Maka'ainana Broadcasting Company, Ltd
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554August 10, 2012
Released: August 10, 2012
Harry F. Cole, Esq.
Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLC
1300 North 17th Street, 11th Floor
Arlington, VA 22209
Scott Woodworth, Esq.
1875 I Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006
NCE MX Group 95083E
New NCE-FM, Kaneohe, HI
Facility ID No. 81548
File No. BNPED-19960418MB
New NCE-FM, Honolulu, HI
Facility ID No. 81538
File No. BNPED-19960416MA
Petition for Reconsideration
Petition to Deny
We have before us the referenced application, filed by Maka’ainana Broadcasting Company, Ltd.
(“MBC”), for a new, noncommercial educational (“NCE”) FM station on at Kaneohe, Hawaii (“MBC
Application”) and the referenced application filed by Calvary Chapel of Honolulu, Inc. (“CCHI”) for a
new NCE FM station at Honolulu, Hawaii (“CCHI Application”). We also have a Petition for
Reconsideration (“MBC Petition for Reconsideration”)1 of the Commission’s decision to rescind the
MBC Application’s status as tentative selectee of NCE MX Group 95083E and identity the CCHI
Application as the new tentative selectee of that group;2 and a Petition to Deny (“MBC Petition to Deny”)
the CCHI Application3 filed by MBC on July 21, 2011. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the
MBC Petition for Reconsideration and deny the MBC Petition to Deny.
1 CCHI filed a Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) and a “Contingent Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration”
(“CCHI Contingent Opposition”) concurrently on August 3, 2011. MBC filed a Reply to “Contingent Opposition to
Petition to Deny” (“Reply to Contingent Opposition”) on August 15, 2011.
2 Comparative Consideration of 33 Groups of Mutually Exclusive Applications for Permits to Construct New or
Modified Noncommercial FM Stations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 9058, 9091 (MB 2011)
(“Comparative Consideration Order”).
3 CCHI filed an Opposition to Petition to Deny (“CCHI Opposition”) on August 3, 2011. MBC filed a Reply to
Opposition to Petition to Deny (“Reply to Opposition”) on August 15, 2011.
Background.MBC, CCHI, and a third applicant, Bible Broadcasting Network, Inc. (“BBN”), filed
mutually exclusive applications for a new NCE FM station. MBC proposed service to Kaneohe, Hawaii,
and the other applicants proposed service to Honolulu. The Commission subsequently designated these
applications as Group 95083E.4 In the Omnibus Order, the Commission named MBC the tentative
selectee based on an award of five points for satisfying the “established local applicant” and “local
diversity of ownership” criteria.5 The Commission established a 30-day period in which to file petitions
CCHI filed a petition to deny the MBC Application on May 2, 2007, challenging MBC’s
qualifications as an established local applicant, claiming that MBC does not use its physical headquarters
-- located at 875 Waimanu Street, in Honolulu (“Suite 110”) -- to conduct any activity in the community.
Specifically, CCHI alleged “there is no hint of MBC’s presence at [Suite 110] or of any activity on the
part of MBC other than prosecution of the application.”7 In response, MBC acknowledged that it was
formed primarily for the purpose of filing its Application and had no other current business activities, but
argued that its physical presence within 25 miles of its community of license for more than two years was
sufficient to receive points as an established local applicant.8
On October 3, 2007, the Media Bureau (“Bureau”) Staff issued a letter, finding that the mere
local address of an applicant was not sufficient to entitle it to receive points as an established local
applicant: “It has never been our intent to award the established local applicant credit to organizations
engaged in virtually no activities in the community of interest . . . A shell organization’s mere paper
existence for two years or more [does not satisfy the standard].”9 Finding that CCHI had raised a prima
facie case that MBC was an inchoate organization, the Bureau referred the case to the Commission for
final disposition and offered MBC a 30-day period to produce additional factual documentation for the
Commission’s consideration. MBC submitted the following, supported by a declaration of its President
under penalty of perjury: (1) a photograph of a sign located at a rear outside entrance to Suite 110 listing
MBC among seven businesses therein; (2) a description of a “somewhat unusual” building layout that
might create difficulty seeing the MBC sign; (3) a statement that MBC's principals have regularly
conferred concerning programming plans; and (4) descriptions of active involvement of several MBC
principals in local public affairs.10
In the Comparative Consideration Order,11 the Commission found the record, as a whole,
supported our preliminary finding that MBC is an inchoate organization: “It is clear from the record that
MBC is not an actively operating organization and that its Suite 110 address functions, at most, like
locations which the Commission has identified as insufficient to qualify for points.”12 It concluded that
4 See Comparative Consideration of 76 Groups of Mutually Exclusive Applications for Permits to Construct New or
Modified Noncommercial Educational FM Stations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 6101, 6133
(2007) (“Omnibus Order”).
5 Id. CCHI received three points, and BBN received zero points.
6 Id. at 6165.
7 CCHI, May 2, 2007, Petition to Deny at 6.
8 MBC, May 16, 2007, Opposition to Petition to Deny at 5 n.3.
9 Calvary Chapel of Honolulu, Inc., Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 17654, 17660 (MB 2007) (“Staff Decision”) (citing
Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants, Memorandum Opinion
and Second Order on Reconsideration, 17 FCC Rcd 13132, 13137-38 (2002) (“NCE Second Order”)).
10 MBC asserted that its principals worked with local charities, volunteered at non-commercial television stations,
and held positions of public office in the community.
11 Comparative Consideration Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9091.
12 Id. at 9091.
MBC failed to show that any business or activities relating to MBC ever took place in Suite 110 and that
the active community involvement of the MBC principals cannot be attributed to MBC as the applicant
entity.13 As a result, the Commission conducted a new comparative analysis, declined to credit MBC’s
claim for three points as an established local applicant, and named CCHI the new tentative selectee.14
The Commission also established a new 30-day period in which to file petitions to deny the CCHI
In response to the Comparative Consideration Order, MBC filed the instant pleadings. In the
MBC Petition for Reconsideration, MBC argues, as it did previously, that Section 73.7000 of the
Commission’s Rules (the “Rules”)16 only requires that an established local applicant be headquartered
within 25 miles of the proposed community of license for a period of more than two years. MBC alleges
that the Commission has improperly deviated from the codified standard by requiring some level of
“specific activity by the applicant in its own name,” and that such a requirement is unsupported by
previous Commission pronouncements.17 MBC claims this revision is an “arbitrary and capricious”
application of Section 73.7000.18 MBC argues in the alternative that if such activity is required, the local
activities and engagements undertaken by MBC’s principals should suffice to satisfy the requirement.19
In its Motion, CCHI claims that MBC’s Petition for Reconsideration should be dismissed because
it is procedurally improper and violates Section 1.106(a)(1).20 Further, in the Contingent Opposition,
CCHI argues that MBC fails to raise any new points not already considered by the Commission and fails
to demonstrate any error in the Commission’s Comparative Consideration Order.21 In MBC’s Reply to
Contingent Opposition, MBC reiterates its argument that the Commission has deviated from the language
of Section 73.7000 regarding the established local applicant criterion and states that a petition for
reconsideration was the proper vehicle to raise its objections.22
In its Petition to Deny, MBC claims that CCHI changed more than 50 percent of its board of
directors -- a “major change in ownership” -- which is generally impermissible after the close of the filing
window under Section 73.3573.23 MBC alleges that, since the initial application filing in 1996, three of
CCHI’s five board members have been replaced by new directors, and that the removal of the most recent
member, Stephen Holck, cannot be considered the result of “gradual” or “inevitable” change for which a
waiver may be granted.24 MBC claims that CCHI fired Mr. Holck in November, 2006, although CCHI
13 Id. at 9091-92.
14 Id. at 9092.
15 Id. at 9105.
16 47 C.F.R. § 73.7000.
17 MBC Petition for Reconsideration at 4-5.
19 Id. at 5-7 (stating repeatedly that an organization is “nothing more nor less than its principals”).
20 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(a)(1). CCHI argues that Section 1.106(a)(1) prohibits petitions for reconsideration of
interlocutory decisions, such as the Comparative Consideration Order. As such, CCHI states that the Bureau should
dismiss the MBC Petition for Reconsideration without consideration.
21 CCHI Contingent Opposition at 6-8. CCHI also argues that MBC’s Application should be dismissed for lack of
reasonable assurance of site availability. We do not reach the merits of this claim.
22 Reply to Contingent Opposition at 1-2.
23 MBC Petition to Deny at 2-4; see 47 C.F.R. § 73.3573.
24 Id. at 4-6.
previously stated that Mr. Holck took a leave of absence following his wife’s death.25 MBC alleges that
this discrepancy is evidence of CCHI’s misrepresentation and lack of candor and should be separate
grounds for dismissal of the CCHI Application and an investigation.26
In its Opposition, CCHI acknowledges that it has replaced three of its originally listed five
directors but maintains that it is eligible for a waiver because of the extended period between application
filing and action.27 CCHI also argues that the Staff Decision previously addressed this issue and stated
that a waiver would be appropriate.28 CCHI denies MBC’s allegations that it provided false information
and maintains that Mr. Holck took a leave of absence in November, 2006, before leaving permanently.29
In its Reply, MBC argues that waiver is inappropriate because CCHI’s major change in ownership is
distinguishable from those specified in the Omnibus Order.30 MBC also avers that CCHI’s refusal to
respond to claims regarding the circumstances of Mr. Holck’s departure from CCHI’s board is evidence
of a lack of candor and credibility.31
Discussion.Petition for Reconsideration. Section 1.106(a)(1) of the Rules specifically prohibits
petitions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders.32 The Comparative Consideration Order against
which reconsideration is sought took no action with regard to any of the underlying applications in Group
95083E. Confirming the interlocutory nature of the Comparative Consideration Order, the Bureau
repeatedly emphasized that the selections were “tentative” and took no final action on either the MBC or
CCHI Applications.33 The Comparative Consideration Order expressly states that “[a]ny argument that
the tentatively selected application should not be granted should be raised in such a petition [to deny],
even if the objection relates only indirectly to the tentative selectee's qualifications.”34 We therefore will
dismiss the MBC Petition for Reconsideration as procedurally improper.
Moreover, even if we consider MBC’s arguments, we find them unpersuasive. MBC argues that
nothing more is needed to satisfy the established local applicant criterion if the applicant demonstrates
that it is physically headquartered within 25 miles of its community of license and has been for more than
two years.35 It claims that the Commission has enforced the established local applicant criterion in an
25 Id. MBC provides a detailed account of its version of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Holck’s departure and
his relationship with CCHI. Id. at 3-4. As discussed below, we these details are irrelevant to our determination.
26 Id. at 8-9.
27 CCHI Opposition at 2.
28 Id. at 5.
29 Id. at n. 15.
30 Reply to Opposition at 2-3. The Omnibus Order specified two cases in which waiver of the major change in
ownership prohibition would be granted. Omnibus Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6124. MBC argues that both cases are
distinguishable because they involved an extended organization and an institutional system of checks and balances,
requiring regular managerial turnover. MBC Petition to Deny at 2-3. MBC claims that CCHI lacks these essential
31 Reply to Opposition at 4.
32 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(a)(1). See also Comparative Consideration Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9094 (“Parties should
not raise . . . [objections] as petitions for reconsideration of the instant Order because the point hearings herein take
no final action on any application, and petitions for reconsideration do not lie against such interlocutory decisions”);
State of Oregon, Letter, 23 FCC Rcd 11576 (MB 2008).
33 See Comparative Consideration Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9094.
34 See id. (stating that “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 would make
its argument in a petition to deny”). We find the example apt for this situation.
35 MBC Petition for Reconsideration at 4-5.
arbitrary and capricious manner, “at odds with the Commission’s explicit goals.”36 We disagree. The
Commission explicitly anticipated that some applicants would exist solely on paper and emphasized that
such applicants would not satisfy the established local applicant criterion.37 The Commission also has
explicitly rejected MBC’s argument that the activities of its principals in the community of license should
be attributed to MBC for the purposes of establishing community involvement, although not undertaken
as representatives of MBC.38 It stated in the Comparative Consideration Order that “MBC cannot rely on
activities of local director with other organizations to overcome its own lack of local activity.”39 MBC
has shown no error in these determinations.
Petition to Deny. Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended , 40 provides
that any party in interest may file a petition to deny an application. In order to assess the merits of a
petition to deny, a two-step analysis is required.41 First, the petition must make specific allegations of fact
sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner is a party in interest and that a grant of the application would
be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.42 This threshold
determination is made by evaluating the petition and the supporting affidavits. If the petition meets this
threshold requirement, the Commission must then examine all of the material before it to determine
whether there is a substantial and material question of fact calling for further inquiry and requiring
resolution in a hearing.43 If no such question is raised and if the Commission concludes that such grant
otherwise serves the public interest, convenience, and necessity, the Commission will deny the petition
and grant the application.
Pursuant to Section 73.3573(a) of the Rules,44 a fifty percent change in the governing board of an
NCE applicant would generally be considered a major change and would not be permissible outside of a
filing window.45 In the Omnibus Order, however, the Commission delineated the circumstances under
which waivers might be appropriate.46 For instance, the Commission indicated that a waiver would be
warranted when the change occurred gradually and pursuant to state law and not as an outgrowth of any
party’s desire to gain control over an entity which has pending an NCE new station application.47 The
Commission also looks to whether the change occurred naturally as the organization evolved and grew.48
Indeed, the Commission has recognized that gradual changes in the control of NCE governing boards may
36 Id. at 1.
37 See NCE Second Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 17661 (“Paper existence serves neither to establish the applicant's
educational credentials in a particular locality nor to foster participation by truly local entities in noncommercial
38 MBC Petition for Reconsideration at 5-7.
39 Comparative Consideration Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9092.
40 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1).
41 See, e.g., Artistic Media Partners, Inc., Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 18676, 18676 (MB 2007).
42 See id.; Astroline Communications Co. v. FCC, 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
43 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(2).
44 47 C.F.R. §73.3573(a).
45 See Omnibus Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6123.
46 Id. at 6124.
occur over periods as brief as four years.49 Nevertheless, it noted that waivers are not warranted in all
In the MBC Petition to Deny, MBC claims that CCHI’s 60 percent change in its governing board
should not be entitled to a waiver of the major change of ownership rule because it does not follow the cases
specified in the Omnibus Order.51 This argument is misguided. The Staff Decision, in dicta, merely stated
that, “in view of the waivers that the Commission has granted to NCE applicants that underwent routine and
inevitable ownership changes over a substantial period . . . it would be inconsistent to penalize NCE
petitions that potentially are similarly-situated.”52
We find a waiver of Section 73.3573(a) is justified in this case because CCHI’s major change of
ownership was occurred gradually and was not the outgrowth of any party’s desire to gain control. CCHI
submitted its Application in April, 1996. The first of its original directors left in 1998; the second in 1999;
and the third, Mr. Holck, in November, 2006.53 Such turnover, over more than ten years, falls within the
range of what the Commission has deemed to be “gradual.”54 Moreover, MBC has not alleged that the
change in ownership was an outgrowth of any party’s desire to gain control, nor do the facts support this
conclusion.55 Instead, MBC focuses on the circumstances surrounding Mr. Holck’s departure, claiming that
his dismissal cannot be considered “routine” or “inevitable” because Mr. Holck was allegedly fired.56 MBC
contends that waiver is inappropriate because Mr. Holck’s departure is distinguishable from the cases
highlighted in the Omnibus Order where waiver was approved.57 However, the Commission’s discussion of
major change of ownership issues in the Omnibus Order was not intended to be an exhaustive list of the
circumstances in which waiver would be appropriate. Rather, the Commission recognized that it would be
“unreasonable to penalize . . . similarly situated NCE applicants for routine and inevitable changes in their
boards or other governing bodies, over the substantially [long] period that the Commission was unable to act
on their applications due to pending NCE rulemaking and judicial proceedings.”58 Although MBC focuses
on the specific falling out between CCHI and Mr. Holck, the Commission is only concerned with the overall
pattern of change in ownership.59 We find that CCHI’s major change in ownership was gradual and routine,
and not the outgrowth of any party’s desire to gain control.
49 Id. at 6125.
50 Id. at 6128 (declining to waive rule where changes were evidence of an attempt to gain control of the applicant
entity and were not the gradual replacement of the applicant members over time).
51 MBC Petition to Deny at 2-3; see supra n. 29.
52 Staff Decision, 22 FCC Rcd at 17655. The Staff Decision briefly addressed the major change in ownership issue
in considering whether CCHI had standing to file its May 2, 2007, Petition to Deny.
53 See CCHI Opposition, Attachment A. Mr. Holck allegedly took a leave of absence starting in November, but, as
he never returned, we will treat November, 2006, as his departure date.
54 See State of Oregon Acting by and Through the State Board of Higher Education for the Benefit of Southern
Oregon University, Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 17643 (MB 2007) (application pending nine years); Thomas Aquinas
School, Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 15651 (MB 2007) (application pending for 12 years). See also Eagle’s Nest Fellowship
Church, Letter, 23 FCC Rcd 862 (MB 2008) (application pending ten years).
55 William Stonebraker, CCHI’s President, and Kevin O’Neill, CCHI’s Vice-President, have remained on CCHI’s
board of directors since the original filing.
56 MBC Petition to Deny at 4-6.
57 Id. at 4-5, citing Omnibus Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6124-25.
58 Omnibus Order at 6125. The Commission anticipated that a large number of NCE applicants would be affected,
stating, “We expect that many pending NCE applicants that have experienced 50 percent ownership changes will
qualify for such waivers.”
59 MBC’s argument also fails to address the fact that all three departed directors must be considered. MBC alleges
that Mr. Holck’s dismissal was not routine or inevitable but is silent on the remaining two.
The Commission may waive its policies or rules upon a showing of good cause.60 An applicant
seeking a waiver has the burden to plead with particularity the facts and circumstances that warrant such
action.61 The Commission must give waiver requests “a hard look,” but an applicant for waiver “faces a
high hurdle even at the starting gate”62 and must support its waiver request with a compelling showing.63
The Commission may exercise its discretion to waive a policy or rule where the particular facts make
strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest.64 In addition, the Commission may take into
account considerations of hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of overall policy on an
individual basis.65 However, waiver of the Commission’s policies or rules is appropriate only if both (i)
special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and (ii) such deviation will serve the
In this case, consistent with Commission pronouncements in the Omnibus Order, we find that strict
compliance with Section 73.3573 would disserve the public interest and that “special circumstances” – the
16-year pendency of the CCHI Application – warrant a deviation from that general rule. Accordingly, we
waive Section 73.3573 with respect to the change in CCHI’s governing board.
Finally, MBC alleges that CCHI has engaged in misrepresentation and lack of candor.67 The trait of
truthfulness is a key element of character qualifications necessary to operate a broadcast station in the public
interest.68 Misrepresentation and lack of candor raise immediate concerns as to whether a licensee will be
truthful in future dealings with the Commission.69 Misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made with
intent to deceive.70 Lack of candor is concealment, evasion, or other failure to be fully informative,
accompanied by intent to deceive.71 Intent can be shown in many ways. If a licensee knowingly makes a
false statement, that is sufficient proof of intent to deceive.72 Intent to deceive can also be inferred when one
60 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.
61 See Columbia Communications Corp. v. FCC, 832 F.2d 189, 192 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
62 See WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969), aff’d., 459 F.2d 1203 (1972), cert. denied, 93
S/Ct. 461 (1972) (“WAIT Radio”). See also Thomas Radio v. FCC, 716 F.2d 921, 924 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
63 Greater Media Radio Co., Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7090 (1999) (citing Stoner
Broadcasting System, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 49 FCC 2d 1011, 1012 (1974)).
64 Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (“Northeast Cellular”).
65 WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1159; Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166.
66 Network IP, LLC v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 125-128 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166.
67 MBC Petition to Deny at 7-9.
68 See Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102
FCC 2d 1179, 1210-11 (1986), recon. denied, 1 FCC Rcd 421 (1986), appeal dismissed sub nom. National
Association for Better Broadcasting v. FCC, No. 86-1179 (D.C. Cir. Jun. 11, 1987).
70 See Fox River Broadcasting, Inc., Order, 93 FCC 2d 127, 129 (1983).
72 See Leflore Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC, 636 F.2d 454, 462 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (“[T]he fact of misrepresentation
coupled with proof that the party making it had knowledge of its falsity [is] enough to justify a conclusion that there
was fraudulent intent”).
has a clear motive to deceive.73 Moreover, intent can be found when the surrounding circumstances clearly
show the existence of intent to deceive, even if there is no direct evidence of a motive.74
MBC presents the Declaration, under penalty of perjury, of Christopher Racine, a director of MBC,
who states that Mr. Holck was fired in November, 2006,75 contradicting prior statements by CCHI that Mr.
Holck simply took a leave of absence in November, 2006, and was subsequently replaced in 2007.76 We
find that MBC has not proved the requisite intent necessary to establish misrepresentation and lack of
candor. The party alleging misrepresentation and lack of candor has the burden of proof to make a prima
facie showing of intent to deceive.77 MBC has not made such a showing, instead choosing only to pose a
series of rhetorical questions.78 Additionally, we find no evident motive supporting an intent to deceive,
because whether Mr. Holck was fired or placed on leave November of 2006 and ultimately replaced is
irrelevant to the central issue of whether the change in CCHI’s board occurred gradually.
Conclusions/Actions. In light of the procedural and substantive defects, we find that MBC’s
arguments do not warrant overturning its tentative dismissal. Further, MBC’s arguments do not affect our
determination that CCHI is entitled to a waiver of Section 73.3573 of the Rules, as the replacement of three
of CCHI’s five directors over a ten-year period constitutes a gradual change in ownership.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration, filed by Maka’ainana
Broadcasting Company, Ltd. on July 21, 2011, IS DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDEDED that the Petition to Deny, filed by Maka’ainana Broadcasting
Company, Ltd. on July 21, 2011, IS DENIED.
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
cc: Maka’ainana Broadcasting Company, Ltd.
Calvary Chapel of Honolulu, Inc.
73 See, e.g., RKO General, Inc., Decision, 4 FCC Rcd 4679, 4684 (Rev. Bd. 1989).
74 See American International Development, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 86 FCC 2d 808, 816 n. 39
(1981), aff’d sub nom. KXIV, Inc. v. FCC, 704 F.2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the absence of direct
evidence of motive is not significant where the record otherwise clearly establishes that deceptive conduct has
75 MBC Petition to Deny, Attachment C, Declaration of Christopher Racine.
76 See also CCHI Opposition at 3 n. 7.
77 See, e.g., Merrimack Valley Broadcasting, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 99 FCC 2d 680, n. 9 (1984).
78 See Reply to Opposition to Deny at 4.
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.