**DA 03-2067**

Bruce D. Jacobs, Esq.

Shaw Pittman

2300 N Street, NW

Washington, DC 20037-1128

Re: Trans Video Communications, Inc., File No. BMLIF-19870429DF

Station KNZ69, Brooklyn, New York

Dear Mr. Jacobs:

On March 14, 1996, your client Grand MMDS Alliance New York F/P
Partnership (Grand Alliance) submitted Informal Comments in connection
with the above-referenced application filed by Trans Video
Communications, Inc. (TVC) seeking authorization to modify Station
KNZ69, Brooklyn, New York.[^1] In connection with Grand Alliance's
Informal Comments, Grand Alliance asks that we condition the grant of
TVC's application "on TVC's withdrawal from the F Channel Block
frequencies."[^2] For the reasons stated below, we deny Grand Alliance
the relief it seeks through its Informal Comments.

Grand Alliance is the licensee of Multipoint Distribution Service
Station WMY467, operating on the F Group channels in New York, New York.
Grand Alliance became the conditional licensee of Station WMY467 on May
6, 1997, after it filed its Informal Comments.[^3] TVC is the licensee
of grandfathered Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) Station
KNZ70, Queens, New York, which also operates on the F Group channels.
TVC is also the licensee of ITFS Station KNZ69, Brooklyn, New York,
which operates on the B Group channels. By the instant application, TVC
seeks to modify the license for Station KNZ69 to relocate its
transmitter from its current location in Brooklyn to the Empire State
Building.

Grand Alliance does not object to the grant of TVC's application, but
asks that we condition the grant of TVC's application on TVC's
withdrawal from the F Group channels.[^4] Grand Alliance "submits these
comments in light of recent developments which may impact on the
resolution of its own pending application for the F channel Block MMDS
license in this market."[^5] Grand Alliance argues that the relocation
of TVC's B Group facilities would eliminate the need for TVC to employ
Station KNZ70 as a relay station.[^6]

Based on the information before us, we conclude that grant of the relief
requested by Grand Alliance is not warranted under the circumstances
presented; therefore, we will not condition the grant of TVC's
application as Grand Alliance requests. Grand Alliance has failed to
cite any provision of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the
Commission's rules, or a Commission policy that would authorize support
the Commission requiring TVC to surrender its F Group channels in return
for a grant of the modification of its B Group authorization. Grand
Alliance does not allege that TVC's operation of Station KNZ69 violates
the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we conclude that grant of TVC's
application with the requested condition is unnecessary and
unwarranted.[^7]

Lastly, TVC suggests that Grand Alliance's comments were improperly
filed for the purpose of delaying action on TVC's application.[^8] We
disagree. We find nothing to suggest that the pleadings filed by Grand
Alliance violated the Commission\'s general practice rules governing
pleadings.[^9] In the absence of a demonstrable showing of abuse of the
Commission's processes,[^10] we decline to take any action against Grand
Alliance on this basis.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section
73.3534(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.3534(a), that the
relief sought in the Informal Comments filed by the Grand MMDS Alliance
New York F/P Partnership on March 14, 1996 IS DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.52 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.52, that the request of Trans Video
Communications, Inc. contained in its March 27, 1996 "Opposition to
Informal Comments" that we issue sanctions against Grand Alliance for
filing its Informal Comments IS DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309 and
Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 74.912, that the
Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL PROCESS the application
File No. BMLIF-19870429DF filed on April 29, 1987 by Trans Video
Communications, Inc. consistent with the applicable Commission rules and
procedures.

This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections
0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

D'wana R. Terry

Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

cc: William D. Wallace Esq.

Crowell & Moring, L.L.P.

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

j:\\pspwd\\Spann\\TransVideo(3) 062003

CC: D. Terry

H. Zeiler

R. Melson

J. Borkowski

G. Intoccia

J. Schauble

S. Stone

P. Daronco

M. Spann

G. Vadas

M. Shultz

T. Simmons

R. Taylor

[^1]: Informal Comments filed by Grand Alliance on Mar. 14, 1996
    (Informal Comments). TVC filed an Opposition to Informal Comments
    (Opposition) on Mar. 27, 1996. Grand Alliance provided a reply on
    Apr. 15, 1996.

[^2]: *Id.* at 1.

[^3]: Mass Media Bureau Multipoint Distribution Service Actions, *Public
    Notice*, Report No. D-925-A (rel. May 7, 1997).

[^4]: Comments at 1.

[^5]: *Id*.

[^6]: *Id.* at 2.

[^7]: TVC argues that Grand Alliance lacks standing to file comments
    regarding the grant of TVC's application. Opposition at 2-3.
    Standing, however, is not a prerequisite for filing informal
    comments. 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. *See, e.g.,* Applications of WINV, Inc.,
    Assignor, and WGUL-FM, Inc., Assignee, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 2032 ¶ 2 (1998).

[^8]: Opposition at 8-10. A strike pleading is a pleading filed in bad
    faith for the primary purpose of blocking, impeding, or delaying the
    grant of an application. William P. Johnson and Hollis P. Johnson,
    d/b/a Radio Carrollton, *Decision*, 69 FCC 2d 1139, 1150 ¶ 24
    (1978), *clarified*, 69 FCC 2d 424 (1978), *recon. denied*, 72 FCC
    2d 264 (1979), *aff\'d mem. sub nom. Faulkner Radio, Inc. v. FCC*,
    No. 79-1749 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 15, 1980), *cert. denied*, 450 U.S. 1041
    (1981).

[^9]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.52.

[^10]: The term \"abuse of process\" has been defined as \"the use of a
    Commission process, procedure or rule to achieve a result which that
    process, procedure or rule was not designed or intended to achieve
    or, alternatively, use of such process, procedure, or rule in a
    manner which subverts the underlying intended purpose of that
    process, procedure, or rule.\" Formulation of Policies and Rules
    Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, Competing Applicants, and
    Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process and to the
    Prevention of Abuse of the Renewal Process, *First Report and
    Order*, 4 FCC Rcd. 4780, 4793 n.3 (1989); *see* Silver Star
    Communications-Albany, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 3 FCC
    Rcd. 6342, 6352 ¶ 41 (1988); Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584
    of the Commission\'s Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission\'s
    Process, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 2 FCC Rcd. 5563, 5563 ¶ 2
    (1987); *see also* Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In
    Broadcast Licensing, *Report, Order and Policy Statement*, 102 FCC
    2d 1179 (1986), *recon. granted in part and denied in part*, 1 FCC
    Rcd. 421 (1986), *appeal dismissed mem. sub nom National Assoc. for
    Better Broadcasting v. FCC*, No. 86-1179 (D.C. Cir. June 11, 1987)
    (strike pleadings, harassment of opposing parties, and violation of
    ex parte rules constitute abuse of process).