Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-48
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
JET FUEL BROADCASTING
File No. BNP-20040130AQO
Facility ID No. 161337
Application for a New AM Broadcast Station
at Cutten, California
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: April 11, 2013
Released: April 12, 2013
By the Commission: Commissioner McDowell not participating.
The Commission has before it the “Application for Reviewing: Request for Full
Reinstatement of Jet Fuel Broadcasting Application for a New Radio Service at Cutten, California, with
Consideration of Application on Prospective Service Merits, and Rescinding of Any Conflicting
Frequency Awards That May Have Been Made Heretofore” (“AFR”), filed by Jet Fuel Broadcasting
(“JFB”), applicant for a new AM broadcast station at Cutten, California. JFB seeks review of the Media
Bureau’s July 27, 2009, decision denying JFB’s request for waiver of the deadline for submitting a
showing under Section 307(b) of the Communications Act,1 and consequently dismissing JFB’s Form 175
“tech box” application for a new station at Cutten,2 filed during the filing window for AM Auction 84
Upon review of the AFR and the entire record, we conclude that JFB has failed to
demonstrate that the Bureau erred. To the extent that JFB has raised, for the first time on review,
additional facts and arguments to support its request for waiver of the Section 307(b) submission
deadline,3 such new facts and arguments cannot form the basis for grant of the AFR.4 To the extent that
JFB argues on review that it was denied the opportunity to “comment” upon the Bureau’s disposition of
1 47 U.S.C. § 307(b) (“Section 307(b)”).
2 Mr. Dave Garey
, Letter, Ref. No. 1800B3-BSH/LAS (MB July 27, 2009) (“Staff Decision
”). The Staff Decision
was superseded by Mr. Dave Garey
, Letter, Ref. No. 1800B3-TSN/LAS (MB Sept. 25, 2009), which was identical
to the Staff Decision
in terms of the analysis and conclusion, but which clarified JFB’s service obligations under the
Commission’s ex parte
rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 – 1.1216.
3 On review, JFB states for the first time that on the October 31, 2005, filing deadline, “JFB witnessed . . . first-
hand” documents being accepted at the Commission’s facility for hand-delivered submissions after the “7 pm filing
deadline,” and that an unnamed “contractor employee” informed JFB that submissions brought by “established
couriers” the following morning would be stamped as having been received on October 31 “as a courtesy to couriers
used by the major Washington DC law firms.” Thus, JFB contends, “as an independent, pro se filer,” it had no
access to the “deadline extension” provided such couriers and their firms, and therefore the Commission’s refusal to
accept its Cutten Section 307(b) showing, submitted a week after the deadline, was “purely arbitrary.” AFR at 3-4.
4 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(c). See also
, NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC
, 548 F.3d 116, 127 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citing BDPCS,
Inc. v. FCC
, 351 F.3d 1177, 1184 (D.C. Cir. 2003), quoting 21st Century Telesis Joint Venture v. FCC
, 318 F.3d
192, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2003)) (discouraging the Commission from entertaining late-filed pleadings in the absence of
extremely unusual circumstances).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-48
applications that had been mutually exclusive with JFB’s Cutten application prior to its dismissal,5 this
argument lacks merit. For services subject to competitive bidding, mutually exclusive applicants are not
parties with regard to each other’s auction applications merely because of the fact of mutual exclusivity,6
and JFB has not shown that it filed any petitions or other pleadings that would require that it be given
notice of Commission action on those other applications, action that in any event took place after JFB’s
Cutten application was dismissed on procedural grounds. Thus, the action taken with regard to
applications mutually exclusive with JFB’s has no relevance to the issue before us, namely, the propriety
of dismissing JFB’s application for its tardy Section 307(b) submission. Finally, to the extent JFB
contends that the Bureau’s action was “untimely,”7 it fails to articulate any specific prejudice it has
suffered as a result of any delay in the Bureau’s action, arguing only generally that it should have been
allowed to submit a late Section 307(b) showing because of the length of time it took the Bureau to
evaluate the hundreds of applications filed during the Auction 84 window. We likewise find this
We find, therefore, that the Media Bureau, in the Staff Decision
, properly decided the
matters raised, and we uphold its decision for the reasons stated therein.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 5(c)(5) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,8 and Section 1.115(g) of the Commission’s Rules,9 the AFR
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
5 AFR at 1-2.
6 47 C.F.R. § 1.1202(d)(1) Note 1.
7 AFR AT 2-3.
8 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5).
9 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(g).