State of Oregon Acting by and through

the State Board of Higher Education for

the Benefit of Southern Oregon University

c/o The Sanchez Law Firm

2300 M Street, N.W., Suite 800

Washington, D.C. 20037

Re: NEW(FM), Redding, CA

Facility ID No. 10905

BPED-19950327MA

> MX Group No. 95031E
>
> **Petition to Deny**
>
> **Petition for Reconsideration**

Dear Counsel:

We have before us a Petition to Deny ("Petition")[^1] filed by State of
Oregon Acting by and through the State Board of Higher Education for the
Benefit of Southern Oregon University ("Oregon") and related pleadings.
Oregon contests the Commission's tentative decision to issue a permit to
construct a new noncommercial educational ("NCE") FM station to
Christian Arts and Education, Inc. ("CAE"), as proposed in the
Commission's *Omnibus Order*.[^2] For the reasons set forth below, we
deny the Petition and grant CAE's application.[^3]

**Background.** The *Omnibus Order* applied the Commission's NCE
comparative selection criteria[^4] to seventy-six groups of mutually
exclusive NCE FM applications. Group 95031E consisted of Oregon's and
CEA's conflicting applications for new NCE FM stations at Redding,
California. Because Oregon and CEA proposed to serve the same community,
the Commission did not perform a fair distribution analysis.[^5] The
Commission proceeded directly to a point system analysis using
information that Oregon and CEA had provided in 2001. The Commission
awarded two points to CAE for diversity of ownership based on CAE's
certification that it had no attributable interest in any radio station
serving the same area and that its governing documents required that
such diversity of ownership be maintained.[^6] Oregon also received a
total of two points. The Commission, therefore, applied a tie-breaker,
and tentatively selected CAE's application for grant because CAE had
fewer authorizations than Oregon.[^7]

**Discussion.** Oregon raises two main issues: (1) whether a company
that employs one of CAE's directors is an undisclosed real party in
interest to CAE's application; and (2) whether CAE's failure to disclose
changes in its attributable interests and corporate status affects CAE's
point tally or character qualifications.[^8]

*Real Party in Interest.* It is undisputed that one of CAE's four
directors, Matt Tuter ("Tuter") works for a subsidiary of Family
Stations, Inc. ("FSI") as station manager of Class A television station
KFTL-CA, San Francisco, California.[^9] Oregon argues that FSI's
broadcast interests should be attributed to CAE, which Oregon contends
is acting as a surrogate so that FSI can benefit from preferences for
which it could not otherwise qualify.[^10] Specifically, Oregon alleges
that FSI, as the licensee of an FM translator station licensed to
Redding, would not have received points for diversity of ownership had
it applied in its own name for a second Redding station.[^11] Oregon
similarly contends that FSI's interests in over 100 radio stations would
have prevented FSI from prevailing in a tie-breaker with Oregon, which
had reported 42 attributable radio station authorizations.[^12] In
contrast, CAE became the tentative selectee in this group because it
claimed to have no attributable radio station authorizations.

Oregon asserts that CAE will assign the station's license to FSI at a
future date. In support of this theory, Oregon states that a corporation
in which Tuter held a fifty percent interest recently assigned the
license of Class A television station, KKPM-CA, Chico, California, to
FSI.[^13] Oregon also argues that Tuter and FSI have more than an
ordinary employment relationship because Tuter is allegedly "a key
employee."[^14] Tuter, in an unsworn Opposition, maintains that CAE has
no connection to FSI, and denies Oregon's allegations as speculative and
unsubstantiated.[^15]

For purposes of the NCE point system, an "attributable interest" is
defined as "an interest of an applicant, its parent, subsidiaries, their
officers, and members of their governing boards that would be cognizable
under the standards in the notes to Section 73.3555."[^16] The rule also
identifies as attributable "an interest of an entity providing more than
33 percent of an applicant's equity and/or debt that also either (1)
supplies more than 15% of the station's weekly programming, or (2) has
an attributable interest pursuant to § 73.3555 in media in the same
market."[^17] As Oregon recognizes, an employment relationship is not
cognizable under the NCE attribution standards.[^18] The Tuter/FSI
employment relationship and the qualifications of FSI would be
immaterial in the current proceeding unless FSI is, as alleged, an
undisclosed real party in interest to the CAE application.

A real party in interest is a third party that "has an ownership
interest or is or will be in a position to actually or potentially
control the operation of the station."[^19] It is an abuse of process to
file an application in the name of a surrogate and thereby deny the
Commission and the public the opportunity to review the qualifications
of the real party.[^20] Classic examples of disqualified surrogate
applicants include sisters who served as fronts for their brother to
claim a preference once available to female-owned businesses,[^21] and
deceased relatives whose names were used by licensees that had reached a
limit on the number of wireless authorizations that could be issued in
their own names.[^22]

Oregon has not presented *prima facie* evidence that FSI has an
undisclosed ownership interest in CAE, that FSI controls CAE through
Tuter, or that CAE is otherwise acting as a surrogate for FSI.[^23]
Tuter's recent assignment of a single television station license to FSI
is insufficient evidence of a surrogate relationship; Oregon has not
shown that the transaction was other than arms-length. Oregon also
attempts to establish that Tuter's position with FSI is akin to that of
an officer or director because: (1) the FSI web page places a photograph
of Tuter near one of FSI's President, and lists Tuter's name above that
of an FSI board member; (2) a group of pastors objecting to an FSI
policy copied Tuter on their letter of complaint; and (3) Tuter is among
FSI's top five paid employees other than its officers or directors.[^24]
These matters, when taken together and in context, demonstrate only that
FSI employs Tuter in a managerial capacity.[^25]

Moreover, there are several inherent flaws in Oregon's argument that FSI
had motive to use CAE as a surrogate in order to hide FSI's interest in
an FM translator serving Redding and thereby to qualify for more points
than Oregon. First, CAE filed its application in 1995, well before the
point system was established. Second, Oregon filed its application in
response to CAE's application, not *vice versa.* Third, FSI did not yet
hold an authorization for an FM translator in Redding at the time of
CAE's application.[^26] Thus, when CAE filed its application, no party
could have been motivated by a desire to receive more points than Oregon
or to exclude a translator not yet authorized. Fourth, FSI obtained a
permit to construct an NCE station at Redding through an assignment of
license in the late 1980's, but did not build before permit expiration
or re-apply for those facilities after the authorization expired.[^27]
If FSI had renewed interest in applying for a full service Redding
station five years later, at a time when the Commission's comparative
procedures had not yet changed, there is no reason to believe that FSI
would have resorted to illegitimate use of a surrogate instead of
following lawful procedures as it had in the past. Finally, even under
the point system, a translator licensee need not resort to deception to
exclude the translator from its local diversity analysis. An applicant
for a full service NCE station that would replace an FM translator
serving the same area can claim diversity points if it pledges to cancel
the translator authorization upon the new station's commencement of
operations.[^28]

*Failure to Update Application.* All Commission applicants are
responsible for the continuing accuracy of their applications and,
therefore, must amend pending applications whenever the information
furnished is no longer substantially accurate and complete.[^29]
Pursuant to this requirement, NCE applications must report changes that
would have a potential negative impact on their comparative positions
under the point system.[^30] Information generally must be reported
within 30 days of the change.[^31] However, because action on NCE
applications was delayed for a considerable period due to litigation,
and the applications had been submitted prior to the adoption of
electronic filing requirements, the Bureau anticipated by late 2004 that
many NCE applications were no longer up-to-date. The Bureau reminded NCE
applicants of their Section 1.65 obligations, and set a deadline of
January 21, 2005, for NCE applicants to update their applications
electronically.[^32] CAE did not file such an amendment.

Oregon alleges that CAE should have amended its application to report
that CAE's corporate status was suspended by the California Secretary of
State ("State") and was not reinstated until April 2007, about a week
after release of the *Omnibus Order*.[^33] Oregon maintains that this
matter is material because there is a possibility that CAE "operated
*ultra vires* in California in violation of state corporation law."[^34]
Oregon also alleges that this matter shows CAE's lack of candor through
its failure to disclose a negative occurrence. CAE, in an unsworn
statement, argues that the suspension resulted from an easily resolved
"clerical error regarding a twenty dollar fee" and that CAE never ceased
to function.[^35]

Oregon's argument that CAE failed to report a negative occurrence
reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the duty of NCE applicants to
maintain the accuracy of their applications. Applicants must report
"substantial and significant" changes to their application submissions,
including changes with the potential to reduce their comparative point
totals and tie-breaker positions.[^36] Oregon argues that CAE's
suspended status was negative, but not that it would have altered CAE's
answer to any question on the application. For example, Oregon has not
shown that the suspension resulted from adjudicated wrongdoing
reportable as an adverse action under the Commission's character
policy.[^37] The Commission is not the proper forum for adjudicating
matters of state corporate law, and a claim of an *ultra vires* action
will not ordinarily prevent the Commission from reaching a license
decision.[^38] Nor has Oregon shown that the suspension potentially
affected CAE's point tally. A temporary suspension of CAE's corporate
status would not have negated CAE's claim of two points for local
diversity of ownership. Moreover, it is apparent from the State's prompt
reactivation of CAE's status, without additional proceedings or
alteration of CAE's corporate identification number, that the State did
not view CAE's "suspended" status as a highly significant or
insurmountable problem.[^39] The record corroborates CAE's unsworn
statement that the suspension was readily correctable. The State
reactivated CAE's status upon CAE's April 3, 2007, submission of a
one-page State form containing ownership and service of process
information.[^40] The fee for filing the form was twenty dollars.[^41]
The information that CAE provided in 2007 was practically identical to
that it had submitted to the State in 1998.[^42]

Oregon also alleges that CAE did not properly update its application to
report changes in information concerning tie-breakers. For purposes of
the first tie-breaker, NCE FM applicants must report attributable
authorizations for commercial and NCE AM, FM, and non-fill-in FM
translator stations.[^43] For purposes of the second tie-breaker,
applicants must also report the number of pending new and major change
applications for such stations.[^44] At issue is Tuter's expression of
interest in constructing five commercial AM stations during the AM
Auction No. 84 filing window. CAE acknowledges that it did not amend its
application in 2004 to report those matters, but contends that events
occurring after the NCE "snapshot" date of June 4, 2001, need not be
reported.[^45]

Applications for construction of radio stations, reportable for NCE
tie-breaker purposes, are generally filed on Form 301, 340, or 345. In
accordance with Auction 84 procedures, Tuter submitted a single FCC Form
175 ("Application to Participate in FCC Auction") along with five "tech
box" portions from FCC Form 301 The Bureau associated a separate file
number with each "tech box" submission, and examined each one to
determine whether it was mutually exclusive with any other Auction No.
84 proposal. Tuter's proposal for 1450 kHz at Lovelock, Nevada was the
only one deemed to be a "singleton."[^46] With respect to that proposal,
the Bureau invited Tuter to file a complete application for a
construction permit on FCC Form 301 along with the appropriate filing
fee, which Tuter did in October 2004.[^47] The Bureau granted the
Lovelock Application on February 2, 2007. The submission of Form 175,
Application to Participate in an FCC Auction, is only a preliminary step
in the application process. Accordingly, Form a 175 submission is not a
cognizable new or major change application for NCE tie-breaker purposes
because it represents only the potential to file a complete application
at some time in the future.[^48]

Accordingly, we reject Oregon's argument that CAE was required to report
five new AM applications in 2004. Nevertheless, we also reject CAE's
assertion that it had no obligation to update its NCE application after
2001. As the Commission reminded applicants in December 2004, each
applicant must report all information that can potentially decrease its
comparative position.[^49] CAE should have reported Tuter's October 2004
long-form submission as a pending application. CAE also should have
filed an amendment in 2007 to report the grant of that application,
*i.e.* the issuance of an attributable authorization. Thus, we find that
CAE violated Section 1.65 of the Rules, but to a lesser extent than
alleged.

A Section 1.65 violation is disqualifying only if the applicant intended
to conceal information from the Commission, or if the reporting
violations are so numerous and serious as to undermine the applicant's
responsibility to be a licensee.[^50] Intentional deceit reflects upon
an applicant's basic qualifications, and "the fact of concealment may be
more significant than the facts concealed."[^51] Intention can be
inferred from motive.[^52] Oregon argues that CAE's failure to update
the application amounts to lack of candor, *i.e.,* a concealment,
evasion, or other failure to be fully informative accompanied by an
intent to deceive.[^53] Oregon alleges that CAE withheld information
about Tuter's Auction No. 84 submissions because CAE wanted to obtain
favorable action on its own NCE FM application and to conceal violations
of Section 1.65.[^54]

CAE's failure to report the submission and grant of a single
application, while erroneous, is not so serious as to be disqualifying.
There is no support for Oregon's allegation that CAE intentionally
concealed this information or had any motive to do so. The alleged
intent to conceal is at odds with Tuter's disclosure of his AM proposals
in a television application filed in 2006.[^55] Moreover, reporting the
AM proposals could not have changed the outcome of this proceeding. At
the time that CAE should have updated its NCE application, Oregon's
maximum tie-breaker position would have been well known to CAE. Even
with an attributable interest in one station, CAE would have had a
significant tie-breaker cushion over Oregon, which had 42 attributable
authorizations. There was no need to conduct a secondary tie-breaker to
consider how many other applications each party had filed. Had a
secondary tie-breaker been necessary, however, CAE's attributable
interest in a single additional application (for a total of two
applications including the Redding application) would not have altered
the outcome of this proceeding when compared to Oregon reported
interests in eight applications. Oregon has not raised any substantial
and material question concerning the Commission's tentative selection of
CAE or CAE's basic qualifications. We do, however, caution CAE to be
more careful in its future compliance with Commission reporting
requirements.

**Ordering Clauses.** Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the Petition for
Reconsideration filed on April 26, 2007, by State of Oregon Acting by
and through the State Board of Higher Education for the Benefit of
Southern Oregon University IS DISMISSED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the Petition to Deny filed on May 2, 2007,
by State of Oregon Acting by and through the State Board of Higher
Education for the Benefit of Southern Oregon University IS DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the application of Christian Arts and
Education, Inc. to construct a new NCE station at Redding, California
(File No. BPED-19950327MA) IS GRANTED CONDITIONED UPON its compliance
with Section 73.7005 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.7005,
which sets forth a four-year holding period for applicants that are
awarded permits by use of a point system.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the mutually exclusive application of State
of Oregon Acting by and through the State Board of Higher Education for
the Benefit of Southern Oregon University (File No. BPED-19950713MB) IS
DISMISSED.

Sincerely,

Peter H. Doyle

Chief, Audio Division

Media Bureau

cc: Christian Arts and Education, Inc.

[^1]: Petition to Deny (May 2, 2007).

[^2]: *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 (2007) ("*Omnibus Order*").

[^3]: Oregon also sought reconsideration of the *Omnibus Order*. *See*
    Petition for Reconsideration (Apr. 26, 2007) ("*April
    Submission*")*.* However, Section 1.106(a)(1) of the Commission's
    Rules (the "Rules") specifically prohibits petitions for
    reconsideration of interlocutory actions. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    1.106(a)(1). Confirming the interlocutory nature of the *Omnibus
    Order,* the Commission emphasized that its selections were
    'tentative' and took no final action with regard to any of the
    tentatively selected applications. *See Omnibus Order,* 22 FCC Rcd
    at 6102; *See also Bennett v. Spear*, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78 (1997).
    The *April Submission* is therefore dismissed. Moreover, as
    discussed *infra* n.8*,* the arguments therein would not have
    changed the outcome of this proceeding.

[^4]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.7000 -- 05. *See also Reexamination of
    Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applications,*
    Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7386 (2000) ("*NCE R&O*"), *affirmed
    and clarified,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 5074, 5106
    (2001) ("*NCE MO&O*"), *Erratum,* 16 FCC Rcd 10549, *recon. denied,*
    Memorandum Opinion and Second Order on Reconsideration, 17 FCC Rcd
    13132 (2002) (subsequent history omitted).

[^5]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.7002.

[^6]: *See Omnibus Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at 6131.

[^7]: *Id.* at 6131, 6164; 47 C.F.R. § 73.7003(c)(1).

[^8]: Oregon, in a footnote, also briefly cross-references arguments
    from the dismissed *April Submission*. *See* Petition at 3, n.11.
    Those arguments do not make a *prima facie* case that the tentative
    selection of CAE was erroneous. First, Oregon claimed that it should
    have received a fair distribution preference. The Commission's
    rules, however, are clear that a fair distribution analysis for NCE
    applications is appropriate only when applicants will serve
    different communities; both applicants in this proceeding would
    serve Redding. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.7002(a); *see also* 47 U.S.C. §
    307(b) ("\[T\]he Commission shall make such distribution of
    licenses, frequencies, hours of operation, and of power *among the
    several states and communities* as to provide a fair, efficient, and
    equitable distribution of radio service to each of the same.")
    (emphasis added). Second, Oregon argued that it should have received
    points as an established local applicant based on a local
    headquarters. The Commission explained in the *Omnibus Order* that
    Oregon could not claim a local headquarters based on the Redding,
    California offices of Jefferson Public Radio. *See Omnibus Order,*
    22 FCC Rcd at 6116-17.

[^9]: *See* Petition, Ex. 4; Opposition at 2.

[^10]: *See* Petition at 12, 16.

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: *Id.* at 12-14, Ex. 2.

[^13]: *Id.* at 9; File No. BALTTA-20061130ALD (granted Jan. 17, 2007).

[^14]: *See* Petition at 8-9.

[^15]: *See* Opposition at 1 (May 14, 2007). *See also* 47 C.F.R. §
    73.7004(c) (denials must be supported by affidavit).

[^16]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.7000. Note 1 to Section 73.3555 reflects
    that interests can be direct or indirect. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555,
    n.1. Note 2 sets forth various cognizable interests including those
    of certain owners, partners, stockholders, officers, directors, and
    time brokers. *Id.* at n.2. When the instant application was filed
    in 1995, there were no attribution standards for NCE applicants, but
    such standards were adopted in 2000 along with the point system.
    *See NCE R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7418-20.

[^17]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.7000.

[^18]: *See* Petition at 11. Oregon alleges that CEA may air FSI
    programming, but provides no support for this contention. *Id.* at
    10. It does not allege that FSI has provided any of CEA's equity or
    debt.

[^19]: *See Astroline Communications Co. v. FCC,* 857 F.2d 1556, 1564
    (D.C. Cir. 1988) (quoting *KOWL, Inc.,* Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 49 FCC2d 962, 964 (Rev. Bd. 1974)).

[^20]: *See Ronald Brasher,* Decision, 19 FCC Rcd 18462, 18477 (2004)
    (quoting *Arnold L. Chase,* Decision*,* 5 FCC Rcd 1642, 1643, n.7
    (1990)); *See also Evansville Skywave, Inc.,* Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 7 FCC Rcd 1699, 1702 n.7 (1992).

[^21]: *See S.L. Communications, Inc. v. FCC,* 168 F.3d 1354, 1355-56
    (D.C. Cir. 1999).

[^22]: *See Ronald Brasher,* 19 FCC Rcd at 18477-80.

[^23]: Assuming *arguendo* that Tuter could be influenced by FSI,
    Tuter's 25 percent interest in CAE is far short of that needed for
    control.

[^24]: *See* Petition at 8-9, Exs. 5-6.

[^25]: The "top pay" allegation is based on Tuter's appearance as fifth
    on a 2004 list of "Five Highest Paid Employees Other Than Officer,
    Directors, and Trustees," all earning less than \$60,000 at that
    time. *See* 2004 Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax
    (Petition, Ex. 7). The document shows that Tuter's pay and benefits
    are comparable to those of employees with similar job titles. The
    web page photographs are in no discernible order, contain no job
    titles, and depict "Voices on the Air" *i.e,* hosts of individual
    FSI programs. With respect to the alleged juxtaposition of the names
    of Tuter and a governing board member, Tuter is listed as contact
    representative for international inquiries about the availability of
    FSI's programming in foreign languages. The FSI board member is
    listed as responsible for the programming itself. *See* Petition,
    Ex. 5. We reject Oregon's argument that these facts represent "a
    good deal of smoke" requiring the Commission to investigate a
    possible "fire." *See* Petition at 7. The facts, if true, are
    insufficient to support Oregon's real party in interest allegations.
    *See generally Astroline Communications Co.,* 857 F.2d 1556, 1561
    (D.C. Cir. 1988).

[^26]: CAE and Oregon filed their mutually exclusive NCE applications in
    March and July 1995, respectively. FSI applied for a permit to
    construct a translator station in November 1996. The Commission
    issued FSI's translator permit and license in March and December
    1997, respectively. *See* File Nos. BPFT-19960910TK and
    BLFT-19970925TH. The record does not establish a beginning date of
    Tuter's employment with FSI. Oregon alleges only that Tuter has been
    an FSI employee "since at least 2002, if not before." Petition at 9.

[^27]: *See* DKXFR(FM), File Nos. BPED-19831229AE (expiring Dec. 30,
    1987) and BAPED-19860922GQ (granted Nov. 24, 1987). *See also*
    Opposition at 2.

[^28]: *See NCE MO&O,* 16 FCC Rcd at 1502-03; FCC Form 340, Question
    IV(2)(b).

[^29]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.65.

[^30]: *See Section 1.65 Amendment Deadline Established for
    Noncommercial Educational FM and FM Translator Station Applicants,*
    Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 24740 (2004) ("*Section 1.65 Notice*").

[^31]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.65.

[^32]: *See Section 1.65 Notice,* 19 FCC Rcd at 24740.

[^33]: Petition at 13, Ex. 9.

[^34]: *See* Reply at 4. Oregon does not allege that CAE ceased to exist
    or failed to prosecute the application. *Compare, Omnibus Order,* 22
    FCC Rcd at 6128 (disqualification of defunct corporation that failed
    to prosecute its application following dissolution).

[^35]: *See* Opposition at 1.

[^36]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.65; *Section 1.65 Notice,* 19 FCC Rcd at
    24740.

[^37]: *See* FCC Form 340, Questions II(8), (9). Nor has it shown that
    CAE is no longer an eligible nonprofit educational organization.
    *Id.* at Question II(2).

[^38]: *See Algreg Cellular Engineering,* Decision, 9 FCC Rcd 5098,
    5129-30 (Rev. Bd. 1994).

[^39]: *See* Petition, Ex. 9 (reflecting the State's consistent use of
    number C1933648 to identify CAE from 1995 through present).

[^40]: *See* Statement of Information (Domestic Nonprofit Corporation)
    (Apr. 3, 2007) and related documents (Petition, Ex. 9).

[^41]: *Id.*

[^42]: *Id.*

[^43]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.7003(c)(1).

[^44]: *Id.* at § 73.7003(c)(2).

[^45]: *See* Opposition at 1.

[^46]: *See* File No. BNP-20040128AQG; *AM Auction 84 Singleton
    Applications*, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 16655 (Aug. 26, 2004).

[^47]: *See* File No. BNP-20041025ABA (granted Feb. 2, 2007) ("Lovelock
    Application").

[^48]: *E.g., Media Bureau Announces NCE FM New Station and Major Change
    Filing Procedures,* Public Notice, at 3 (MB Aug. 9, 2007).

[^49]: *See Section 1.65 Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 24740.

[^50]: *See David Ortiz Radio Corp. v. FCC,* 941 F.2d 1253 (D.C. Cir.
    1991) (citing *Valley Broadcasting Co.,* Decision, 4 FCC Rcd. 2611,
    2618 (Rev. Bd. 1989).

[^51]: *See Character Qualifications,* Report, Order, and Policy
    Statement*,* 102 FCC2d 1179, 1210, n.77 (1986) (quoting *FCC v.
    WOKO, Inc.* 329 U.S. 223, 227 (1946)).

[^52]: *See, e.g., RKO General, Inc.,* Decision, 4 FCC Rcd 4679, 4684
    (Rev. Bd. 1989).

[^53]: *See San Francisco Unified School District,* Hearing Designation
    Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, 19 FCC Rcd 13326, 13334
    (2004).

[^54]: *See* Petition at 15.

[^55]: *See* Petition, Ex.1