**efore the**

**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In re Application of )

)

CALVARY CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS, INC. ) Facility ID No.89823 )

For Construction Permit for a New Noncommercial ) File No.
BPFT-19980204TA

Educational FM Translator Station in Nampa, Idaho )

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: November 4, 2003 Released: December 2, 2003**

By the Commission:

1\. The Commission has under consideration an application for review
filed on December 18, 2000, by Southern Idaho Corporation of Seventh-day
Adventists ("SIC"). SIC seeks review of the November 14, 2000, staff
action denying its petition for reconsideration of the grant of an
application by Calvary Chapel of Twin Falls, Inc. ("CCTF") to construct
a new noncommercial educational ("NCE") FM translator station[^1] at
Nampa, Idaho. CCTF filed an opposition on December 29, 2000. For the
reasons set forth below, we deny SIC's application for review.

**Background**

2\. On February 4, 1998, CCTF filed an application for a construction
permit to build a new NCE FM translator station at Nampa, Idaho. On July
13, 1998, SIC filed a petition to deny the application, alleging that
CCTF had not demonstrated its financial qualifications to construct and
operate the proposed facility. Specifically, SIC maintained that the
Commission \"must question the validity\" of CCTF\'s financial
certification due to the pendency of a large number of applications
filed by CCTF for new translator stations and an application for a new
full-service noncommercial FM station.[^2] In response, CCTF stated that
it had the funds necessary to construct each of the stations for which
it had applied, noting that it had already constructed over one hundred
FM translator stations.

3\. On February 15, 2000, the staff denied SIC's petition to deny,
stating that, while the Commission has indicated that the staff may
question the validity of a commercial full-service station applicant's
financial qualifications if that applicant has multiple broadcast
applications pending, it did not direct that the staff do so in all
cases. The staff found that SIC had failed to adduce any probative
evidence putting in issue CCTF's financial qualifications. Based on
SIC's wholly speculative allegations and CCTF's "proven track record" of
station construction, the staff concluded that further inquiry into
CCTF's financial qualifications was unwarranted.

4\. SIC petitioned for reconsideration, maintaining that the staff erred
in concluding that it was not required to question the validity of
CCTF's financial certification in light of CCTF's pending multiple
applications. In denying SIC's petition for reconsideration, the staff
held that the Commission's 1987 *Public Notice* regarding financial
certifications by broadcast applicants accorded the staff the discretion
\-- but not the obligation \-- to question whether an applicant with
multiple pending applications is financially qualified.[^3] In addition,
the staff again referred to CCTF's "long record" of timely constructing
authorized facilities and SIC's failure to provide any documentation to
support its challenge of CCTF's financial qualifications.

5\. In its application for review, SIC maintains that the staff's
interpretation of *Certification of Financial Qualifications*
requirements "is at odds" with rulings by administrative law judges and
the Review Board in cases such as *Gunter, supra*, and *Modesto
Broadcast Group*.[^4] These adjudicatory cases establish a policy, SIC
argues, "in favor of comprehensive audits of multiple filers" because an
applicant with many applications "must" be able to demonstrate that it
is financially qualified as to all pending applications. SIC concludes
that the Commission should "routinely audit the claimed financial
qualifications of any applicant with a substantial number of
simultaneously pending applications."

6\. *Discussion*. SIC's argument that *Gunter* and *Modesto Broadcast
Group* are in conflict with *Certification of Financial Qualifications*
is without merit*.* Those cases, the latter of which cites
*Certification of Financial Qualifications*, do not support the
principle that an examination of an applicant's financial certification
is mandatory when an applicant has multiple pending applications. We
reject SIC's patent misreading of these cases.[^5] Rather, they merely
establish that the staff may seek additional financial data based on the
pendency of a large number of broadcast applications.

7\. In this case the staff reasonably concluded that a financial
qualifications inquiry was unwarranted. Unlike the applicants in
*Gunter* and *Modesto*, CCTF has a proven record of timely constructing
a network of, by its count, over 280 authorized facilities.[^6] SIC has
presented no information, beyond mere conjecture, to put at issue CCTF's
financial qualifications. Based on the foregoing, we find that SIC has
failed to raise a substantial or material question of fact to warrant an
examination of CCTF's financial certification, and we affirm the staff's
conclusion that the grant of CCTF's application is consistent with the
public interest, convenience, and necessity.

8\. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That the Southern Idaho Corporation of
Seventh-day Adventists application for review IS HEREBY DENIED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

[^1]: The station's call sign is K204DV.

[^2]: SIC cited *George Edward Gunter*, 104 F.C.C.2d 1363 (Rev. Bd.
    1986).

[^3]: *Public Notice, Certification of Financial Qualifications by
    Applicants for Broadcast Station Construction Permits*, 2 FCC Rcd
    2122, 2123 (1987) ("*Certification of Financial Qualifications")*
    ("in cases where an applicant has a large number of pending
    broadcast applications, the staff *may* question the validity of the
    applicant's financial qualifications") (emphasis supplied).

[^4]: 5 FCC Rcd 4674 (1990).

[^5]: In March, 2001, the Commission modified Form 349, Application for
    Authority to Construct or Make Changes in an FM Translator or FM
    Booster Station and, *inter* alia, deleted the financial
    certification.

[^6]: *See* page 3, Opposition to Application for Review. Compare
    *Modesto, supra*, 5 FCC Rcd at 4675*,* in which the Review Board
    observed that the presiding judge, in specifying a financial issue,
    "\[knew\] nothing about the applicant or her financial condition."