spacing requirements. See 47 C.F.R.
§ 73.807. Such amendments must include a showing that the proposed facilities will not result in interference to any
authorized radio service. See 47 C.F.R. § 73.807(e)(1).
40 Simultaneously with the release of this Notice, CDBS is being modified to permit the electronic filing of such
major change amendments. Applicants can monitor competing applications for any developments in CDBS.
41 Minor amendments include: (1) site relocations of 5.6 kilometers or less; (2) channel changes of no more than +/-
three channels or to an intermediate frequency (+/- 53 or 54) channel; (3) partial and universal voluntary time-
sharing agreements; (4) changes in general or legal information; (5) changes in ownership where the original parties
retain more than 50 percent ownership in the application as originally filed. Site relocation amendments of more
Acceptability Studies and Filing of Petitions. The Media Bureau staff has examined the applications of
each tentative selectee for application defects.43 With the exceptions noted below, each tentative selectee
identified in this Public Notice appears to be technically and legally qualified to become the licensee of
the new LPFM station it has proposed.44 Accordingly, the applications of the tentative selectees are
accepted for filing.45 This triggers a 30-day period from release of the Public Notice for the filing of
petitions to deny.
Any argument that a tentatively selected application should not be granted must be raised in such a
petition, even if the objection relates only indirectly to the tentative selectee’s comparative points. For
example, an applicant that concedes that the tentative selectee is qualified for the points received but
believes its own proposal should have received a greater number of points than the tentative selectee’s
must make its argument in a petition to deny. Parties may not file petitions for reconsideration because
the point and tentative selectee determinations do not constitute “final” actions, and petitions for
reconsideration do not lie against such interlocutory decisions.46 Petitions to deny must be filed in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 73.3584 of the Rules.47
Attachment B – Second-Adjacent Waiver Requests. Many of the tentatively-selected applicants
identified in this Public Notice included a request for a waiver of the second-adjacent channel spacing
requirements set forth in Section 73.807 of the Rules.48 In the Sixth Report and Order we directed the
Media Bureau to specifically identify all potentially affected second-adjacent channel stations in the
Public Notice that accepts for filing an LPFM application that includes a second-adjacent channel waiver
request.49 Accordingly, we identify these applications and respective stations in Attachment B.
(Continued from previous page)
than 5.6 kilometers will be permitted to remediate potential third-adjacent channel interference and for time-share
proponents to relocate to a common transmitter site. See 47 C.F.R. § 73.871(c).
42 The settlement agreement must comply with the pertinent requirements of Section 73.3525 of the Commission’s
Rules. 47 C.F.R. § 73.3525; see also Procedures Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 16367 (describing settlement agreement
requirements). Settlement agreements should be electronically filed through CDBS as minor amendments to the
43 The staff has made no “acceptability” determination regarding the applications that received fewer than the
highest point total in each mutually exclusive group.
44 As noted in “Notes” section of Attachment A, six of the MX applications listed in this Public Notice are currently
in non-final dismissed status. See MX Group 37, File No. BNPL-20131114AEK; MX Group 42, File No. BNPL-
20131029AHL; MX Group 45, File No. BNPL-20131112BFQ; MX Group 56, File No. BNPL-20131113BQT; MX
Group 57, File No. BNPL-20131114BPU; and MX Group 71, File No. BNPL-20131114AQP. In each case, the
application was dismissed for a technical or legal defect. Each applicant has filed a petition for reconsideration,
which remains pending or, was dismissed within the past 30 days. In two of these six applications, the applicant is
tied for the highest points in its respective MX Group and identified as a tentative selectee. In the event the petition
for reconsideration is granted and the application reinstated, the application will be accepted for filing at that time.
45 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.870(d). With the exceptions noted above, the applications, which are printed in bold in
Attachment A, are accepted for filing.
46 An interlocutory action is non-final, one that neither denies nor dismisses an application nor terminates an
applicant's right to participate in the proceeding. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.106 (a)(1). See also Patrick J. Vaughn, Esq.,
Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 11165 (MB 2007); Harry F. Cole, Esq., Letter, 27 FCC Rcd 9295 (MB 2012).
47 47 C.F.R. § 73.3584. An applicant may file an opposition, and the petitioner may file a reply, within the times
prescribed by the rules.
48 47 C.F.R. § 73.807(e)(1). A waiver applicant must demonstrate that its proposed operations will not result in
interference to any authorized radio service.
49 Sixth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 15429.
Forthcoming Staff Action. We direct the staff, once the petition to deny period has run, to conduct a
final study of each tentatively selected application in accordance with the Bureau’s routine processing
procedures. In the case of tied applications, the final study will not be conducted until the tie has been
eliminated through amendment, settlement and/or time-share procedures. The staff studies should
consider any petitions, comments, and objections to determine whether there is any substantial and
material question of fact concerning whether grant of the tentatively selected applications would serve the
public interest. If no such question exists, we direct the staff to grant the application(s) on the basis of the
point system determinations and dismiss all competing applications.
With the exception of applications that present issues that are new or novel or require Commission or
Administrative Law Judge consideration by statute or rules, the staff shall act on the tentatively selected
applications pursuant to delegated authority. We delegate to the staff authority to act on any routine
matter that may be raised, including whether the applicant is eligible, as certified, for the points awarded
herein, and whether the application complies with all relevant Commission Rules and policies.50 The staff
need not refer such matters to the Commission or designate such matters for hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge unless the issues are new or novel, or raise a substantial and material question
of fact regarding the award of points. Generally, the staff should refer only those issues to the
Commission where the exclusion or inclusion of challenged or claimed points could alter the outcome in
the particular LPFM group, or where there is a new or novel issue. In cases that present a substantial and
material question of fact, the staff should designate the issue for hearing before an Administrative Law
Severance for Purposes of Petitions, Appeals and Finality. Each decision involving a mutually
exclusive group is to be considered distinct and separate for purposes of petitions to deny, petitions for
reconsideration, review on the Commission’s own motion, and appeals. The timing of any action
disposing of a petition or appeal affecting a particular group will not delay the finality of our decision
with respect to any other group included herein.
Additional Information. For additional information, please contact:
Electronic filing assistance: Konrad Herling or David Trout, (202) 418-2662
Legal inquiries: Tom Hutton or Parul P. Desai, (202) 418-2700
Engineering inquiries: James Bradshaw or Gary Loehrs, (202) 418-2700
Press inquiries: Janice Wise, (202) 418-8165
– FCC –
50 See, e.g., Central Florida Educational Foundation, Inc., Letter, 23 FCC Rcd 1695 (MB 2008) (staff dismissal of
defective application tentatively selected in a point hearing, and staff award of permit on a non-comparative basis to
only remaining acceptable applicant).
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.