Dennis J. Kelly, Esq.

Law Office of Dennis J. Kelly

P.O. Box 41177

Washington, DC 20018-0577

Margaret L. Miller, Esq.

Dow Lohnes pllc

1200 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.

Suite 800

Washington, DC 20036-6802

Todd M. Stansbury, Esq.

Wiley Rein LLP

1776 K St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

In re: WKCP(FM), Miami, FL

Facility ID No. 68118

Trinity International Foundation, Inc.

File No. BALED-20070928ADQ

**Application for Assignment of License**

**Petition to Deny and Informal Objections**

Dear Counsel:

We have before us the above-captioned application (the "Application")
seeking approval for the proposed assignment of license for
noncommercial educational ("NCE") Station WKCP(FM) (formerly WMCU(FM)),
Miami, Florida (the "Station"), from Trinity International Foundation,
Inc. ("Trinity") to American Public Media Group ("APMG"). Also before us
is a Petition to Deny, filed on November 2, 2007, by several Station
listeners opposing the grant of the Application (collectively, the
"Petitioners"),[^1] as well as over one hundred informal objections
filed by Station listeners (the "Objectors") between October 1, 2007,
and February 15, 2008.[^2]

**Background**. Petitioners oppose grant of the Application, arguing
that Trinity has engaged in a pattern of conduct that demonstrates that
it lacks the basic character qualifications necessary to be permitted to
assign a broadcast license to a third party.[^3] To support this
assertion, Petitioners allege that Trinity has: (1) failed to give
adequate public notice of the filing of the Application; (2) repeatedly
failed to report its complete ownership structure in accordance with the
Rules; (3) failed to provide the Commission with all contracts and
exhibits relating to the proposed assignment of the Station; (4) failed
to abide by the station identification Rule; and (5) engaged in the
fraudulent on-air solicitation of listener donations.[^4] The other
informal objections largely reiterate the claims raised by the
Petitioners.[^5] A number of Objectors also express strong appreciation
for the current programming on the Station and ask the Commission to bar
the proposed sale to AMPG.[^6]

**Discussion.** Section 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Act"),[^7] requires the Commission to make a determination
whether the proposed transfer or assignment of a broadcast license would
be in the public interest. Pursuant to Section 309(d)(1) of the Act,[^8]
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. 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.[^9] 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.[^10] If no such
question is raised, the Commission will deny the petition and grant the
application if it concludes that such grant otherwise serves the public
interest, convenience, and necessity.

Similarly, under Section 309(e) of the Act,[^11] informal objections,
like petitions to deny, must provide properly supported allegations of
fact that, if true, would establish a substantial and material question
of fact that grant of the application would be *prima facie*
inconsistent with Section 310(d) of the Act.[^12]

*Public Notice*. Trinity filed the Application on September 28,
2007.[^13] The Station subsequently ceased broadcasting programming on
October 1, 2007, and resumed operation on October 24, 2007.[^14] While
the Station was silent, Trinity published newspaper notice of the filing
of the Application in *The Sun Sentinel.*[^15] When the Station went
back on-air, it also broadcast notice of its filing on the Station once
daily from October 24, 2007, through October 27, 2007.[^16] Objectors
and Petitioners argue that Trinity's public notice was defective under
the Rules on several grounds. First, several Objectors allege that
Trinity's on-air public notice was defective because it was not timely
broadcast in accordance with Section 73.3580(d) of the Rules.[^17] Next,
Petitioners allege that Trinity failed to give adequate public written
notice pursuant to Section 73.3580(c) of the Rules.[^18] Petitioners
claim that *The Sun Sentinel* is published and distributed in Fort
Lauderdale (approximately 24 miles north of Miami) and therefore does
not constitute a "newspaper of general circulation" in the Miami
area.[^19] Finally, Petitioners allege that Trinity's public notice was
defective because it failed to fully disclose Trinity's ownership
structure.[^20] Specifically, Petitioners allege that Trinity's public
notice was defective because it "failed to disclose the officers,
directors, and 10 percent or greater shareholders of its two parent
organizations," Trinity International University ("TIU") and the
Evangelical Free Church of America ("EFCA").[^21]

In Opposition, Trinity asserts that NCE stations are not required to
give notice via newspaper publication, and that broadcast notice is
deemed sufficient.[^22] It argues that, under the Rules, only when NCE
stations do not broadcast are they required to give newspaper
notice.[^23] Trinity asserts that because it broadcast on-air notices of
the Application, it was not required to provide newspaper notice under
the Rules, but did so nonetheless.[^24] Trinity further argues that,
contrary to Petitioners' allegations, *The Sun Sentinel* is indeed
published in Miami, and provides an affidavit from a representative of
*The Sun Sentinel* attesting to this fact.[^25]

While Section 73.3580(e) of the Rules exempts operating NCE stations
from our print public notice requirements under certain circumstances,
NCE stations that do not broadcast timely on-air notices are still
required to give newspaper notice. [^26] In this case, the Station was
silent during the period in which broadcast notice was required.[^27]
Accordingly, Trinity was required to publish newspaper notice. We find
that it complied with this requirement by publishing notice in *The Sun
Sentinel*. We reject Petitioners' argument that *The Sun Sentinel* does
not constitute a newspaper of general circulation in the Miami area. The
affidavit provided by Trinity demonstrates that the newspaper is
published in Miami, and Petitioners have failed to provide any evidence
to the contrary.[^28] Moreover, we reject Petitioner's assertion that
Trinity's newspaper notice should have included the ownership interests
of TIU and EFCA. Neither Section 73.3580 of the Rules nor Form 314
indicates that a public notice must contain this information.[^29] As
such, we find that Trinity complied with the notice requirements under
the Rules.

*Trinity's Ownership Structure*. Petitioners claim that Trinity has not
fully disclosed its ownership structure to the Commission, as required
by Section 73.3615(d) of the Rules.[^30] As such, it asserts that the
Commission cannot make a statutory finding under the Act that Trinity is
qualified to assign the Station to APMG.[^31] Specifically, Petitioners
claim that the three ownership reports filed by Trinity fail to provide
full information with respect to Trinity's parent organizations, and
instead merely include a statement to the effect that "Trinity
International Foundation, Inc. (TIF) is under the control of Trinity
International University (TIU), which is under the ultimate control of
the Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA)."[^32] It further claims
that Trinity never filed ownership reports for either TIU or EFCA.[^33]

In Opposition, Trinity asserts that it has fully and openly disclosed
its ownership in accordance with the Rules.[^34] Trinity alleges that it
fully explained its ownership structure when Trinity became licensee of
the Station, and has provided ownership information in subsequent
ownership reports submitted to date.[^35] It further argues that the
Rules do not require NCE stations to file separate ownership reports for
parties that hold an interest in the licensee.[^36]

In Reply, Petitioners note that the instructions to the current version
of Form 323-E ("Instructions") states that, "If the licensee or
permittee is directly or indirectly controlled by another entity, a
separate Form 323-E should be submitted for such entity."[^37]

We find that Trinity has complied with the Commission's Rules regarding
ownership disclosure. The Rules require that NCE FM station licensees
file biennial ownership reports which provide the "name, residence,
office held, citizenship, principal profession or occupation: and method
of appointment of officers, members of the governing board, and holders
of one percent or more ownership interest," including "full information
with respect to the interest and identity of any individual,
organization, corporation, association, or other entity which has direct
or indirect control over the licensee."[^38] Trinity has provided this
information in its ownership reports, including the fact that it is
ultimately controlled by TIF and EFCA. Unlike commercial licensees,
there is nothing in our Rules that requires an NCE licensee to file
separate ownership reports for entities which have direct or indirect
control over the licensee.[^39] Given the ambiguities between our Rules
and the Instructions, we find that Trinity's interpretation of Section
73.3615(d) of the Rules is reasonable, and that its failure to file
ownership reports for TIF and EFCA as required by the Instructions
cannot be a basis for sanction.[^40] Because Trinity has complied with
the requirements set forth in our Rules, further consideration of this
issue is unwarranted.

*Disclosure of the Trinity/APMG Agreement*. Petitioners argue that the
Application is defective because it fails to include the complete
agreement to sell and assign the Station to APMG.[^41] Trinity and APMG
certified in the negative to Section II, Question 3, and Section III,
Question 3 in the Application, explaining in an exhibit that the parties
were submitting the Asset Purchase Agreement dated as of September 24,
2007, by and between Trinity and APMG, and an Affiliation Agreement
dated as of September 24, 2007, by and between Trinity and APMG
(collectively, the "Agreements"), and omitting the schedules and
exhibits to these Agreements. Trinity and APMG justified these omissions
by arguing that the omitted items were either proprietary or not germane
to the Commission's review of the transaction.[^42] Petitioners assert
that these omissions are "patently not in accordance with FCC Rules" and
that without a list of the materials Trinity is withholding, it is
impossible to evaluate the claims that the withheld exhibits are "not
germane" or contain "proprietary" information.[^43]

It has been longstanding staff practice to accept assignment and
transfer of control applications containing sales contracts that omit
schedules and exhibits that either contain proprietary information or
are not material to our review of a particular transaction.[^44] In
Exhibit 4 to the Application, Trinity provided a reasonable explanation
as to why certain exhibits to the Agreements were not being included in
its submission, and offered to identify the missing exhibits upon
request.[^45] It subsequently did so in its Opposition.[^46]
Accordingly, we find that the Application is not defective and that
Petitioners have failed raise a substantial and material question of
fact calling for further inquiry.

*Station Identification Rule*. Petitioners assert that the Station
violated Section 73.1201 of the Rules by not providing hourly station
identifications during a three-week period in October 2007 in which the
Station operated its transmitter carrier but was otherwise silent.[^47]
That Rule requires that station identifications be made "at the
beginning and ending of each time of operation" and "hourly, as close to
the hour as possible, at a natural break in program offerings."[^48]

In Opposition, Trinity notes that, during the period that the Station
was off-air, "there were no program offerings to break in between, and
the broadcast operation had ended and not yet begun again."[^49] It
asserts that nothing under our Rules requires the hourly identification
of an otherwise silent station.[^50] While it concedes that the
Station's transmitter carrier continued to operate while the broadcast
station was silent, Trinity maintains that "there are no station
identification requirements for subcarrier uses, and the subcarrier use
was provided in accordance with the Commission's Rules."[^51]

We agree. The Station was silent with authority pursuant to Section
73.1740 of the Rules.[^52] As noted by Trinity, nothing in our Rules
requires an authorized silent station to continue station
identifications while it is off-air. This holds true even if that
station continues to operate its subcarrier. Accordingly, we find that
Petitioners have failed to raise a substantial and material question of
fact calling for further inquiry.

*Solicitation of Donations*. Petitioners allege that the Station was
soliciting donations from its listeners on-air, on its website, and via
mail during the time in which Trinity was negotiating the sale of the
Station to APMG.[^53] Petitioners argue that the on-air solicitation of
these donations by Trinity while it knew that it was going to sell the
Station "to an entity that would not engage in Christian programming"
constitutes fraudulent programming that should be considered misconduct
relevant to Trinity's character.[^54] It notes that there are currently
several legal proceedings in Miami "seeking legal and equitable
remedies" and asks the Commission to withhold granting the Application
until these cases have been resolved.[^55]

In Opposition, Trinity asserts that the Commission has no jurisdiction
over either private contractual claims or alleged violations of state
law.[^56] Trinity further asserts that Petitioners fail to cite any
legal basis in support of their request that the Commission refrain from
granting the Application pending the resolution of private
litigation.[^57]

We agree with Trinity's assertion that Petitioners' claims are
contractual in nature and therefore involve "non-FCC" misconduct. While
the allegations may arise from broadcast--related activities (namely,
the broadcast of solicitations), this fact alone does not bring them
within the Commission's jurisdiction.[^58] Our line of cases regarding
fraudulent billing supports this conclusion.[^59] There, we held that
fraud allegations related to the billing of advertisers for programs
that did not air at their scheduled times constituted non-FCC misconduct
"because parties wronged by billing practices have adequate remedies
elsewhere."[^60] The same reasoning applies in the instant case. While
Petitioners' characterize their claim as fraud, the crux of the matter
is really whether Trinity breached its fiduciary duty to its donors by
discontinuing the Station's Christian format.[^61] The Commission has
consistently held that such private disputes are beyond its regulatory
jurisdiction and must be resolved in a local court of competent
jurisdiction.[^62] Moreover, the Commission generally only considers
three types of adjudicated non-FCC misconduct which are not specifically
proscribed by the Act or the Rules: (1) fraudulent statements to
government agencies; (2) felony convictions; and (3) mass media related
violations of anti-competitive and antitrust statutes.[^63] Because the
claims raised by Petitioners do not fall into one of these enumerated
categories, under our current policy, we would not consider Petitioners'
claims even if adjudicated.[^64] Accordingly, we find that the ongoing
civil dispute involving Trinity and other parties is properly addressed
by the state courts and is not within the scope of this proceeding.

*Format Change*. Petitioners, as well as numerous Objectors, oppose the
Station's format change from Christian music and entertainment to
classical music, and ask the Commission to deny the Application and
return the Station's Christian programming to the air.[^65]

Although the Commission recognizes that the Station's program format has
attracted a devoted listenership, it is well-settled policy that the
Commission does not scrutinize or regulate programming, nor does it take
potential changes in programming formats into consideration in reviewing
assignment applications. In 1976, the Commission issued a Policy
Statement in which it concluded that review of program formats was not
required by the Act, would not benefit the public, would deter
innovation, and would impose substantial administrative burdens on the
Commission.[^66] The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld this
policy and the Commission's determination that "the public interest is
best served by promoting diversity in entertainment formats through
market forces and competition among broadcasters . . . " and that a
change in programming is not a material factor that should be considered
by the Commission in ruling on applications for license transfer.[^67]
This is particularly so with regard to the programming decisions of NCE
broadcast stations. Although market forces cannot be relied upon to
regulate programming in the NCE realm, the Commission historically "has
had the appropriately limited role of facilitating the development of
the public broadcasting system rather than determining the content of
its programming."[^68] Accordingly, we find that Petitioners and
Objectors have failed to raise a substantial and material question of
fact warranting further inquiry.

*Failure to Maintain Public File.* In identical postcard-style
pleadings, numerous Objectors allege that Trinity failed to provide
access to the Station's public inspection files as required by the Rules
because the office listed in Trinity's public notice was closed to the
public.[^69] However, because Objectors fail to provide the specific
dates or times on which any attempts were made to visit the Station's
office, we conclude that Objectors have not provided the necessary
specific information to present a substantial and material question of a
Rule violation by Trinity.[^70] In addition, we note that in an
affidavit attached to the Petition, Petitioner Tameisha Campbell states
that, on October 31, 2007, she "visited the main studio location of the
radio station ... \[and reviewed\] the contents of the public
file."[^71] This statement appears to contradict Objectors' assertions.
Given these inconsistencies, further consideration of this issue is
unwarranted.

**Conclusion/Actions**. Based on the above, we find that neither
Petitioners nor Objectors have raised a substantial and material
question of fact warranting further inquiry. We further find that
American Public Media Group is qualified to hold the Station WKCP(FM)
license and that grant of the Application is consistent with the public
interest, convenience and necessity. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that
the Petition to Deny filed by the Petitioners listed in Appendix A IS
DENIED, the Informal Objections filed by the Objectors listed in
Appendix A ARE DENIED, and that the application for approval to assign
the license for Station WKCP(FM), Miami, Florida (File No.
BALED-20070928ADQ) from Trinity International Foundation, Inc. to
American Public Media Group IS GRANTED.

Sincerely,

Peter H. Doyle

Chief, Audio Division

Media Bureau

**APPENDIX A**

A.  **Petitioners**

Leslie Aquart

Reinaldo de Armas

Victor Gonzalez

Stanley B. Goldenberg

German Guillen

Nancy A. Guillen

Janet O. Hurley

Claudio M. Perez

Lisa M. Powell

Louis Dominguez Rodriguez

Ivan Sanchez

**B. Objectors**

Alexander Alfano

Ira Warren Patasnik

Anthony Atwood

Nina Gail Betancourt-Morgan

David Nicoletto

Sabrina Gonzalez

Louisiana Petit

Ingrid Jean-Mondesir

Barbara Echeverria

Maria De Pablo

Judith A. Kohlasch

Iveth Echeverria

Janet Carrasquillo

Carlos, Grace, Priscilla and Stephen Armas

Themis Quirino

Mez Mondesir

Carol Stokes

Aquaria Nelly

Eladia Iles

Aisha L. Hoilett

Heather Corinne Ross

Gladys Quintana

Margaret Ramirez

Monique Echeverria

Linda Cooper

Dawn Burns

Katarina Bertrand

Christine Prosper

Peter & Margaret Folders

Jessica Prosper

Bibiana Prosper

Anthony Sciacovelli

Pedro Garcia

Claude P. and Andrea Kayser

Mr and Mrs. Michael Fiorilli Sr.

Victoria Miguel

Janet and Bob Bigelow

Robert F. Fountain

Juana P. Alvarez

Debbie Sathuthita

William Davis

Paula & Eric Gray

Chadwick and Omega Duncan

Jennifer Wood

Patricia Leider

N. Aileen McCune

Karen Wightman

Patricia Martin

Nelly Berndes

Sharon Fields

Virginia Roberts

Tia Broadway

Margaret Daly

Alexsis Gonzalez

Nelson E. Howard

Nelly Solano

Rollande R. Martinez

Bonnie Pattison

Susan Thompson

Soraya Jiha

B. Lynn Meza

Elena C. Tauler, Esq.

Nelly K. Shaw

Josie Mijares

Jacqueline Correa Sosa

Steven Brooks

Richard Brown

David W. Hiers

Phyllis Taylor

Enis G. Del Riego

Jamie Smith

Vearlina Bess

Jael De Spain

Verna Hensley

Kathy Barberiz

Cristina Scavuzzo

Irma Rivera

Dan and Lisa Adams

Richard Morread

Daniel E. Clapp

Ivis Medoza

Debra Reid

Ana Rivera

Beryle Becker

Dawn Paes

Belarminio Martinez

Joyce Mercado

Millian Delgado

Margaret Guzman

Barbara Bernardo

Paula Wheaton

Mirtha Ramirez

Migdalia Cisneros

Robert J. Levassevr

Peggy Heeb

Sadie Padgett

Tamara Watson

Kevin Watson

Agnes Morse

Jose Navarro

Annalisa Ohly

Kevin McInytre

Mr. and Mrs. Allen Cooke

Geraldine Crews

Rosemarie Pinto

Larry Dicken

Shirley A Sims

Ralph Sanders

Diane Dicken

Dawn Bogues

Patricia Jennigan

Juanita A. Whittecar

Richard Dino

Frank G. Ankner

Alex Jacome

John Svadbik

Gladys Svadbik

Belkys Pereda

Irma Arce

Carol Larsen

Patricia Soler

Mr. and Mrs Balius

Shelia Hartsell

Gloria Zura

Thomas Googe

N. Licata

Mrs. Judi Geib

Jane Abruzzo

Benjamin E. Morris

Jennifer Morris

Stephen Alessi

Sharon Miles

William Garcia

Juan Clark

Barbara Bernaldo

Kathy Gray

John F. Montalvo, Jr.

David Swindoll

Kelly Klauder

Teresita C. Miglio

David Crespo

Silvi Santovenia

Mathew Santovenia

Nancy Lucas

Claudio Perez

Elliott L. Millar

Laura Montero

Elizabeth Jones

Christi Dupre

Ailette Mendoza

Jeanine Goud

Tania Gonzalez

Lordes Ponce

Mr & Mrs. Michael Fiorillo

Carolyn Benson

Eric T. Johnson

Ken Murrell

Donald Fox

Micah C. Bennett

Carol Holgapfel

Cecilia Suarez

Jorge Herrera

Maria Mendez

Melissa Van Heusen

Betty Amaral

Lyne Davis

Catherine Hanes-Cohen

Tomasina Scott

[^1]: *See* Petition to Deny, filed by Leslie Aquart *et al*., on Nov.
    2, 2007. Trinity filed an Opposition to Petition to Deny on November
    15, 2007 (the "Opposition"). Petitioners filed a Consent Motion For
    Extension of Time to file a Reply on November 21, 2007, and filed a
    Reply on December 5, 2007 (the "Reply").

[^2]: Many of the objections are identical postcard-style pleadings
    styled as "Petitions to Deny." However, these and the remaining
    objections filed by the Objectors listed in Appendix A fail to meet
    the requirements of a petition to deny because they were either
    late-filed or failed to provide sworn statements supporting factual
    allegations. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(d). We will, however, treat them
    as informal objections, pursuant to Section 73.3587 of the
    Commission's Rules (the "Rules"). *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3587.

[^3]: Petition at 15-16.

[^4]: *See id.*

[^5]: *See, e.g*., Informal Objection filed by Alexander J. Alfano, Esq.
    on Nov. 5, 2007 ("Alfano Objection"), at 3.

[^6]: *See, e.g*., Informal Objection filed by Jane Abruzzo on October
    1, 2007 ("Abruzzo Objection"), at 1.

[^7]: 47 U.S.C. § 310(d).

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1).

[^9]: *See id.*; *Astroline Communications Co. v. FCC**,*** 857 F.2d
    1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

[^10]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(2).

[^11]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(e).

[^12]: 47 U.S.C. § 310(d). *See, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc.,* Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 193, 197 note 10 (1990), *aff'd sub
    nom. Garden State Broadcasting L.P. v. FCC*, 996 F.2d 386 (D.C. Cir.
    1993), *rehearing denied* (Sep. 10, 1993); *Area Christian
    Television, Inc.,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 RR 2d 862, 864
    (1986) (informal objection must contain adequate and specific
    factual allegations sufficient to warrant the relief requested).

[^13]: *See* FCC File No. BALED-20070928ADQ. The Commission published
    public notice of the filing of the Assignment application on October
    3, 2007. *See Broadcast Applications*, Public Notice, Report No.
    26584 (Oct. 3, 2007).

[^14]: *See* Opposition at 6.

[^15]: Specifically, Trinity published newspaper notice in the Sun
    Sentinel on the following dates: October 8, 9, 10, 11, 25, 26, 29,
    and 30. *See* Opposition at 8.

[^16]: *Id.*

[^17]: *See, e.g.,* Abruzzo Objection at 1, citing 47 C.F.R. §
    73.3580(d)(3)(i). That Rule requires on-air notice for an assignment
    of license application to be given at least once daily on four days
    in the second week immediately following filing of the application.
    Objectors also allege that Trinity's notice was defective because it
    failed to provide notice in West Palm Beach, Florida, where Trinity
    maintains a translator station. However, no public notice is
    required for an application to assign an FM translator license.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3580(d)(3). Because Objectors fail to implicate
    any provision of the Rules or Act, we will not consider this
    allegation further.

[^18]: *See* Petition at 4, citing 47 C.F.R. 73.3580(c). That Rule
    requires published notice in a "daily newspaper of general
    circulation ... in the community in which the station is located"
    when an application involving a major change has been filed.

[^19]: *See* Petition at 5.

[^20]: *See* *id*. at 12, citing 47 C.F.R. § 73.3580(f)(1). Under that
    Rule, public notice of the filing of an assignment application must
    include the names of all persons holding 10 percent or more of stock
    or other ownership interest.

[^21]: *See id.*

[^22]: *See* Opposition at 8, citing 47 C.F.R. § 73.3580(e).

[^23]: *Id.*

[^24]: *Id.*

[^25]: *See* *id*. at 9; Exhibit D, Attachments A and B.

[^26]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3580(e).

[^27]: Trinity filed its Application on September 28, 2007, making
    broadcast notice due the week of October 8, 2007. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    73.3580(d)(3)(i).

[^28]: Petitioners submitted with its Reply an "Audit Bureau of
    Circulations Audit Report" which, according to Petitioners,
    demonstrates that the paid circulation of *The Sun Sentinel* in
    Miami-Dade County is less than two percent. *See* Reply, Exhibit A.
    We have found no case law to support the Petitioners\' theory that
    using a newspaper with a low circulation figure in the community of
    license violates Section 73.3580(c) of the Rules or subverts the
    intent of the Rule. Accordingly, we find that this evidence fails to
    rebut Trinity's showing that *The Sun Sentinel* is published in
    Miami. Moreover, even if we were to conclude that Trinity did not
    comply with our Rules, the remedy would simply be republication of
    the notice in a different newspaper. *See* *Marri Broadcasting,
    L.P*., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 10,772, 10,775 (MB
    2001) (holding that in cases "where an applicant has failed to
    publish or improperly published the required local notice, the
    Commission generally requires the applicant to correctly republish
    the local notice and advise the Commission it has done so."). Given
    the publicity this case has attracted in the Miami area and the fact
    that Trinity gave both broadcast and newspaper notice, we find that
    republication of Trinity's public notice is unnecessary. 

[^29]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3580(f)(1) and Worksheet 1 to FCC Form 314
    (rev. Sept. 2004).

[^30]: *See* Petition at 6, 11, citing 47 C.F.R. § 73.3615(d).

[^31]: *See id*. at 12, citing 47 U.S.C. § 309(a) and 47 U.S.C. §
    310(d).

[^32]: *See id* at 6, citing FCC File Nos. BOA-020031001AXH,
    BOA-20051003BRJ, and 20070924AGO.

[^33]: *See* *id*.

[^34]: *See* Opposition at 3-4, citing 47 C.F.R. § 73.3615(d)(2).

[^35]: *See* *id.* at 5.

[^36]: See *id.*

[^37]: Instructions to Form 323-E, para. 5.

[^38]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.3615(d)(1) and (d)(2).

[^39]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3615(a)(3)(iv)(B), which specifically
    requires for commercial stations that an ownership report be filed
    for each entity having an attributable interest in the licensee
    "regardless of its position in the vertical ownership chain." No
    parallel provision is contained in Section 73.3615(d) of the Rules,
    which governs NCE stations. *See* n.38, *supra*.

[^40]: *See, e.g.,* *Trinity Broadcasting of Florida, Inc. v. FCC,* 211
    F.3d 618, 632 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (finding that, where regulations are
    unclear and where the petitioner\'s interpretation is reasonable, a
    regulated party is not 'on notice' of the agency\'s ultimate
    interpretation of the regulations, and may not be punished).

[^41]: *See* Petition at 7.

[^42]: *See* FCC File No. BALED-20070928ADQ.

[^43]: *See* Petition at 7, 12. In its Opposition, Trinity provides a
    list of the omitted schedules and exhibits. *See* Opposition at 7.

[^44]: *LUJ, Inc*., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 16980,
    16982 (2002).

[^45]: *See* FCC File No. BALED-20070928ADQ.

[^46]: *See* Opposition at 7, n.15. The schedules omitted from the Asset
    Purchase Agreement were described in the Agreement itself and
    included: Schedule 2.2 (Excluded Assets); 3.3 (Consents); 3.4
    (Licenses); 3.5 (Real Property Leases); 3.6 (Tangible Personal
    Property); 3.7 (Assumed Contracts); 3.9 (Intangibles); 3.10
    (Insurance); 3.12 (Employee Matters); 3.13 (Financial Information;
    3.14 (Litigation); 4.3 (Buyer Consents); and 5.10 (Form of Estoppel
    Certificate). With regard to the Affiliation Agreement, Exhibit A
    (Expense Reimbursement) was omitted. We find that these omitted
    exhibits are not integral to our evaluation of the Application.

[^47]: *See* Petition at 7, 13. As discussed *supra*, the Station
    temporarily ceased broadcasting programming on October 1, 2007, and
    resumed operation on October 24, 2007. *See* Opposition at 6.

[^48]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.1201(a).

[^49]: Opposition at 6.

[^50]: *Id.*

[^51]: *Id.*

[^52]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.1740(a)(4). Trinity states that it notified
    the Commission of its silent status by electronic filings. *See*
    Opposition at 6.

[^53]: *See* Petition at 7-8, 14.

[^54]: *See id.* at 14, citing *Policy Regarding Character
    Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing*, Report, Order and Policy
    Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986). Another Objector claims that, in
    an effort to further its alleged fraud, Trinity employed a
    "deceptive scheme to confuse the public by going silent for
    twenty-four days and then resuming broadcasting with \[a\] different
    call sign ...". Alfano Objection at 3.

[^55]: *See* *id.* at 15. Commission staff obtained a copy of a
    complaint filed against Trinity via the Internet, *at*
    <http://www.mdccc.org/WMCU-FM/Complaint_101807_Mathews_vs_TIU.pdf>
    (last visited Mar. 6, 2008).

[^56]: *See* Opposition at 9.

[^57]: *See id*. at 10.

[^58]: In only one case has the Media Bureau issued a forfeiture for
    violation of the radio fraud statute under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. *See
    WPNT, Inc*., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 1757 (MMB
    1993). In that case, the station had aired a fraudulent solicitation
    of funds to replace its tower when insurance funds were going to be
    used for that purpose. These facts are distinguishable from the
    instant case, where Petitioners' claims actually involve breach of
    fiduciary duty rather than fraud, as discussed *infra.*

[^59]: *See, e.g., Dontron, Inc*., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC
    Rcd 2560, 2563 (MB 1991) (finding that fraudulent billing practices
    constitute non-FCC misconduct); *WPOM Radio Partners, Ltd*., Order,
    6 FCC Rcd 5 (MB 1991) (same).

[^60]: *Dontron, Inc*., 6 FCC Rcd at 2563.

[^61]: In their supporting Affidavits, Petitioners state that they
    believe that Trinity "breached its fiduciary duty" to them. *See,
    e.g*, Petition at Exhibit A, Declaration of Leslie Aquart.

[^62]: *See John R. Kingsbury*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 71 FCC 2d
    1173 (1979); citing *Transcontinent Television Corp.*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 21 RR 945 (1961).

[^63]: *See* *Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast
    Licensing*, Policy Statement and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3252, 3252-53
    (1990) ("*Character Policy Statement*"), *modified*, 6 FCC Rcd 3448
    (1991), and 7 FCC Rcd 6564 (1992). Civil misrepresentations may also
    be considered on a case-by-case basis. *See Character Policy
    Statement,* 6 FCC Rcd at 3448.

[^64]: Violations of a criminal fraud statute, for example, would be
    considered relevant non-FCC misconduct. However, Petitioners have
    not alleged, nor have we found, that the lawsuits filed against
    Trinity include such a claim.

[^65]: *See* Petition at 4; *see, e.g*., Abruzzo Objection at 1.

[^66]: *See* [*Changes in the Entertainment Formats of Broadcast
    Stations,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 FCC 2d 858, 865-66
    (197](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1017&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976026953&ReferencePosition=865)6),
    *recon. denied*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, [66 FCC 2d 78
    (1977)](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1017&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1977025575),
    *rev\'d sub nom.,* [*WNCN Listeners Guild v. FCC*, 610 F.2d 838
    (D.C. Cir.
    19](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1979137202)79),
    *rev\'d*, [450 U.S. 582
    (1981)](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981112837).

[^67]: *FCC v. WNCN Listener's Guild*, 450 U.S. 582, 585 (1981).

[^68]: *Revision of Programming Policies and Reporting Requirements
    Related to Public Broadcasting Licensees,* Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making, 87 FCC 2d 716, 732 (1981). *See also License Renewal
    Applications of Certain Commercial Radio Stations Serving
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd
    6400, 6401 (1993) (licensees have broad discretion over programming
    decisions).

[^69]: *See, e.g.,* Abruzzo Objection at 1.

[^70]: *See* *Area Christian Television, Inc.,* 60 RR 2d at 864. *See
    also Tom Struhar*, Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 6568, 6571 (MB 2007). *See
    also* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(4) (a notice of apparent liability for
    forfeiture must include, *inter alia*, the nature of the act or
    omission charged and the date on which such conduct occurred).

[^71]: *See* Petition to Deny, Exhibit B.