FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

# Washington, D.C. 20554

## April 9, 2001

In Reply Refer To:

1800B3-GDG

Amy L. Van de Kerckhove, Esq.

ShawPittman

2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037-1128

> In re: NEW Brookline, MO

Facility No. 79138

File No. BPH-19960212MD

Dear Ms. Van de Kerckhove:

This letter concerns the uncontested April 3, 2001 request filed on
behalf of MW Springmo, Inc. ("Springmo"), that the referenced
construction permit be treated pursuant to the tolling provisions of 47
C.F.R. §73.3598(b)(ii). Springmo maintains that two periods of
"administrative review" have occurred, warranting tolling treatment. For
the reasons detailed below, MW Springmo's tolling request is granted
with regard to the administrative review of the grant of the referenced
permit but denied with regard to the review of the Petition for
Reconsideration of the rulemaking order.

The referenced permit was initially granted May 8, 1998, and expires May
8, 2001. Springmo states that the referenced permit was encumbered
between June 8, 1998 and November 6, 2000 by the administrative review
of the Petition for Reconsideration of the grant of the referenced
permit. It also maintains that the permit presently is encumbered by a
pending Petition for Reconsideration of the Brookline, Missouri
allotment order, *Report and Order* in MM Docket 90-195, 10 FCC Rcd
13038 (1995). Our analysis confirms that the referenced permit is
eligible, pursuant to the *Report and Order* in MM Docket 98-43, 13 FCC
Rcd 23056, (1998), *recons. granted in part and denied in part* 14 FCC
Rcd 17525, 17540 (1999), for tolling in the former matter but not for
the latter.

Our rules define "administrative review" in terms of Petitions for
Reconsideration and Applications for Review only of grants of
construction permits or of permit extensions, and appeal of any
Commission action concerning such grants. *Streamlining R&O*, 13 FCC Rcd
at 23091. *See also* 47 C.F.R. §73.3598(b). The record confirms that the
referenced permit was the subject of administrative review from the June
8, 1998 filing of Lake Broadcasting, Inc.'s ("Lake") Petition for
Reconsideration to the staff's November 6, 2000 denial of Lake's
pleading.[^1] Although we are granting this portion of Springmo's
request, we caution the permittee that such requests for treatment
pursuant to the Commission's tolling rules, 47 C.F.R. §73.3598(c),
generally must be filed within 30 days of the claimed event. This timing
is for the applicant's benefit. Applicants failing to comply with this
rule may have difficulty documenting the event and place themselves at
risk of learning of a potential denial of tolling after their
authorization already expired.

Turning to Springmo's request that the staff also approve tolling for
the entire period because grant the underlying Brookline allocations
rulemaking has been under appeal, we must reject this claim. The
Commission, absent a specific condition on the permit to the contrary,
explicitly rejects reliance on rulemaking matters for tolling purposes.
*Streamlining MO&O*, 14 FCC Rcd at 17538-39.

Accordingly, Springmo's tolling request IS GRANTED to the extent
detailed above. The Commission's records ARE HEREBY REVISED to require
that MW Springmo complete construction pursuant to the referenced permit
and file the appropriate license application no later than October 6,
2003.[^2]

Sincerely,

Linda Blair, Chief

Audio Services Division

Mass Media Bureau

[^1]: Lake did not appeal the staff's action.

[^2]: We calculated this date by recognizing that the referenced permit
    was unencumbered between May 8 and June 8, 1998, *i.e.*, for 1
    month. An additional 35-month period is needed for MW Springmo to
    receive a full three unencumbered years pursuant to 47 C.F.R.
    §73.3598(a). Therefore, we added that period to the November 6, 2000
    date resolving the appeal of the permit's grant to determine the
    revised expiration date, *i.e.,* October 6, 2003.