Renewals and Assignment Applications of Bernard Ohio, LLC granted
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554January 11, 2013
In Reply Refer to:
Released: January 11, 2013
Aaron P. Shainis, Esq.
Shainis & Peltzman, Chartered
1850 M Street N.W. Suite 240
Washington, D.C. 20036
David Oxenford, Esq.
Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP
2300 N Street N.W. Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20037
341 South Third Street Suite 101
Columbus, OH 43215
WVKO(AM), Columbus, Ohio
File No. BR-20120529AHE
WVKO-FM, Johnstown, Ohio
File No. BRH-20120529AHG
WASN(AM), Youngstown, Ohio
File No. BR-20120529AHH
WGFT(AM), Campbell, Ohio
File No. BR-20120529AHJ
Applications for Renewal of License
Petition to Deny
WRBP(FM), Hubbard, Ohio
File No. BRH-20120529AHK
Application for Renewal of LicenseFile No. BALH-20120612AAP
Application for Assignment
Petition to DenyFile No. BMLH-20120710AAS
Application to Modify License
Request for Waiver of Main Studio Rule
Petition to Deny
We have before us the above-captioned license renewal applications (the “Renewal
Applications”) for stations WVKO(AM), Columbus, Ohio; WVKO-FM, Johnstown, Ohio; WASN(AM),
Youngstown, Ohio; WGFT(AM), Campbell, Ohio; and WRBP(FM), Hubbard, Ohio (the “Stations”). We
also have under consideration the above-captioned application (the “Assignment Application”) seeking
approval for the proposed assignment of the license for station WRBP(FM), Hubbard, Ohio, (the
“Station”) from Bernard Ohio, LLC (“Bernard”) to Educational Media Foundation (“EMF”). Finally, we
have the above-captioned application filed by EMF for modification of the license for station WRBP(FM)
to operate as a noncommercial educational (“NCE”) station1 and accompanying main studio waiver
request to operate WRBP(FM) as a “satellite” of co-owned NCE station KLVR(FM), Middletown,
California (“License Modification Application”) (collectively, the “Applications”).2 Petitions to deny
each of the Applications have been filed by Percy Squire (“Squire”) (the “Squire Petitions”).3 The Squire
Petitions are nearly identical in content and are therefore considered collectively. For the reasons set
forth below, we deny the Squire Petitions and grant the Applications.
I. BackgroundSquire was the Managing Member and CEO of the former licensee of the five Stations, Stop 26
Riverbend Licenses, LLC (“SRL”).4 In 2004, SRL entered into a loan agreement with the predecessor of
D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunity Fund, LP (“DBZ Onshore Fund”), a hedge fund then managed by
1 47 C.F.R. § 73.1690(c)(9).
2 A “satellite” station meets all of the Commission’s technical rules. However, it originates no programming and
instead rebroadcasts the parent station’s programming. See Amendment of Multiple Ownership Rules, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 3 R.R.2d 1554, 1562 (1964).
3 On July 2, 2012, Squire filed an Amended Petition to Deny the Renewal Applications, and on July 9, 2012, he filed
a nearly-identical Second Amended Petition to Deny (the “Squire Renewal Petition”). We have no record that
Squire’s initial Petition to Deny the Renewal Applications was filed with the Commission, although apparently it
was sent to Bernard’s counsel via U.S. Postal Service on June 29, 2012. Bernard responded with an August 10,
2012, Opposition to Petition to Deny (“Bernard Renewal Opposition”). On July 11, 2012, Squire filed a Petition to
Deny the Assignment Application (“Squire Assignment Petition”), which Bernard responded to with an August 9,
2012, Opposition to Petition to Deny (“Bernard Assignment Opposition”). On August 13, 2012, Squire filed a
Verified Reply of Percy Squire to Opposition to the Bernard Assignment Opposition. On August 8, 2012, Squire
filed a Petition to Deny the License Modification Application (“Squire License Modification Petition”). On August
16, 2012, EMF opposed the Squire License Modification Petition with an Opposition to Petition to Deny (“EMF
License Modification Opposition”).
4 See Shareholders of Stop 26 Riverbend, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 6516, 6517 (2012)
(“2012 Stop 26 Riverbend Order”).
another Zwirn entity, D.B. Zwirn & Co. L.P. (“DBZ”).5 In July 2005, SRL filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy.6 As a result of the bankruptcy, on January 22, 2007, the Stations were assigned to Bernard,
an affiliate of DBZ Onshore Fund.7 Bernard’s sole member is Rocklynn Radio, LLC (“Rocklynn”)
(previously Bernard Radio LLC).8 Rocklynn’s managing and sole voting member is RL Transition Corp.9
Rocklynn’s insulated non-managing member (100 percent equity member) is DBZ Onshore Fund.10
Daniel B. Zwirn (“Zwirn”) is the sole shareholder of RL Transition Corp.11
Squire contends that grant of the Applications would be against the public interest because
Bernard “is actively violating Commission rules concerning multiple ownership, premature change of
control, alien ownership and racially discriminatory and predatory lending.”12 Specifically, Squire alleges
that the Stations are actually controlled by Fortress Investment Group (“Fortress”), who took over
management of Zwirn’s various hedge funds (including DBZ Onshore Fund) from DBZ in 2009.13 Squire
argues that even if Bernard had a time brokerage agreement (“TBA”) with Fortress, it would still have
failed to maintain the required level of control because “all programming, personnel and financial
decisions for the station . . . are actually made by Fortress.”14 Squire also contends that pro forma transfer
of control applications submitted by Bernard in 200915 contain inaccurate ownership information, due to
the alleged control of the Stations by Fortress.16 Finally, Squire alleges that Bernard violated the
Commission’s foreign ownership limits, apparently by means of alleged cash transfers among the various
5 Squire Renewal Petition at 13; Squire Assignment Petition at 12; Squire License Modification Petition at 12-13;
Bernard Assignment Opposition at 6.
6 2012 Stop 26 Riverbend Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6517.
7 See File Nos. BAL-20060301ACU; BALH-20060301ACV; BALH-20060301ACW; BAL-20060301ACX; and
8 Id.; Bernard Assignment Opposition at 4.
9 In May 2009, DBZ assigned its managing member interest in Rocklynn to RL Transition Corp. See File Nos. BTC-
20090520ACI; BTC-20090520ACJ; BTCH-20090520ACK; BTC-20090520ACL; and BTCH-20090520ACM.
10 See File No. BTC-20090520ACI, Exhibit 1.
11 Bernard Assignment Opposition at 4.
12 Squire Renewal Petition at 3; Squire Assignment Petition at 2; Squire License Modification Petition at 3. Beyond
this introductory statement, Squire does not make any further arguments regarding possible violation of the
Commission’s multiple ownership rules. Therefore, we address only his arguments regarding premature control,
alien ownership, and discriminatory and predatory lending.
13 Squire Renewal Petition at 3-7; Squire Assignment Petition at 3-7; Squire License Modification Petition at 3-7.
14 Squire Renewal Petition at 4; Squire Assignment Petition at 3; Squire License Modification Petition at 3.
15 File Nos. BTC-20090520ACI; BTC-20090520ACJ; BTCH-20090520ACK; BTC-20090520ACL; and BTCH-
20090520ACM. By these pro forma applications, several intermediary entities ultimately controlled by Zwirn were
removed from the control structure of Bernard and replaced with RL Transition Corp. Thus, DBZ’s managing
member interest in Rocklynn was transferred to RL Transition Corp. See supra note 9.
16 Squire Renewal Petition at 4-5; Squire Assignment Petition at 3-4; Squire License Modification Petition at 4.
Zwirn hedge funds.17 In support of his foreign ownership argument, Squire cites a U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (“SEC”) complaint and court opinion in a case against DBZ’s former Chief
Financial Officer, Perry Gruss, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
In response to the Squire Renewal and Assignment Petitions, Bernard argues that there is no
support for any of Squire’s allegations concerning either unauthorized control or alien ownership.19 With
respect to unauthorized control, Bernard states that the Fortress assumption of the management of various
hedge funds previously managed by Zwirn is not a basis for the “speculative assertion” that Zwirn does
not control Bernard and the Stations.20 Finally, Bernard states that while “it is virtually impossible to
comprehend [Squire’s] arguments” regarding alien ownership, Squire has “totally failed to show that
Daniel Zwirn does not control the licensee entity.”21
In its Opposition to the Squire License Modification Petition, EMF observes that the issues raised
by the Squire Petitions do not pertain to EMF or to the License Modification Application.22 Rather, EMF
contends, the Squire License Modification Petition is “entirely focused on the qualifications of Bernard to
sell the station to EMF.”23 EMF argues that those issues will be considered in connection with the
Assignment Application and are not relevant to the License Modification Application.24
Renewal Applications.Section 309(k) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the
“Act”),25 provides that the Commission must grant a license renewal application if, upon consideration of
the application and pleadings, it finds that: (1) the station has served the public interest, convenience, and
necessity; (2) there have been no serious violations of the Act or the Commission’s rules; and (3) there
have been no other violations which, taken together, constitute a pattern of abuse.26
17 Squire Renewal Petition at 10-19; Squire Assignment Petition at 9-19; Squire License Modification Petition at 9-
18 Squire Renewal Petition at 19. Squire Assignment Petition at 18-19; Squire License Modification Petition at 18-
19 Bernard Assignment Opposition at 2-7. Bernard’s Renewal Opposition “incorporates by reference” the Bernard
Assignment Opposition. Bernard Renewal Opposition at 2 (citing File No. BALH-20120612AAP).
20 Bernard Assignment Opposition at 4.
21 Bernard Assignment Opposition at 6-7.
22 EMF License Modification Opposition at 1.
24 Id. at 2.
25 47 U.S.C. § 309(k).
26 47 U.S.C. §309(k)(1). The renewal standard was amended by Section 204(a) of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). See Implementation of Sections 204(a) and 204(c) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Broadcast License Renewal Procedures), Order, 11 FCC Rcd 6363 (1996).
Any interested party may file a petition to deny with the Commission alleging facts, supported by
affidavit, sufficient to show that grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with the
standard set forth above.27 If the specific allegations support a prima facie case, we next examine and
weigh all the evidence presented, to determine whether “a substantial and material question of fact” is
presented,28 i.e. “whether the totality of the evidence arouses a sufficient doubt on the point that further
inquiry is called for.”29 We must also determine whether grant of the Renewal Applications would serve
the public interest.30
In determining whether a petitioner has made a prima facie case, “[t]he Commission's inquiry . . .
is much like that performed by a trial judge considering a motion for a directed verdict: if all the
supporting facts alleged in the affidavits were true, could a reasonable factfinder conclude that the
ultimate fact in dispute had been established.”31 Allegations that consist “of ultimate, conclusionary facts
or more general allegations on information and belief, supported by general affidavits . . . are not
sufficient” to establish a prima facie case.32
If the Commission finds, on the basis of the application, the pleadings filed, or other matters
which it may officially notice, that there are no substantial and material questions of fact and that a grant
of the application would be consistent with the standard of Section 309(k), it shall make the grant and
deny the petition. If, however, the licensee fails to meet that standard, the Commission may deny the
application—after notice and opportunity for a hearing under Section 309(e) of the Act—or grant the
application “on terms and conditions that are appropriate, including a renewal for a term less than the
maximum otherwise permitted.”33
In this case, Squire has not presented specific factual allegations sufficient to either establish a
prima facie case or raise substantial and material questions of fact that grant of the Renewal Applications
would be inconsistent with the public interest.
Foreign ownership. Squire alleges that DBZ Onshore Fund, which has an indirect equity interest
in Bernard, has a prohibited level of foreign ownership.34 Under Section 310 of the Act, indirect foreign
27 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1).
28 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(2).
29 Citizens for Jazz on WRVR v. FCC, 775 F.2d 392, 395 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
30 47 U.S.C. § 309(a); See also Astroline Communications Co. v. FCC, 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
31 Gencom, Inc. v. FCC, 832 F.2d 171, 181 (D.C. Cir.1987) (“Gencom, Inc.”).
32 North Idaho Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 1637, 1638 (1993) (quoting
Gencom Inc., 832 F.2d at 180 n.11).
33 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(k)(2),(3).
34 Squire Renewal Petition at 10-19; Squire Assignment Petition at 9-19; Squire License Modification Petition at 9-
ownership of any entity that controls a broadcast licensee cannot exceed 25 percent.35 Both insulated and
non-insulated foreign equity interests in broadcast licensees are evaluated in determining compliance with
Section 310(b).36 Therefore, DBZ Onshore Fund’s ownership is relevant to assessing Bernard’s
compliance with Section 310. However, Squire does not introduce any facts that would suggest an
impermissible level of alien ownership in Bernard or otherwise call into question Bernard’s certified
statement that it is in compliance with the foreign ownership restrictions of Section 310.37
Squire’s foreign ownership contentions rest primarily on alleged cash transfers from and among
the funds formerly managed by DBZ. Specifically, Squire states that “[b]y reason of the unlawful and
hidden transfers of improper charges to DBZ [Onshore Fund] clients and intra Fund transfers, DBZ
[Onshore Fund]’s actual domestic ownership was not as represented . . .”38 He also argues that “it is clear
from the SEC filing in the Southern District of New York against DBZ [Onshore Fund] Chief Financial
Officer, Perry Gruss, that the 25% benchmark [on foreign ownership] . . . was surpassed . . .”39 Finally,
he states that “[i]t is now clear from Judge Sweet’s opinion in Gruss that DBZ [Onshore Fund] . . . had
foreign ownership at levels prohibited by §310(B)(4).”40
Presumably, Squire refers to a complaint brought by the SEC against Perry Gruss on April 8,
2011.41 On May 9, 2012, District Judge Sweet denied Gruss’s motion to dismiss.42 In that opinion, Judge
Sweet summarized the SEC case against Gruss as follows: “Gruss used the signatory and approval
authority he had over the funds to authorize more than $870 million in improper transfers of client cash.
The cash was transferred both between client funds and from client funds to [DBZ] and third parties.”43
Squire does not attempt to demonstrate how alleged improper cash transfers carried out by the
hedge fund manager’s CFO could affect the ownership structure of DBZ Onshore Fund, a limited
partnership. Nor does Squire provide any other data relevant to the foreign ownership percentages of
either Bernard or DBZ Onshore Fund. Absent information sufficient to raise a prima facie foreign
ownership issue, much less a substantial and material question of fact, we properly rely on Bernard’s
35 47 U.S.C. § 310(b)(4) (“Section 310” or “Section 310(b)”).
36 See, e.g., BBC License Subsidiary L.P., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 10968, 10973 (1995)
(citing Wilner & Scheiner I, Declaratory Ruling, 103 FCC 2d 511, 519, n.37 (1985) (“By its express terms, the
statute provides limitations on the amount of capital stock which can be owned or voted by aliens. Because the
statutory limitations are cast in the disjunctive, the non-voting stock owned by aliens is considered in evaluating
compliance with the benchmarks established by Section 310(b)”).
37 Bernard Renewal Applications, Section II, item 5.
38 Squire Renewal Petition at 14; Squire Assignment Petition at 14; Squire License Modification Petition at 14.
39 Squire Renewal Petition at 19. Squire Assignment Petition at 18; Squire License Modification Petition at 18-19.
40 Squire Renewal Petition at 19. Squire Assignment Petition at 19; Squire License Modification Petition at 19.
41 SEC v. Perry A. Gruss, Case No. 11 Civ. 2420 (S.D.N.Y.) (pending). The SEC’s complaint was amended on June
10, 2011. SEC v. Gruss, Opinion, No. 11 Civ. 2420 at 1 (“Gruss Opinion”).
42 Gruss Opinion, No. 11 Civ. 2420 at 2.
affirmative certification under penalty of perjury that it complies with the foreign ownership provisions of
Section 310(b) of the Act.44
Unauthorized transfer of control. In determining whether there has been an unauthorized transfer
of control, the Commission employs a tripartite, fact-based test for control within the meaning of Section
310(d) of the Act.45 Specifically, we look to whether an entity other than the licensee determines the
basic operating policies of the station(s) with respect to personnel, programming, and finances.46
Here, Squire provides no information regarding Fortress’s purported operational control over the
Stations’ personnel, programming, and finances. Instead, Squire argues that Fortress controls the Stations
because the Station licenses were part of $2.5 billion in “illiquid assets” acquired from DBZ by Fortress
in June 2009 in connection with Fortress assuming the investment management of the Zwirn hedge
funds.47 Squire submits a copy of a shareholder proxy statement apparently sent to DBZ Special
Opportunities Fund, Ltd. (“DBZ Offshore Fund”) investors on May 5, 2009 (“Proxy Statement”). The
Proxy Statement describes an asset purchase agreement (“APA”), entered into May 1, 2009, between
DBZ and Fortress, under which Fortress would acquire “substantially all of the assets of [DBZ] that an
investment manager would need to manage the funds . . .”48 It also proposes that a Fortress affiliate take
over management of the various Zwirn funds.49
The Proxy Statement does not support Squire’s contentions. Rather, it confirms that DBZ, as the
general partner of the insulated equity member (DBZ Onshore Fund) of Bernard’s sole member, held a
non-controlling, non-attributable interest in the Stations.50 Fortress would have acquired that same non-
attributable positional interest when it assumed management of DBZ Onshore Fund. Squire presents no
facts or argument suggesting that DBZ Onshore Fund’s interests in Bernard are not properly insulated
(and therefore not attributable) as certified by Bernard.51 Therefore, the transactions described in the
Proxy Statement—assuming that they transpired as outlined—do not raise an issue of whether Fortress
exercises impermissible de facto control over the Stations.
44 See, e.g., Corporate Ownership Reporting and Disclosure by Broadcast Licensees, Amendment of Sections 73.35,
73.240 and 73.636 of the Commission's Rules Relating to Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM and Television
Broadcast Stations, Report and Order, 97 FCC 2d 997, 1028 n. 75 (1984), recon. granted in part, 58 R.R.2d 604
(1985), further recon. granted in part, 1 FCC Rcd 802 (1986) (“We emphasize that our action herein with respect to
ownership reporting requirements in no way affects the continued obligation of licensees to reasonably determine
and certify compliance with the alien ownership restrictions of [Section 310(b) of the Act].”).
45 See WGPR, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 8140, 8142-46 (2005) (“WGPR”), vacated on
other grounds sub nom. Serafyn v. FCC, 149 F.3d 1213 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Choctaw Broadcasting Corporation,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8534, 8538-39 (1997).
46 See, e.g, WGPR, 10 FCC Rcd at 8145.
47 Squire Renewal Petition at 9; Squire Assignment Petition at 8; Squire License Modification Petition at 8.
48 Proxy Statement at 1, Annex A-9.
49 Proxy Statement at 1.
50 Proxy Statement at ii.
51 Bernard Assignment Opposition at 4; See also 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555.
Squire also provides a detailed overview of the applicable legal standard for evaluating control in
the context of a TBA,52 but offers no facts to support his concluding statement that “Bernard is not
operating the Ohio stations.”53 The attached Declaration of Dr. Glenn Cherry refers exclusively to a
different transaction, a different set of stations and a different licensee.54 To the extent that the Cherry
Declaration makes general assertions, such as “Fortress Investment Group controls all radio licenses
purportedly controlled by DBZ or its successor R.L. Transition Corp.,”55 these statements are wholly
unsupported by facts relevant to the Stations. Such statements exemplify “conclusionary facts or more
general allegations on information and belief” that are insufficient to establish a prima facie case.56 The
Personal Declaration of David A Schum (“Schum”) likewise refers to a different transaction, a different
licensee and a different set of stations and therefore is not relevant to the Applications.57 Schum’s general
statements such as “offshore financing disqualifies Zwirn as a licensee” similarly lack factual support.58
Consequently, Squire fails to establish either a prima facie showing that the Stations have undergone an
unauthorized change of control or to adduce facts that raise a substantial and material issue of fact on this
Racially discriminatory and predatory lending. Squire’s allegations of discriminatory and/or
predatory lending are equally conclusory. The only fact he alleges in support of this contention is the
“loss of roughly 20% of all African American owned stations in the United States, e.g. Tama
Broadcasting, Florida” due to DBZ Onshore Fund’s “predatory lending practices, oppressive behavior,
and outright manipulation.”59 Yet Squire does not argue that Bernard has violated the Act or a particular
Commission rule or policy. It is well-established that unadjudicated allegations of misconduct not
involving the Act or Commission rules or policies normally do not constitute the basis of a prima facie
showing that an applicant lacks the character qualifications to be a Commission licensee.60 Moreover,
52 Squire Renewal Petition at 5-7; Squire Assignment Petition at 4-7; Squire License Modification Petition at 5-7.
53 Squire Renewal Petition at 7; Squire Assignment Petition at 7; Squire License Modification Petition at 7.
54 Squire Assignment Petition, Exhibit A, Declaration of Dr. Glenn W. Cherry in Support of Petition to Deny
Transfer of Urban Radio, LLC Debtor-in-Possession, Broadcast Licenses to YMF Media, LLC, File Nos. BAL-
20120430ADH (station WLIB(AM), New York, New York) and BALH-20120430ADI (station WBLS(FM), New
York, New York), dated May 25, 2012 (“Cherry Declaration”).
55 Cherry Declaration at 8.
56 North Idaho Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 1637, 1638 (1993) (quoting
Gencom Inc., 832 F.2d at 180 n.11).
57 Squire Assignment Petition, Exhibit B, Personal Declaration of David A Schum, dated May 23, 2012 (“Schum
Declaration”) (stating that it was originally filed as an exhibit to a Petition to Deny the Application for Consent to
Assignment of Licenses from Urban Radio, LLC Debtor-in-Possession, Broadcast Licenses to YMF Media, LLC,
File No. BAL-20120430ADH. Id. at 1).
58 Schum Declaration at 5.
59 Squire Renewal Petition at 14-15; Squire Assignment Petition at 14; Squire License Modification Petition at 14.
60 See Southern Broadcast Corp. of Sarasota, 16 FCC Rcd 3655, 3659 (2001) (“Our policy with respect to
discrimination complaints is only one of several circumstanced in which we will not inquire into arguably relevant
alleged misconduct unless it has first been adjudicated by an agency or court with primary responsibility in the
based on our review of the record as a whole, Squire’s allegations fail to establish that there is a material
and substantial question of fact on this point warranting further inquiry in a hearing. Accordingly, we
find that grant of the Renewal Applications is in the public interest.
Assignment Application.Squire has not presented any allegations of fact that raise a prima
facie question regarding Bernard’s qualifications to assign the license for WRBP(FM) to EMF or EMF’s
qualifications to be a licensee. The Squire Assignment Petition raises identical objections and arguments
as the Squire Renewal Petition: namely, allegations regarding Bernard’s purported unauthorized transfer
of control and foreign ownership violations. For the reasons given above, therefore, the Squire
Assignment Petition likewise fails to meet the standards for a prima facie case set forth in Section
309(d)(1).61 Furthermore, considering all the evidence before us, there is no substantial and material
question of fact that merits further inquiry. Accordingly, we find that grant of the Assignment
Application is in the public interest.
License Modification Application.A licensee may apply to convert a radio station from
commercial to noncommercial educational status using a modification of license application, provided
that it demonstrates that it is a qualified educational organization under Section 73.503(a) of the rules62
and that the station will be used to advance its educational program.63 In the License Modification
Application, EMF submits the required certifications.64 Although nominally a petition to deny the
License Modification Application, the Squire License Modification Petition does not raise any specific
objections to EMF’s request to convert station WRBP(FM) to NCE status. Rather, the Squire License
Modification Petition merely reiterates objections to Bernard as the current licensee of the Station. Those
objections are fully addressed and rejected above. Therefore, we approve EMF’s request to operate
station WRBP(FM) as an NCE station and grant the License Modification Application.65
Main studio waiver. The Commission will waive the main studio rule66 where good cause exists
to do so and where the proposed studio location “would be consistent with the operation of the station in
the public interest.” 67 The Commission has recognized the benefits of centralized operations for NCE
pertinent area.”) (citing Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order, and
Policy and Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179, recon. granted in part and denied in part, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 1 FCC Rcd 421 (1986), modified, 5 FCC Rcd 3252 (1990) (subsequent history omitted)).
61 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1).
62 47 C.F.R. § 73.503(a).
63 47 C.F.R. § 73.1690(c)(9).
64 License Modification Application, Exhibit 31 (stating that the Commission has previously found that EMF
qualifies as a noncommercial educational organization under File No. BPED-19980206MA).
65 However, the grant of the License Modification Application will not become effective until we receive
notification of the consummation of the Assignment Application.
66 A station’s main studio must be located either (1) within a station’s principal community contour; (2) within the
contour of any other broadcast station licensed to its community; or (3) within 25 miles of the center of its
community. 47 C.F.R. § 73.1125(a).
67 47 C.F.R. § 73.1125(b)(2).
stations, given their limited funding, and thus has found good cause exists to waive the main studio
location requirement where satellite operations are proposed.68 A satellite NCE station must demonstrate,
however, that it will meet its local service obligations to satisfy the Section 73.1125 public interest
standard. In this case, we are satisfied that EMF has committed to specific measures adequate to meet its
local service obligations.69 The Squire License Modification Petition makes no reference to EMF’s main
studio waiver request and is thus irrelevant to our analysis. Therefore, we conclude that there is good
cause to waive Section 73.1125(a) of the rules to allow EMF to colocate the main studio of station
WRBP(FM) with co-owned station KLVR(FM).70
Conclusion/Actions.We find that Squire fails to provide the necessary specific allegations of
fact to make a prima facie case that grant of the Applications would be against the public interest. We
further find that Squire has not raised a substantial and material question of fact warranting further
inquiry. Bernard is qualified to hold the WVKO(AM), WVKO-FM, WASN(AM), WGFT(AM), and
WRBP(FM) station licenses, and grant of the Applications is consistent with the public interest,
convenience, and necessity. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Squire Petitions ARE DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the applications to renew the licenses of stations WVKO(AM),
Columbus, Ohio (File No. BR-20120529AHE); WVKO-FM, Johnstown, Ohio (File No. BRH-
20120529AHG); WASN(AM), Youngstown, Ohio (File No. BR-20120529AHH); WGFT(AM),
Campbell, Ohio (File No. BR-20120529AHJ); and WRBP(FM), Hubbard, Ohio (File No. BRH-
20120529AHK) ARE GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application to assign the license of station WRBP(FM),
Hubbard, Ohio (File No. BALH-20120612AAP) from Bernard Ohio, LLC to Educational Media
Foundation IS GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application to modify the license of station WRBP(FM),
Hubbard, Ohio (File No. BMLH-20120710AAS) IS GRANTED.
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
68 Id; See also, e.g., American Family Association, Hearing Designation Order, 12 FCC Rcd 15128 (MMB 1997).
69 Specifically, EMF has pledged that it will: (1) operate a toll-free number that permits residents of Hubbard to
contact Station staff without long-distance charges; (2) establish a local public affairs representative in the
community of Hubbard who will conduct, at least on a quarterly basis, interviews and surveys of local community
leaders and other residents to ascertain the interests, concerns, and needs of Hubbard listeners; (3) regularly address
the recurrent issues, problems, and needs of Hubbard residents through the Station’s news and public affairs
programming; and (4) maintain a public inspection file for station WRBP(FM) at the main studio of its parent
station, station KLVR(FM), Middletown, California, making reasonable accommodation to listeners wishing to
examine the file’s contents. License Modification Application, Exhibit 6.
70 We remind EMF that, notwithstanding grant of the waiver requested here, the public file for WRBP(FM) must
contain the quarterly issues and programs lists required by 47 C.F.R. § 73.3527(e)(8).
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.