**DA 07-1249**

In Reply Refer to:

1800B3-RDH

Released: March 13, 2007

Carl J. Sabatino, Executive Director

The Voice of Staten Island, Inc.

21 -- 8^th^ Street

Staten Island, New York 10306

The College of Staten Island

Room 1A-404

2800 Victory Boulevard

Staten Island, New York 10314

**In re:** Station WSIA(FM)

Staten Island, New York

Facility ID No. 65557

File No. BRED-20060105AAD

> **Petition to Deny and Informal Objection to Application for License
> Renewal**

Dear Petitioner and Licensee:

This letter concerns the above-noted application (the "Application")
filed by the College of Staten Island (the "Licensee") to renew its
license for noncommercial educational ("NCE") Station WSIA(FM), Staten
Island, New York (the "Station"). Also before us is the Petition to Deny
the Application filed by The Voice of Staten Island, Inc. ("VSI")
received by the Commission on May 1, 2006 (the "VSI Petition")[^1] and
the Informal Objection of Dr. David S. Shear received by the Commission
on December 19, 2006 (the "Shear Informal Objection").[^2] For the
reasons set forth below, we grant in part and deny in all other respects
the VSI Petition and we deny the Shear Informal Objection. We also
admonish the Licensee for its apparent willful and repeated violation of
the public inspection file access requirements contained in Section
73.3527(c) of the Commission's Rules (the "Rules"),[^3] and grant the
Application.

**Background**. VSI alleges that the Licensee has: (a) abandoned direct
management of the Station;[^4] (b) violated the Fairness Doctrine and
Section 73.1910 of the Rules by failing to provide reasonable
opportunity for the discussion of conflicting points of view on issues
of public importance;[^5] (c) failed to provide programming relating to
community issues, offering no "news-related programming;"[^6] (d) failed
to "establish a consistent music programming base that administers to
the full demographic community;"[^7] (e) violated the Commission's
Emergency Alert System ("EAS") rules;[^8] and (f) violated the public
inspection file rule.[^9] In his Informal Objection, Dr. Shear also
alleges that the Licensee has violated the Fairness Doctrine.[^10] He
also maintains that the Station has caused interference and that the
Licensee failed to adequately manage access to the Station tower site or
provide emergency back-up power, rendering the Station unable to
broadcast in times of emergency.[^11] In contrast to VSI, which seeks
the denial of the Application, Dr. Shear seeks only to "give the FCC
pause" to allow for "greater public awareness and discourse, such that a
reasonable compromise can be worked out between the current Licensee and
. . .members of the community. . . ."[^12]

**Discussion.** *Renewal Standard* - Section 309(k) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"),[^13] provides that
the Commission is to grant a license renewal application if, upon
consideration of the application and pleadings, it finds that: (1) the
station has served the public interest, convenience, and necessity; (2)
there have been no serious violations of the Act or the Rules; and (3)
there have been no other violations which, taken together, constitute a
pattern of abuse.[^14] If, however, the licensee fails to meet that
standard, the Commission may deny the application -- after notice and
opportunity for a hearing under Section 309(e) of the Act -- or grant
the application "on terms and conditions that are appropriate, including
a renewal for a term less than the maximum otherwise permitted."[^15]
For the reasons discussed below, neither VSI nor Dr. Shear has
demonstrated that the Licensee fails to meet these criteria.

*Procedural Matters*. As an initial matter, the Licensee maintains that
VSI has failed to demonstrate that it possesses the requisite standing
to file a petition to deny the WSIA(FM) Application.[^16] We disagree.
The Commission has stated that an individual may qualify as a party in
interest if he or she resides within the station's service area,[^17]
and that a petitioning group must affirmatively state in an affidavit
that at least one of its members is an actual listener of the subject
station.[^18] The Licensee overlooks the fact that, in their
Declarations provided with the Petition, VSI members Carl J. Sabatino
and Vincent Medugno each represents that he is a resident of Staten
Island, the former states that he is Executive Director of VSI and the
latter states that he has been a member of the Station. Moreover, in its
Opposition, the Licensee points out that Mr. Sabatino "has had previous,
extensive dealings with WSIA,"[^19] and does not challenge VSI's
representation in its Petition that Mr. Medugno is an on-air personality
at the Station.[^20] Under these circumstances, we conclude that VSI has
the requisite standing to file its Petition here.

Moreover, we will grant the Licensee's Motion to Strike the Reply and
deny VSI's Request for Acceptance of Late-Filed Reply. The Reply was
filed late,[^21] and VSI has not demonstrated good cause why it could
not have been timely filed.[^22] Accordingly, we will not further
consider the Reply.[^23]

*Substantive Matters.* A petition to deny must, pursuant to Section
309(d)(1) of the Act, provide properly supported specific allegations of
fact that, if true, would establish a substantial and material question
of fact that grant of the application would be inconsistent with the
public interest, convenience, and necessity.[^24] Informal objections,
like petitions to deny, must also make such a showing and contain
adequate and specific factual allegations sufficient to warrant the
relief requested.[^25] As discussed further below, although we agree
with VSI that the Licensee has violated the public file rule, and
accordingly, we grant the VSI Petition in part, we believe that the
facts require an admonishment, not denial of the Application. Neither
VSI nor Dr. Shear has presented specific factual allegations sufficient
to raise a *prima facie* case that grant of the Application would be
inconsistent with the public interest. Accordingly, we will otherwise
deny the VSI Petition and deny the Shear Informal Objection.

*The VSI Petition.* The basis for VSI's unauthorized transfer of control
allegation is that the Licensee has improperly delegated management of
the Station to the Licensee College's Student Union.[^26] VSI has failed
to present any specific facts or evidence which support this contention.
Thus, it fails to meet the requirement for an informal objection as set
forth in *Area Christian*, *supra.* To the extent that VSI maintains
that the Licensee's delegation of certain Station functions constitutes
such an abandonment, the Commission has long held that a licensee, and
particularly one of an NCE station, may delegate certain operational
responsibilities, provided it retains ultimate control over all aspects
of its broadcast operations.[^27] VSI has not demonstrated through its
general allegations that the Licensee has failed to retain such control.

VSI's claim that the Licensee does not allow for the discussion of
conflicting views with respect to controversial issues of public
importance, in violation of Section 73.1910 of the Rules,[^28] is
likewise unavailing. Not only has VSI provided no factual support for
this general and conclusory allegation, in 1987, the Commission ceased
enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine, codified in Section 73.1910 of the
Rules, after determining that such enforcement no longer served the
public interest.[^29] Accordingly, even if VSI had supported its
contention with specific instances of WSIA(FM)'s alleged failure to air
conflicting views on controversial issues of public importance, such a
showing would not establish that the Application should be not be
granted.[^30]

Next, VSI contends that the Licensee has failed to present programming
responsive to issues facing its community. It states that "the Licensee
has failed to meet minimum standards for community affairs programming
on the station"[^31] and that there is a lack of news presented on the
Station. The Licensee denies this, arguing that, contrary to VSI's
allegations, the Station offers substantial programming of interest to
the community of Staten Island, including news and public interest
programs.[^32]

Licensees have a duty to respond to local needs and issues by choosing
appropriate programming. They also have broad discretion to determine,
in good faith, the issues they believe to be of concern to their
communities and the manner in which to address those issues. [^33] The
Commission may intervene in circumstances in which a licensee has abused
this discretion. For instance, we may consider whether a licensee offers
such nominal levels of issue-responsive programming as to have defaulted
on this core obligation.[^34] However, VSI has failed to provide
specific allegations of fact that call for further inquiry regarding
whether the Licensee has abused its broad discretion or otherwise failed
to meet this programming obligation.[^35]

VSI next alleges that the Station's musical and entertainment
programming is not directed toward the full demographic Staten Island
community. This attempt to seek denial of the Application by
format-based public interest analysis is without legal basis. For the
reasons noted in the preceding paragraph, it is also the Commission\'s
general policy to leave format issues to the discretion of the
licensee.[^36] This is particularly so with regard to NCE broadcast
stations. 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."[^37] As stated
above, licensees have a duty to respond to local needs and issues and
broad discretion to air programming that addresses such community needs.
Accordingly, the alleged lack of diversity in the music aired over the
Station is not a matter for Commission consideration, even if the
Petitioners disagree with the Licensee's programming choices. Although
the Commission remains concerned with "localism"[^38] in broadcasting,
no Commission rule requires a station to air programming which features
local artists and musicians.[^39]

VSI also claims that the Licensee "does not have a plan of response,
contingency, or back-up system in the occurrence of an announced
national, state, or local emergency for the continuation of broadcast
operations in the event of the \[loss\] of Island wide electrical
power."[^40] VSI maintains that the Licensee therefore has violated
Sections 11.1 and 11.11 of the Commission's EAS Rules, as well as
Section 73.1250 of the Rules. VSI has failed to support either
allegation with specific information.[^41] Additionally, Section 73.1250
of the Rules does not require stations to have an emergency plan to
remain operational during emergencies. Nevertheless, the Licensee has
demonstrated that it has such a plan.[^42] Moreover, with respect to
VSI's reference to the Commission's EAS rules, VSI has provided no
evidence that the Station's EAS equipment is not functional or that the
Licensee has otherwise violated those requirements.

Finally, VSI alleges that the Licensee has failed to provide public
access to the Station's public inspection file, in violation of Section
73.3527 of the Rules. In support of these allegations, it provides the
Affidavit of Wendy Nguyen, who claims that, on April 10 and 11, 2006,
she attempted on three occasions to inspect the Station public file and,
each time, she was denied access, having been told by Station personnel
that no one could assist her and that she should "come back." [^43]
Similarly, in her Affidavit provided with the Petition, Samantha Zito
contends that, when she attempted to inspect the public file, she was
advised to submit a written request to see the file to John Ladley, the
Station's Chief Engineer. After making such a request, she states that
she made further inquiry and was shown the file. She relates that,
apparently at her request, a Station worker made copies of certain
materials from the file, but that the Station's Engineering Director
intervened and stated that she "was not allowed to have copies nor
review the public record." She states further that, when she protested,
someone at the Station called the College of Staten Island Security,
which escorted her to Office of Carol Jackson, the College's Vice
President. Ms. Zito states that, although Ms. Jackson informed her that
the copies would be forwarded to her, Ms. Zito has not received those
materials.[^44]

With regard to Ms. Nguyen's allegations, in his unsworn Statement
provided as Exhibit B to the Opposition, Mr. Ladley states only that he
could find no Station member who could recall her attempts to inspect
the file and that no one came to him concerning her requests. He
indicates further that he was not present at the station "on the day of
the incident" involving Ms. Zito, but that he has learned that she was
granted access to the file and to the Station copying machine. He states
that she was "asked to leave" when a Station member observed that she
was making "an excessive number of copies," whereupon she became
disruptive and was removed from the Station's premises.

Reasonable access to the public inspection file serves the important
purpose of facilitating citizen monitoring of a station\'s operations
and public interest performance and fostering community involvement with
local stations. This in turn helps ensure that stations are responsive
to the needs and interests of their local communities.[^45] A public
file must be available for public inspection at any time during regular
business hours and a licensee may not require that a member of the
public make an appointment in advance or return at another time to
inspect the public file.[^46]

After reviewing the record before us, we conclude that the Licensee
violated Section 73.3527(c) of the Rules by failing to make available
immediately its public file when requested by Ms. Nguyen and Ms. Zito
and to provide copies of materials in the file to Ms. Zito. While the
Licensee is correct that we have we have recognized that "noncommercial
licensees that are also educational institutions have legitimate
security considerations which may require them to take precautionary
steps that delay their visitors' access to the stations' files,"[^47]
the precautionary steps at issue in the case in which we made that
observation delayed access for less than half an hour. Here, the delays
were far longer and there does not appear to have been any legitimate
security consideration with respect to the visits in question. Further,
the Licensee has not explained how Ms. Zito posed a security concern
justifying the termination of her inspection of the file and her
ejection from the Station and, therefore, we have no basis on which to
conclude that these concerns were reasonable.[^48] As to Ms. Nguyen, in
his Statement, Mr. Ladley expresses skepticism that she ever visited the
Station, because the Station members were "fully aware of the file and
the FCC's rules regarding access by members of the public," and, had
there been "a question regarding this person's request," the situation
would have been brought to his attention. In light of the Station
staff's treatment of Ms. Zito, Mr. Ladley's assumption as to the staff's
understanding of its obligations under the Rule is obviously incorrect.

Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines as willful "the conscious and
deliberate commission or omission of \[any\] act, irrespective of any
intent to violate" the law.[^49] The legislative history to Section
312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies
to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act^,^[^50] and the Commission
has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context.[^51] Section
312(f)(2) of the Act provides that "\[t\]he term 'repeated,' when used
with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the
commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission
or omission is continuous, for more than one day."[^52]

In light of the foregoing, we find that the Licensee willfully and
repeatedly violated Section 73.3527(c) of the Rules. However, after
consideration of the facts and pertinent precedent,[^53] we do not
believe that the imposition of a forfeiture is appropriate for the
violations in question. We nevertheless admonish the Licensee for these
violations and direct it to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure
that all Station staff is made aware of the Licensee's specific
obligations under that Rule and that appropriate procedures are in place
for its future compliance with those obligations. In all other respects,
we deny the VSI Petition.

*The Shear Informal Objection*. In his Informal Objection, Dr. Shear
alleges a violation by the Licensee of the Fairness Doctrine, as
codified in Section 73.1910 of the Rules, and argues that the Station
provides minimal programming with regard to any issues relevant to the
community of Staten Island. As noted above, the Commission ceased
enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and Dr. Shear has provided
no evidence that the Licensee abused its broad discretion to determine,
in good faith, the issues that it believes to be of concern to Staten
Island and how to address those issues with its broadcast programming.

Dr. Shear also maintains that the Licensee: (1) allowed "significant
broadcast signal interference to continue for years, despite the fact
that this interference consistently degraded the quality of the
transmission;"[^54] (2) has failed to properly manage access to the
Station tower site for maintenance and repair, forcing Station personnel
to either delay necessary work or risk accessing the site in violation
of agreements among parties with jurisdiction over site access;[^55] and
(3) has failed to provide emergency back-up power rendering the Station
unable to broadcast in times of emergency.

In his Informal Objection, Dr. Shear provides no specific, pertinent
facts with regard to any of these asserted violations. For example, he
has not described the nature of the alleged interference, identified
what station or stations are receiving such interference, or offered any
other details that would support a conclusion that the Station is not
operating in accordance with its authorization or is otherwise violating
the Commission's technical rules. Similarly, his Informal Objection
provides no specific facts to support his contention that the Licensee
"failed to safeguard" the tower site or to allow timely access to the
site for necessary maintenance.[^56] Finally, with regard to the
Station's alleged failure to have emergency back-up power, the
Commission has no requirement that broadcast stations be equipped with
an emergency power source. Accordingly, we deny the Shear Informal
Objection.

**Conclusion/Actions.** In light of the foregoing, we conclude that
neither VSI nor Dr. Shear has met the burden to demonstrate why the
Application should not be granted. Moreover, we find that the Licensee's
violation of Section 73.3527(c) of the Rules does not constitute a
"serious violation" under Section 309(k) of the Act and that there have
been no serious violations of the Act or of the Rules involving Station
WSIA(FM), or violations by the College of Staten Island of the Act or
Rules which, taken together, would constitute a pattern of abuse. In
light of the foregoing, and because we find that NCE StationWSIA(FM)
served the public interest, convenience, and necessity during the
subject license term, we will grant the Application.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition to Deny filed by The Voice
of Staten Island, Inc. IS GRANTED to the extent indicated and IS DENIED
in all other respects. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Informal Objection
filed by Dr. David S. Shear IS DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Opposition to Request for Acceptance of
Late-Filed Reply and Motion to Strike filed by The College of Staten
Island IS GRANTED, the Request for Acceptance of Late-Filed Reply filed
by The Voice of Staten Island, Inc. IS DENIED, and the July 11, 2006
Reply IS DISMISSED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that The College of Staten Island, licensee of
WSIA(FM), Staten Island, New York, IS ADMONISHED for its apparent
willful and repeated violation of 47 C.F.R. § 73.3527(c) of the
Commission's Rules.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that because the application for renewal of the
license for Station WSIA(FM), Staten Island, New York (File No.
BRED-20060105AAD), is otherwise in full compliance with the Commission's
Rules and the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and, finding that
the public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served thereby,
the application IS GRANTED.

Sincerely,

Peter H. Doyle Chief, Audio Division

Media Bureau

cc: Felix Gilroy, Esq.

Christopher D. Imlay, Esq.

[^1]: On May 31, 2006, the Licensee filed an Opposition to the VSI
    Petition (the "Opposition"). On July 11, 2006, the Commission
    received VSI's Reply to the Opposition and its request that it be
    accepted, notwithstanding its late filing (the "Reply"). The
    Licensee responded with an Opposition to Request for Acceptance of
    Late-Filed Reply and Motion to Strike (the "Motion to Strike") filed
    on July 25, 2006.

[^2]: Dr. Shear did not provide a mailing address or other contact
    information in his Informal Objection. For this reason, his address
    does not appear above and the Media Bureau is unable to provide him
    with a copy of this letter.

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3527(c).

[^4]: VSI Petition at 6-7.

[^5]: *Id*. at 1.

[^6]: *Id.* at 7.

[^7]: *Id*.

[^8]: *Id*.

[^9]: *Id*. at 4.

[^10]: Shear Informal Objection at 2.

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: *Id.*

[^13]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(k).

[^14]: 47 U.S.C. §309(k)(1). The renewal standard was amended by Section
    204(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104,
    110 Stat. 56 (1996). *See Implementation of Sections 204(a) and
    204(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Broadcast License
    Renewal Procedures)*, Order*,* 11 FCC Rcd 6363 (1996).

[^15]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(k)(2), (3).

[^16]: Opposition at 4-6.

[^17]: *Petition for Rulemaking to Establish Standards for Determining
    the Standing of a Party to Petition to Deny a Broadcast
    Application,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 82 FCC 2d 89, 98 (1980);
    *see also Lee Shubert, Esq.,* Letter, 21 FCC Rcd 7827, 7828 (MB
    2006).

[^18]: *In Re Application of Tabback Broadcasting Company,* Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11899, 11900 (2000) ("*Tabback*"). VSI
    characterizes itself as "an advocate, and champion of causes in the
    public interest" that "has served Staten Island by actively
    monitoring the concerns of the community, and together with civic,
    community and political leaders, \[VSI\] has facilitated essential
    changes in services and programs to better the quality of life for
    the citizens of this community." VSI Petition at 5.

[^19]: Opposition at 3-4.

[^20]: VSI Petition at 5.

[^21]: The deadline for VSI to reply to the Licensee's May 31, 2006,
    Opposition was June 20, 2006. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3584(b). As
    noted, *supra*, VSI's Reply was not received by the Commission until
    July 11, 2006. A pleading is considered to have been filed when it
    is received by the Commission. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.7.

[^22]: VSI states that it did not timely file the Reply because it was
    "in the process of exhausting all possibilities in an attempt to
    gain pertinent information regards \[sic\] specific issues in this
    matter." Reply, cover page.

[^23]: In any event, the Reply fails to raise any issue of decisional
    significance, nor does it contain the affidavit of an individual
    with personal knowledge of the facts asserted therein. See 47 C.F.R.
    § 309(d)(1).

[^24]: *WWOR-TV, Inc.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 193, 197
    n.10 (1990).

[^25]: *Area Christian Television, Inc.,* Memorandum Opinion and Order,
    60 RR 2d 862, 864 (1986)("*Area Christian*").

[^26]: VSI maintains that "the licensee of record does not directly
    manage the broadcast facility. The responsibility rests with the
    Student Union of the College of Staten Island and the student-run
    board of directors whereas the Licensee has failed to provide
    adequate supervision or leadership in the operation of the station."
    VSI Petition at 7. VSI provides no support for these claims. In
    response, the Licensee asserts that there is no administrative
    entity called the "Student Union." It states that there is a
    student-run Board of Directors that works with a professional
    Station General Manager or, when that position is vacant, the
    Director of Student Life. *See* Opposition at 11, n. 23, and 12.

[^27]: *See, e.g., Alabama Educational Television Commission,*
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 33 FCC 2d 495, 508 (1972).

[^28]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.1910.

[^29]: *See Syracuse Peace Council v. WTVH(TV),* Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 2 FCC Rcd 5043 (1987) ("*Syracuse*"), *aff'd,* 867 F.2d 654
    (D.C. Cir. 1989), *cert. denied* 110 S. Ct. 717 (1990). The First
    Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Section 326 of the Act, which
    expressly prohibits the Commission from interfering with the right
    of free speech by broadcast licensees, require the Commission to so
    defer to the judgment of its licensees. 47 U.S.C. § 326.

[^30]: *See Richard C. Young*, Letter, 21 FCC Rcd 6900, 6902 (MB 2006).

[^31]: VSI Petition at 4.

[^32]: Opposition at 7-8.

[^33]: *Time-Life Broadcast, Inc.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 33 FCC
    2d 1081, 1092 (1972). *See also* *Office of Communication of united
    Church of Christ v.* FCC, 707 F.2d 1413, 1431 (D.C. Cir 1983), and
    *Broadcast Localism,* Notice of Inquiry, 19 FCC Rcd 12425, 12429
    (2004) ("*Broadcast Localism NOI*").

[^34]: *See, e.g., Philadelphia Radio Stations*, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3487, 3487-88 (1990).

[^35]: *See Area Christian* at 864.

[^36]: *See Changes in the Entertainment Formats of Broadcast Stations*,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 FCC 2d 858 (1976).

[^37]: *Revision of Programming Policies and Reporting Requirements
    Related to Public Broadcasting Licensees,* Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making, 87 FCC 2d 716, 732 (1981).

[^38]: *See generally, Broadcast Localism NOI.*

[^39]: VSI Petition at 4.

[^40]: *Id.*

[^41]: *See Area Christian* at 864.

[^42]: *See* Opposition at Exhibit A (May 5, 2005, Letter from Albert W.
    Girimonte, Assistant Chief, Patrol Borough Staten Island, regarding
    protocol to be followed by the Police Department regarding
    transmission of emergency information on WSIA(FM) in case of a
    catastrophic event affecting the community of Staten Island).

[^43]: VSI Petition, Affidavit of Wendy Nguyen, dated April 27, 2006.

[^44]: *Id.,* Affidavit of Samantha Zito, dated April 27, 2006.

[^45]: *Review of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Main Studio and
    Local Public Inspection Files of Broadcast Television and Radio
    Stations,* Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15691, 15700 (1998).

[^46]: 47 C.F.R. §73.3527(c). *See also Availability of Locally
    Maintained Records for Inspection by Members of the Public,* Public
    Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 17959 (1998).

[^47]: *Isothermal Community College,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16
    FCC Rcd 21360, 21364 (E.B. 2001).

[^48]: The Licensee provides us no basis upon which we can assess
    whether, as it claims, Ms. Zito's access to the public file was
    appropriately revoked after she appeared to Station personnel to be
    making an "excessive" number of copies. Regardless of the number of
    copies requested, the Licensee could have charged Ms. Zito for those
    copies. 47 C.F.R. § 73.3527(c). Therefore, in this instance, we do
    not believe that the Licensee's actions were appropriate in
    terminating Ms. Zito's access to the public file. We note that,
    although the Licensee provides a "verification" of Vice President
    Jackson to sponsor the Opposition, she is silent regarding her
    interaction with Ms. Zito following Ms. Zito's ejection from the
    Station and Ms. Zito's failure to have received the copies of the
    file documents that Ms. Jackson allegedly promised would be provided
    to her.

[^49]: 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).

[^50]: *See* H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th^ Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982).

[^51]: *See Southern California Broadcasting Co.*, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991).

[^52]: 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(2).

[^53]: *See, e.g., Tabback, supra,* 15 FCC Rcd at 11900 (admonishing
    licensee for its refusal on two occasions to permit unrestricted
    access to its public file).

[^54]: Shear Informal Objection at 2.

[^55]: *Id.*

[^56]: We cannot determine, for example, if Dr. Shear's allegation
    involves exposure to the public or maintenance workers of dangerous
    levels of radiofrequency ("RF") radiation from the station, for
    which the Commission has developed standards. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    1.1310, citing OST/OET Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with
    FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency
    Radiation."