Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Fireside Media and Jet Fuel Broadcasting

Download Options

Released: January 18, 2013

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-8

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

FOIA Control No. 2011-131
On request for Inspection of Records and
Review of Estimated FOIA Processing Costs

File No. BNP-20040130APE
Facility ID No. 1661371
For a New AM Broadcasting Station at Larga
Vista, Texas


For a New AM Broadcast Station at Pass
File No. BNP-20040130APU
Christian, Mississippi
Facility ID No. 161128

File No. BNP-20040130AQL
Facility No. 161328
For a New AM Broadcast Station at Winooski,


Adopted: January 17, 2013

Released: January 18, 2013

By the Commission:


1. By this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny a petition1 filed by Fireside Media and Jet
Fuel Broadcasting (collectively “Fireside”), 2 which requests reconsideration of a Commission order

1 See “Request for Rescinding of Illegal FCC Order 12-94, With Reinstatement Before Chairman and
Commissioners for Fair Hearing, Inclusive of Allowance for Heretofore Denied Conferencing Opportunity for
Appellant With the Chairman and Each Commissioner -- Given Egregious Issues of Agency Misconduct, Error and
Retaliation Against Appellant that Appellant Must Be Able to Address Directly With Commissioners to Guarantee
Any Semblance of a Fair Hearing,” filed September 21, 2012 (“Petition”).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-8

(“Consolidated Order”), which dismissed as procedurally defective Fireside’s earlier attempt to seek
reconsideration or review of various actions by the Commission and the Media Bureau (MB).3 These
actions concern both MB’s dismissal of Fireside’s AM radio license applications for failure to meet filing
deadlines and a Commission decision that upheld both the Office of General Counsel’s (OGC’s) decision
denying a fee waiver and MB’s decision setting fees for Fireside’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)


2. We find that Fireside’s Petition gives us no reason to reconsider the Consolidated Order. It is
well established that “[r]econsideration will not be granted to debate matters upon which the Commission
has already deliberated and spoken.”5 For the most part Fireside simply rehashes arguments that we have
already fully considered and rejected.6
3. To the extent that Fireside raises matters that have not already been fully considered by the
Commission, they are plainly without merit. First, Fireside contends that its principal Dave Garey should
have been given an opportunity to speak to the Chairman and the Commissioners before the Commission
adopted the Consolidated Order.7 Indeed, Fireside asserts that its FOIA request was “fast-tracked with
absolutely no opportunity for a fair hearing.”8 Fireside’s arguments, however, were fully considered by the
Commission, in a manner providing for their “prompt and efficient disposition.”9 Moreover, there is no
requirement that the Commission permit oral presentations on matters under consideration and indeed the
Communications Act permits the Commission to conduct its procedures in such manner “as will best
conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice.”10
4. Second, Fireside contends that the Consolidated Order must be rescinded because the online
description of the item on circulation did not reference the fact that it addressed licensing issues as well as
FOIA issues.11 We disagree. The listing of documents on circulation is not required by statute or regulation
and has no official effect. Further, all the issues decided by the Commission in the Consolidated Order

2 Fireside Media and Jet Fuel Broadcasting are sole proprietorships of Dave Garey. For ease of reference they are
both referred to in this order as "Fireside."
3 See Fireside Media and Jet Fuel Broadcasting, FCC 12-94 (Aug. 22, 2012) (“Consolidated Order”), reported at
2012 WL 3612570.
4 The Commission has considered and rejected numerous times Fireside’s arguments that it (1) should have been
granted extensions for filing deadlines for its AM radio applications; (2) was unfairly burdened with penalties for
withdrawing bids in FM Auction 37; and (3) should not be charged fees for processing its FOIA request. See
Consolidated Order at ¶¶ 2-3 and cases cited therein.
5 See, e.g., Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of License From Comcast Corporation and AT&T
Corp. Transferors, to AT&T Comcast Corp., Transferee,
25 FCC Rcd 3492, 3493 ¶ 2 (2010).
6 See supra note 4.
7 See Petition at 1-3.
8 See id. at 6.
9 See 47 U.S.C. § 155(a).
10 See 47 C.F.R. § 154(j). See also SBC Communications, Inc, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7593 n.24 (2002) (Section 4(j) of
the Communications Act gives the Commission broad discretion to make procedural rulings), citing U.S. v.
381 U.S. 279, 289 (1965); FCC v. WJR, 337 U.S. 265, 282 (1949) (deciding whether to permit oral
argument is within the Commission’s discretion under section 4(j) except where the statute expressly requires it).
11 See Petition at 3-4.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-8

were raised by Fireside in a single pleading.12. The Commission properly considered these issues and
Fireside did not suffer any prejudice because the document’s title on the online circulation list did not
reference all issues in Fireside’s pleading. We therefore deny Fireside’s Petition.
5. As an additional matter, we note that Fireside’s pleadings have been notably repetitious and
lacking in merit.13 We have recently imposed sanctions on a party for filing frivolous pleadings where the
pleadings were “based on arguments that have been specifically rejected by the Commission” or otherwise
had “no plausible basis for relief.” 14 If Fireside continues to file pleadings of this nature, we authorize OGC
to refer matters to the Enforcement Bureau to consider whether to impose sanctions on Fireside for filing
frivolous pleadings, including a possible forfeiture.


6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the Petition filed by Fireside Media and Jet Fuel
Broadcasting IS DENIED.
7. The officials responsible for this action are: Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners
McDowell, Clyburn, Rosenworcel, and Pai.
Marlene H. Dortch

12 See “Request for Reconsideration of FCC 11-158, Which Continues to Obstruct Vital Public Documents Detailing
Reported Misconduct in the FCC's FM Spectrum Auction Process; and Request for Acceptance of Appeal of DA-
11-1164, With Reinstatement of Reconsideration Before the Commission of FCC 10-108” (Nov. 25, 2011).
13 See supra note 4.
14 See Warren C. Havens, 26 FCC Rcd 10888, 10892 ¶ 11 (2011), reaffirmed, 27 FCC Rcd 2756 (2012). The
Commission found that it inherent authority to impose sanctions for frivolous pleadings. See 27 FCC Rcd at 2759 ¶

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.