> **DA 08-1936**

*In Reply Refer to*:

1800B3-IB

Released: August 20, 2008

A. Wray Fitch III, Esq.

Gammon & Grange

Counsel to The Helpline

8280 Greensboro Drive, 7th Floor

McLean, VA 22102-3807

John Shumate, Sr.

President

Spirit Communications, Inc.

P.O. Box 1887

Westerville, OH 43086

In re: **The Helpline**

> 10 Applications for NEW NCE(FM) Stations in Ohio, Oklahoma, Missouri,
> Arizona, Colorado, Virginia, and Indiana.
>
> Facility ID Nos. 175084, 175097, 175100, 175107, 175129, 175132,
> 175136, 175139, 175143, and 177401
>
> File Nos. BNPED-20071022BSU; BNPED-20071019BCP; BNPED-20071019BCO;
> BNPED-20071019BCN; BNPED-20071019BCM; BNPED-20071019BCK;
> BNPED-20071019BCJ; BNPED-20071019BCH; BNPED-20071019BCG; and
> BNPED-20071019BCF
>
> **Spirit Communications, Inc.**
>
> 10 Applications for NEW NCE(FM)

Stations in Utah, Arkansas, Colorado,

> Kentucky, Washington, Minnesota, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and
> North Carolina.
>
> Facility ID Nos. 174142, 174499, 174515, 174554, 174561, 174571,
> 174574, 175541, 175545, and 177413.
>
> File Nos. BNPED-20071022BVX; BNPED-20071019BDA;
> BNPED-20071019BCZ;BNPED-20071019BCY; BNPED-20071019BCX;
> BNPED-20071019BCW; BNPED 20071019BCV; BNPED-20071019BCU;
> BNPED-20071019BCT; and BNPED-20071019BCS

Dear Messrs. Fitch and Shumate:

We have before us twenty applications, ten of which were filed by The
Helpline ("Helpline") and ten of which were filed by Spirit
Communications, Inc. ("Spirit") in the October 2007 noncommercial
educational FM ("NCE") filing window. An anonymous petitioner
("Petitioner") alleged, in connection with two Helpline applications
that were accepted for filing as "singletons" that Spirit maintains *de
facto* control over Helpline and is the real party in interest in the
Helpline applications. Petitioner argues the Commission should dismiss
all twenty applications because it considers Helpline to be a "sham
organization" created by Spirit to "deliberately circumvent" a cap of
ten window-filed applications in which any party may have an
attributable interest.[^1] Helpline filed an Opposition on April 8,
2008, arguing that the current lack of common directors between Spirit
and Helpline is sufficient to defeat Petitioner's arguments.[^2] We
requested additional information from Helpline and Spirit on April 24,
2008, and received their responses on June 16, 2008. For the reasons
discussed below, we conclude that Helpline's applications should be
attributed to Spirit and, therefore, that Spirit exceeded the cap.
Accordingly, we will dismiss the ten applications with the latest file
numbers.

**Background.** We derive the following facts from documents attached to
the Petition, public information available from the Ohio Secretary of
State, web sites operated by Spirit, and information provided by
Helpline and Spirit in response to our inquiries.

Spirit and Helpline were established as separate corporations in 1994
and 1996 respectively. The corporations were founded by the same three
individuals (John P. Shumate, Sr., Kathy Shumate, and Karen
Seidenschmidt). Spirit was founded in response to an event in the
Shumate family that highlighted the need for positive radio programming
aimed toward youth. Spirit's primary purpose is to operate broadcast
stations which encourage Christian values. Helpline was formed to
respond to telephone calls to Spirit's first radio station from young
listeners needing help with their problems. Helpline's primary purpose
is to operate a telephone call-in service for troubled teenagers. For
most of the organizations' histories one of the original incorporators,
John P. Shumate, Sr., has served as statutory agent for both
organizations.

Spirit is the licensee of WUFM(FM), Columbus, Ohio, and numerous FM
translator stations which operate as a network using the name RadioU.
Other stations not owned or operated by Spirit are also part of the
RadioU network, which offers its programming for free to its network
affiliates. Spirit also provides video music programming on television
stations through an outlet known as TVU. Spirit has 16 employees and
with an annual budget of at least \$500,000. It owns the real property
from which it operates, 116 County Line Rd W, Westerville, Ohio.
Spirit's board of directors is unpaid. It states that it sells no
underwriting announcements and relies on bi-annual fundraisers for
support.

Prior to the October NCE FM window, Helpline had never applied for a
broadcast station. Helpline has no paid employees and its board of
directors is unpaid. It operates with volunteers from a one-room office
co-located with Spirit's offices, and provided to it without cost by
Spirit. Among those answering Helpline's phones, as needed, have been
two Spirit employees (a receptionist and a network manager) and a
director of Spirit, Tammy Matias. Spirit director Kathy Shumate also has
volunteered at Helpline. For all times from August 2007 through the date
of its response, Helpline states that its capitalization and asset value
(equity plus debt) was less than \$1,000.[^3]

Spirit and Helpline work closely with each other, with Spirit providing
radio programming aimed toward high school and college-age students and
Helpline providing telephone prayer and referral services for the same
audience. Helpline's callers are primarily those who learn about its
services by listening to Spirit programming, either on Spirit-owned
stations and on non-Spirit stations that are part of the RadioU or TVU
networks. Spirit's TVU website also informs visitors about how to
contact Helpline and provides a link to Helpline's website.

From approximately October 1 through 13, 2007, Spirit held a fundraising
drive using the name Unleash the Music.[^4] The dual purpose of the
drive was to fund Spirit's current broadcast operations and to assist
with future expansion. With respect to expansion, Spirit told potential
donors that it would file applications in the NCE window to potentially
reach over 30 million new listeners, and expected to incur engineering
costs of \$20,000 to prepare those applications. Spirit states that it
arrived at the \$20,000 estimate by rounding up a few thousand dollars
from an all-inclusive quote of its consulting engineer to perform
services for Spirit in connection with the October window. Spirit says
that its 30 million audience goal for the October window was an
overestimate based on a mistaken belief that spectrum would be available
in several major metropolitan areas. Spirit designated \$21,386 of the
fundraising receipts toward expansion.

On October 10, 2007, the Commission adopted a ten-application filing
limit, as it had proposed two months earlier.[^5] On October 13, 2007,
Helpline held a meeting of its three-member board of directors. At the
meeting, the three individuals who founded Spirit and Helpline and
served on the boards of both organizations for the previous 10+ years,
resigned from Helpline after having "elected" among themselves successor
directors of Helpline. Spirit states that the resignations were prompted
by Kathy Shumate's illness following a kidney transplant in the summer
of 2007, making it difficult for John and Kathy Shumate to serve two
organizations. Helpline similarly asserts that the change was due to
Kathy Shumate's failing health. Spirit provides no explanation for the
timing of Karen Seidenschmidt's resignation. Minutes of the meeting do
not identify a reason for the board change, but reflect that Kathy
Shumate took a leadership role in four of the ten items on the October
meeting's agenda. The new Helpline board consists of two Spirit
employees and their spouses. Michael Buckingham, General Manager for
Spirit, is President of Helpline. Obadiah Haybin, on-air talent and
program producer for Spirit, is Helpline's Vice President. None of the
new board members had been involved with Helpline prior to that time.
Helpline states that members of the new Helpline board were chosen for
their ministry experience.

The NCE filing window opened on October 12, 2007, and closed on October
22, 2007. Because of the cap, Spirit abandoned its plans to apply for
new stations in certain communities.[^6] On October 19, 2007, Spirit
filed nine applications which listed as parties to the applications the
organization's three founders and two additional individuals: Bob and
Tammy Matias. On that same day, Helpline filed nine applications which
listed its new board members as parties to the applications. Each entity
also filed one additional application on October 22, 2007. No member of
their current boards overlap. Helpline's and Spirit's applications were
prepared by the same engineering consultant. Helpline's new President,
Michael Buckingham, is identified as the contact person for Spirit's
applications -- Michael@tvulive.com. Two of Helpline's applications are
in markets where Spirit also applied during the window. Two other
Helpline applications are in markets where Spirit has an FM translator
station or a pending application for a new FM translator.

The consulting engineer used by Spirit and Helpline issued two separate
bills, and each was addressed solely to Spirit for services rendered in
connection with the October window. The first bill, dated October 22,
2007, identifies the following services: "10/22/2007 FM NonCom (20
Channel) Search/Feasibility Study based on top 100 markets... Quantity
10;" "10/22/2007 NonCom Construction Permit Application, including
application creation, application filing .... Quantity 10; "and
"10/22/2007 Administrative Charges . . . Quantity 1," for a total, after
discount, of \$7,910.50. The second bill, dated October 27, 2007, is for
"10/22/2007 Spirit NCE Apps \-- Engineering services rendered . . .
Quantity 1"[^7] for a total, after discount, of \$6,045. The two
engineering bills each would have been for identical amounts equal to
the cost of ten studies and applications, but for the inclusion of an
additional charge for administrative services on the first bill. Spirit
states that it paid both bills in January 2008. In response to requests
for similar information from Helpline, Helpline states that "Helpline
has no financial records of costs incurred related to the
applications."[^8] Helpline also has not submitted a copy of any bills
it received for consulting engineering services.

Spirit and Helpline nevertheless assert that Spirit did not directly or
indirectly provide Helpline with financial, legal, technical, or other
assistance, suggestions, consultations and/or services concerning any
matter associated with Helpline's applications. Spirit explains that it
negotiated an all-inclusive engineering fee designed to cover the entire
process including as many frequency searches as could be completed, as
well as preparation of engineering information for each application
filed.[^9] It further asserts that Buckingham, on his own time and on
behalf of Helpline, contacted the same engineer Spirit had used.[^10]
Helpline states that Buckingham knew of tentative frequency searches
that the engineer had already performed for Spirit and other clients. It
asserts that Buckingham reviewed the tentative searches that had not
been chosen by Spirit or any another organization and had the consulting
engineer finalize channel studies and complete applications for
communities selected by Helpline.[^11] The record reflects that Spirit's
board voted to fund equipment purchases for future radio stations
through a \$1,000,000 line of credit with Spirit's building and
equipment as collateral.[^12] Nothing in the record reflects that
Helpline's board convened any meeting, through mid-June 2008, to discuss
potential financing of its proposed radio stations.

Non-compete agreements signed between Spirit and Buckingham in May 2007,
and between Spirit and Haybin in February 2003 provide that Buckingham
and Haybin may not "compete with Spirit Communications within a thirty
(30) mile radius of any broadcast of Spirit Communications or its
affiliates, or with any programs of networks with a similar format to
that of RadioU or TVU (as determined solely by Spirit Communications)
while \[they are\] providing services for Spirit Communications, and for
a period of six months after \[their\] termination from Spirit
Communications."[^13] Spirit states that there are no written or oral
agreements concerning the roles of the Buckinghams and Haybins at
Helpline should they cease to be employed by Spirit. Spirit also states
that there have been no discussions or agreements concerning Spirit's
potential acquisition of any permit or license awarded to Helpline.
There are no agreements concerning any programming to be provided by
Spirit to Helpline. However, Spirit states that it routinely provides
its RadioU Network programming without cost to any radio station wishing
to become a network affiliate, and would be willing to provide
programming to Helpline if Helpline so desires. Helpline states that it
has not determined that any of its stations will become RadioU Network
affiliates although it acknowledges that this could occur. Helpline
notes that it is also planning the creation of its own programming and
network. There are no agreements concerning whether Michael Buckingham
would continue his current position with Spirit in the event that one or
more of Helpline's applications are granted, but Spirit states that it
expects Buckingham would retain his role as General Manager for Spirit.

Spirit and Helpline learned of the Petition in late February/early March
2008. At about this time, they took several actions that address
allegations made in the Petition. For example, Spirit updated its web
site to reflect that it was no longer raising funds for window-filed
applications. On March 7, 2008, Helpline filed a notice with the Ohio
Secretary of State, changing its statutory agent from Spirit officer
John P. Shumate, Sr. to Helpline officer Obadiah Haybin.

Discussion. Unsigned, anonymous allegations do not comport with the
requirements for petitions to deny and are insufficient to be treated as
informal objections.[^14] The Commission may, however, consider
information supplied in such filings as part of the Commission's own
inquiry into the acceptability and grantability of an application.[^15]
At issue is whether the relationship between Spirit and Helpline
requires the attribution of Helpline's applications to Spirit. This
inquiry is necessary to ensure that these October NCE FM window filings
comply with the ten-application cap. Pursuant to that cap, no party may
have an attributable interest in more than ten applications filed in the
October window. 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] A mere employment relationship is not
cognizable under the NCE attribution standards.[^18] Broadcast
attribution standards identify interests that, while not necessarily
controlling, confer a degree of influence sufficient to have a realistic
potential to affect a station's programming or core operations.[^19] An
entity or party with *de facto* or *de jure* control over an applicant
would necessarily have an attributable interest.[^20]

As discussed previously, Helpline and Spirit have had separate boards
and officers since October 13, 2007, just prior to their application
filing dates. This change appears primarily an attempt by Spirit to
sever its *de jure* control of and attributable interest in Helpline so
that each could file 10 applications, with Kathy Shumate's health
playing, at most, a secondary role.[^21] As will be discussed further
below, however, Spirit's *de facto* control of Helpline continued.

The Commission analyzes *de facto* control issues on a case-by-case
basis.[^22] In determining whether an entity has *de facto* control of
an applicant or a licensee, we have traditionally looked beyond legal
title and financial interests to determine who holds operational control
of the station.[^23] For broadcasters in particular, we examine the
policies governing station programming, personnel, and finances. A
broadcast entity's surrender of control over any one of these indicia to
another is sufficient to find that the other entity has *de facto*
control.[^24] The ability of one entity to appoint directors of another,
while possibly a mere investor protection, has also been a factor
considered in examining control.[^25]

As of the application filing dates, Spirit exercised *de facto* control
over Helpline, exerting substantial influence on personnel, finances,
and programming. With respect to personnel, Helpline has no employees of
its own, relying upon Spirit employees to "volunteer" as needed to
perform basic functions such as answering the telephone. Helpline's
current board of directors was installed at a meeting at which only the
three founding Spirit directors (in their positions as founding
directors of Helpline) could vote. The newly elected board consisted of
Spirit employees and their spouses. With respect to finances, Helpline
has assets under \$1,000, and relies upon Spirit for in-kind resources
such as office space. Helpline did not have the funds to purchase the
engineering services needed to participate in the filing window (an
expense of at least \$6,000, assuming a discounted rate). If we accept
*arguendo* that Spirit had an all-inclusive arrangement for engineering
services for the October window that cost Spirit no more than the amount
associated with its own ten applications, this does not explain how
Helpline, which had no agreement with the engineering firm, would be
able to use the engineer's work product without charge. In this regard,
Helpline's inability to produce contemporaneous documentation of
invoices for engineering services and its use of engineering studies
paid for by Spirit are highly probative of Helpline's lack of
independence from Spirit. With respect to programming, there is no
agreement between Helpline and Spirit. Accepting *arguendo*, that
Helpline has not yet decided how much, if any, of Spirit's programming
it may use, the following facts nevertheless indicate that Spirit's
involvement is Helpline's programming is both anticipated by Spirit and
inevitable: (1) Helpline's operation of (or production of programming
for) a non-Spirit-affiliated station would be inconsistent with
Buckingham and Haybin's non-compete agreements, while it is expected
that Buckingham will remain a Spirit employee; (2) Spirit's programs are
free, while Helpline currently has little, if any, funds to spend on
programming; and (3) the airing of Spirit programming furthers
Helpline's own non-profit mission because Helpline receives most of its
referrals through Spirit-produced programming. Had there been no *de
facto* control by Spirit over Helpline, these same financial and
programming matters might have resulted in attribution under the NCE
equity/debt plus ("EDP") standard, [^26] which examines financial
involvement coupled with provision of substantial programming or a
same-market ownership interest. [^27]

Helpline's interests are properly attributable to Spirit for purposes of
the cap. When we adopted the cap, we stated that, if we determined that
an applicant exceeded the cap, we would process only the ten
applications filed first (based on file number) and dismiss the
rest.[^28] In this way, all entities have the same opportunity to apply
for spectrum that is in strong demand. For the reasons discussed above,
we will keep the first ten applications filed by the parties and dismiss
the second ten.[^29]

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED That the anonymous "Petition" IS DISMISSED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the ten applications with the lowest file
numbers shall be retained. Specifically, these applications consist of
nine filed by Helpline: BNPED-20071019BCF; BNPED-20071019BCG;
BNPED-20071019BCH; BNPED-20071019BCJ; BNPED-20071019BCK;
BNPED-20071019BCM; BNPED-20071019BCN; BNPED-20071019BCO;
BNPED-20071019BCP; and one filed by Spirit: BNPED-20071019BCS.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That Helpline's retained application
BNPED-20071019BCJ, to construct a new NCE station at Hebron, Indiana IS
GRANTED as a singleton.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That Spirit and Helpline must as promptly as
possible amend their retained applications pursuant to Section 1.65 of
the Commission's rules to revise any of comparative claims that may have
decreased as a result of this determination.[^30]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the ten applications with the highest file
numbers are HEREBY DISMISSED as in excess of the cap. Specifically,
these applications consist of one filed by Helpline: BNPED-20071022BSU;
and nine filed by Spirit: BNPED-20071019BCT; BNPED-20071019BCU;
BNPED-20071019BCV; BNPED-20071019BCW; BNPED-20071019BCX;
BNPED-20071019BCY; BNPED-20071019BCZ; BNPED-20071019BDA;
BNPED-20071022BVX.

Sincerely,

Peter H. Doyle, Chief

Audio Division

Media Bureau

[^1]: Petition at 1-2.

[^2]: *See* Helpline Opposition at 1-2. Helpline also noted that there
    is no presumption that employers control their employees' outside
    business interests or that spouses control each other. *Id.* at 2-3
    (*citing Clarification of Commission Policies Regarding Spousal
    Attribution,* Policy Statement, 7 FCC Rcd 1920 (1992)).

[^3]: Helpline has defined capitalization as cash on hand. Helpline's
    by-laws suggest that Helpline might also benefit from a trust fund.
    *See* Helpline Response, Exh. 3 at paras. 10 and 13. Helpline has
    provided no information concerning a possible connection between
    this fund and Spirit. Our attribution decision assumes *arguendo*
    that there is no such connection.

[^4]: Spirit maintains that it did not solicit funds past October 13,
    2007. *See* Spirit Response at 1, 5.

    Spirit acknowledges that its unleashthemusic.com website continued
    to reference fundraising for the October window until sometime in
    the first calendar quarter of 2008, but explains that Spirit felt it
    unnecessary to update the website when "it was no longer being
    actively used in presenting the on-air drive." *Id.* at 1.

[^5]: *See FCC Adopts Limit For NCE FM New Station Applications,* Public
    Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 18699 (2007) ("*Cap Order")*.

[^6]: Spirit Response at 9.

[^7]: Spirit Response, Exh. 8.

[^8]: Helpline Response at 3.

[^9]: Spirit Response at 9. There are some discrepancies between the
    amount that Spirit states it negotiated for the unlimited services
    of its engineer and the amount billed/paid. Spirit states that its
    engineer firm offers a discount to NCE organizations. The amounts
    billed/paid are several thousand dollars more than the negotiated
    rate at full-price, and several thousand dollars less than
    negotiated after discount. *See* Spirit Response at 9, Exh. 8. One
    possible explanation is that Spirit, upon learning that the cap
    would allow it to file fewer applications than originally intended,
    renegotiated its all-inclusive arrangement to pay only for
    engineering services actually used.

[^10]: Spirit Response at 4.

[^11]: Helpline Response at 4.

[^12]: Spirit Response, Exh. 3.

[^13]: *See* Spirit Response, Exh. 15.

[^14]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3587; *Lowery Communications,* Hearing
    Designation Order, 5 FCC Rcd 4222 (MB 1990).

[^15]: *E.g., Randolph Victor Bell,* Hearing Designation Order, 3 FCC
    Rcd 5365 (MB 1988).

[^16]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.7000. Attributable 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.

[^17]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.7000. The Commission modified a similar
    equity/debt plus provision with respect to commercial applicants in
    2008. *See Promoting Diversity of Ownership,* Report and Order and
    Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 23 FCC Rcd 5922
    (2008).

[^18]: *See State of Oregon,* Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 17663, 17665 (MB 2007).

[^19]: *See Regulations Governing Attribution of Broadcast and Cable/MDS
    Interests,* Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 12599, 12559 (1999)
    (subsequent history omitted).

[^20]: *See Piedmont Television of Springfield,* Letter, 22 FCC Rcd
    13910, 13913 (MB 2007); *See generally Intermart Broadcasting
    Pocatello,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 8822 (2008)
    (Commission does not treat option agreements as attributable much
    less indicative of *de facto* control).

[^21]: Our conclusion is based on the timing of the resignations shortly
    after adoption of the ten-application cap; the fact that the October
    meeting required a waiver of the otherwise required five-day written
    notice to board members whereas Shumate's surgery occurred the
    previous summer; Kathy Shumate's active role at the meeting; the
    scope of the resignations to include Karen Seidenschmidt; and the
    replacement of a board of 10+ years with new officers who had never
    played any role in Helpline. Without the prompt resignation of
    Helpline's entire board, including Karen Seidenschmidt, Helpline's
    applications would have remained attributable to Spirit.

[^22]: See [*Shareholders of Hispanic Broadcasting Corporation*,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 18834, 18843
    (2003)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.07&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2003640036&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=18843&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=2015394799&db=4493&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Communications);
    [*Chase Broadcasting, Inc.,* Decision, 5 FCC Rcd 1642,
    1643](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.07&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1990196549&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=1643&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=2015394799&db=4493&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Communications)
    (1990).

[^23]: *See* [*WHDH, Inc.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 F.C.C. 2d
    856, 863
    (1969)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.07&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1969020733&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=863&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=2015394799&db=0001017&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Communications),
    *aff\'d sub nom.*, [*Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC*, 444
    F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir.
    1970)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.07&serialnum=1970121902&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=Y&ordoc=2015394799&db=350&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Communications).

[^24]: *See, e.g., Hicks Broadcasting of Indiana, LLC,* Hearing
    Designation Order, [13 FCC Rcd 10662, 10677
    (1998)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.07&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1998270426&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=10677&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=2015983063&db=4493&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Communications)
    ("Control over any one of the areas of personnel, programming and
    finances would be sufficient for a finding of *de facto* control.").

[^25]: *See Stratos Global Corp.,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC
    Rcd 21328 (2001).

[^26]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.7000. *See also Comparative Standards for
    NCE Applicants,* Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7386, 7419 (2000).

[^27]: Spirit's assistance to Helpline is valued at several times
    Helpline's total assets and capitalization. Use of significant
    Spirit programming appears inevitable and is not limited by
    agreement. *See Piedmont Television of Springfield,* 22 FCC Rcd at
    13913 (agreement explicitly limiting programming to 15 percent
    considered as evidence that broker would not control licensee).

[^28]: *See Cap Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at 18699.

[^29]: We reject Petitioner's suggestion that we dismiss all 20
    applicants based on the premise that Helpline is a "sham"
    organization created by Spirit solely to circumvent the
    ten-application cap. The record reflects that Helpline was created
    many years before the cap was adopted and has been engaged in
    long-time, non-profit activities. While Spirit and Helpline erred in
    believing that their alteration of Helpline's governing board made
    the cap inapplicable to them, such an error is in no way comparable
    to examples of applicants entirely disqualified, such as sisters who
    served as fronts for their brother to claim a preference once
    available to female-owned businesses,^?^ 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*. See Ronald Brasher,* Decision, 19 FCC Rcd 18462, 18477-80
    (2004).

[^30]: For example, Helpline may not claim for purposes of tie-breakers
    that it has no attributable interests in Spirit's stations, and both
    entities must count the Hebron, Indiana authorization granted
    herein.