*Pages 1--6 from  Microsoft Word - 32746*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  239 
 1 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 
 In  the  Matter  of 
 SAGITTARIUS  BROADCASTING  CORP. 
 Application  for  Renewal  of  License  WXRK(  FM),  New  York,  New  York 
 Facility  ID  #58579 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 ) 
 File.  No.  BRH-  19980202X6 
 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  October  8,  2003  Released:  October  30,  2003 
 By  the  Commission:  Commissioner  Copps  dissenting  and  issuing  a  statement. 
 1.  The  Commission  has  before  it  a  March  23,  2001,  Application  for  Review  from  Al  Westcott  (  Westcott),  a  resident  of  Ojai,  California.  1  Westcott  filed  a  petition  to  deny  the  license  renewal 
 application  of  station  WXRK(  FM),  New  York,  New  York,  based  on  the  stations  origination  of  a  radio  show  containing  allegedly  indecent  material.  Westcott  is  able  to  hear  the  show  on  station  KLSX(  FM), 
 Los  Angeles,  California  which  receives  the  program  via  satellite.  2  The  staff  renewed  WXRKs  license  after  fully  considering  Westcotts  submission  as  an  informal  objection.  3  The  staff  dismissed  Westcotts 
 petition  for  reconsideration  based  on  the  principle  that  informal  objectors  are  not  parties  in  interest  and  thus  have  no  standing  to  seek  reconsideration.  4  On  review,  Westcott  alleges  that  the  staff  erroneously 
 treated  him  as  an  informal  objector  and  should  have  accorded  him  standing  as  a  listener  of  the  New  York  station.  We  disagree.  Westcott  fails  to  establish  standing  because  he  is  a  listener  of  his  local 
 California  station,  not  of  station  WXRK,  New  York,  New  York,  and  fails  to  demonstrate  that  Californians  like  himself  are  aggrieved  by  renewal  of  the  distant  stations  license.  Accordingly,  we  affirm. 
 I.  BACKGROUND 
 2.  Westcott  claims  an  interest  in  WXRK(  FM)  based  on  the  stations  origination  of  The  Howard  Stern  Show  (  Stern  Show),  which  he  argues  has  included  multiple  broadcasts  of  indecent  material  in 
 violation  of  18  U.  S.  C.  Section  1464.  Westcott  maintains  that  he  should  be  considered  a  WXRK  listener 
 1  The  stations  licensee,  Sagittarius  Broadcasting  Corporation,  filed  an  Opposition  on  April  9,  2001. 
 Shortly  thereafter,  on  April  30,  2001,  it  consummated  an  assignment  of  the  stations  license  to  Infinity  Broadcasting  Operations,  Inc.,  as  had  been  approved  by  the  staff  on  April  6,  2001.  Westcott  filed  a  Reply  on  April 
 18,  2001. 
 2  KLSX,  which  was  licensed  to  CBS  Broadcasting  at  the  time  of  Westcotts  petition,  is  currently 
 licensed  to  Infinity  Broadcasting  Corp.  As  discussed  in  note  26  infra  these  companies  are  related  to  WXRKs  licensee. 
 3  Letter  from  Chief,  Audio  Division  to  Al  Westcott,  Ref.  No.  1800B3-  TSN  (MMB  Oct.  19,  2000). 
 4  Letter  from  Chief,  Audio  Division  to  Al  Westcott,  Ref.  No.  1800B3-  TSN  (MMB  Feb.  15,  2001). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  239 
 2 
 with  standing  to  challenge  grant  of  the  stations  license  renewal  application  because  WXRK  transmits  the  Stern  Show  to  other  stations,  including  station  KLSX  in  Westcotts  listening  area.  5  Westcott  submitted 
 Stern  Show  transcripts  allegedly  supporting  his  indecency  claim,  all  deriving  from  material  heard  on  stations  other  than  WXRK.  6  The  staff  has  previously  found  some  of  this  material  actionably  indecent 
 with  respect  to  other  stations,  with  resulting  enforcement  actions  such  as  monetary  forfeitures.  7  The  Commission  has  considered  additional  material  submitted  by  Westcott  in  other  contexts,  finding  no 
 actionable  indecency.  8  Westcott  believes  that  the  staff  should  aggregate  complaints  made  against  individual  stations  carrying  the  Stern  Show,  and  consider  those  complaints  against  WXRKs  license 
 renewal  application  because  WXRK  is  the  Stern  Shows  flagship  station. 
 3.  The  staff  found  Westcott  without  standing  to  challenge  WXRKs  license  renewal  application.  It  determined  that  Westcott  neither  lives  within  WXRKs  service  area  nor  demonstrates  that  he  actually 
 listens  to  broadcasts  on  WXRK.  The  staff  nevertheless  considered  the  merits  of  Westcotts  pleading  as  an  informal  objection.  9  It  determined  that  Westcott  had  not  raised  any  substantial  and  material  questions 
 under  the  applicable  standards  for  license  renewal.  10  The  staff  observed,  for  example,  that  there  was  no  evidence  that  the  allegedly  indecent  material  at  issue  was  actually  broadcast  over  WXRK.  The  staff 
 reasoned  that  because  WXRK  had  instituted  independent  editing  of  the  Stern  Show  from  November  20,  1996,  onward,  WXRK  was  able  to  independently  excise  indecent  material  from  its  broadcasts  of  the  Stern 
 Show,  thereby  negating  a  previous  presumption  that  all  Stern  Show  material  heard  on  other  stations  also  aired  on  WXRK.  11  The  Commission  noted  the  staffs  approval  of  the  WXRK  renewal  application  when 
 5  Westcott  accords  significance  to  the  California  stations  scheduling  of  the  Stern  Show  at  the  same  time 
 as  its  New  York  airing,  beginning  about  3:  00  a.  m.  Pacific  Time.  Westcott  maintains  that  he  is  thus  no  different  from  a  listener  in  New  York  hearing  the  show  at  7:  00  a.  m.  Eastern  Time.  Westcott  does  not  take  into  account 
 independent  editing  by  the  New  York  and  California  stations.  Nor  does  he  recognize  that  a  3  a.  m.  California  broadcast  would  fall  within  the  Commissions  10  p.  m.  to  6  a.  m.  safe  harbor  for  indecent  material,  unlike  a  7 
 a.  m.  New  York  broadcast.  See  Action  for  Childrens  Television  v.  FCC,  58  F.  3d  654  (D.  C.  Cir.  1995),  cert.  denied,  516  U.  S.  1043  (1996). 
 6  Nor  did  the  material  appear  to  come  from  Westcotts  local  station,  KLSX,  Los  Angeles.  To  the  extent 
 that  the  staff  could  ascertain  the  origin  of  the  material  submitted,  the  broadcasts  were  heard  over  stations  in  one  of  the  following  communities:  Richmond,  Virginia;  New  Orleans,  Louisiana;  Fort  Worth,  Texas;  Montreal,  Canada; 
 or  Toronto,  Canada.  The  material  made  in  complaints  against  the  U.  S.  stations  had  been  considered  previously. 
 7  Letter  to  WVGO  License  Limited  Partnership,  11  FCC  Rcd  13214  (MMB  1996);  Letter  to  EZ  New 
 Orleans,  Inc.,  12  FCC  Rcd  4147  (MMB  1997).  Cf.,  Policy  Statement,  Industry  Guidance  on  the  Commissions  Case  Law  Interpreting  18  U.  S.  C.    1464  and  Enforcement  Policies  Regarding  Broadcasting  Indecency,  16  FCC 
 Rcd  7999,  8004  (2001)  (summary  of  indecency  cases  includes  one  Stern  Show  broadcast  by  a  Philadelphia  station). 
 8  Shareholders  of  CBS  Corporation,  15  FCC  Rcd  8230,  8242  (2000),  recon.  denied,  16  FCC  Rcd 
 16072. 
 9  See  47  C.  F.  R.    73.3587. 
 10  See  47  U.  S.  C    309(  d)(  2)  and  (k).  Pursuant  to  Section  309(  k),  the  Commission  shall  grant  an 
 application  for  license  renewal  if,  during  the  preceding  license  term,  the  station  has  served  the  public  interest,  the  licensee  has  not  had  serious  rule  violations  at  that  station,  and  there  has  been  no  pattern  of  abuse  at  that  station. 
 11  Cf.  Letter  to  CBS  Radio,  12  FCC  Rcd  8274  n.  3  (MMB  1997)  (finding  that  Stern  Show  excerpts  heard  on 
 other  stations  prior  to  November  1996,  also  would  have  aired  on  WXRK).  The  staffs  initial  decision  credited  Sagittariuss  statement  that  before  the  Stern  Show  is  broadcast  over  WXRK,  the  version  of  the  Stern  Show  which 
 is  delivered  by  satellite  [to  other  stations]  is  subjected  to  separate  editing  that  is  unique  to  WXRK.  The  staff  also  (continued.) 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  239 
 3 
 it  approved  subsequent  transfer  applications  by  the  stations  parent  company,  which  were  opposed  by  Westcott  based  on  similar  evidence.  12  Westcott  filed  a  petition  for  reconsideration  of  the  renewal 
 decision,  which  the  staff  dismissed  for  lack  of  standing.  Westcott  maintains  that  the  staff  erred  in  finding  him  without  standing.  The  threshold  issue  presented  on  review  is  whether  a  person  has  standing  in  a 
 Commission  proceeding  to  challenge  the  renewal  of  a  distant  stations  license  if  he  is  a  listener  of  a  local  station  that  broadcasts  a  version  of  the  distant  stations  originally  produced  programming. 
 II.  DISCUSSION 
 4.  The  Commission  recognizes  the  value  of  broad-  based  participation  in  its  proceedings,  on  either  a  formal  or  informal  basis.  We  provide  an  opportunity  for  the  public  to  file  informal  objections 
 against  initial  applications  and  accept  informal  complaints  so  that  people  who  do  not  satisfy  the  requirements  for  formal  participation  may  nevertheless  bring  useful  information  to  our  attention.  13 
 Moreover,  we  require  broadcast  stations  to  make  on-  air  announcements  before  and  after  the  filing  applications  for  license  renewal,  to  inform  the  community  of  the  opportunity  to  file  formal  petitions  or 
 informal  comments.  14  The  staff  considers  all  such  submissions,  whether  formal  or  informal,  prior  to  making  an  initial  decision.  However,  a  person  generally  does  not  have  standing  to  seek  further  redress 
 thereafter  unless  he  was  a  formal  participant  at  the  initial  stage.  15 
 5.  Formal  participation  at  the  initial  stage  of  a  license  renewal  proceeding  is  accomplished  by  filing  a  complete  and  timely  petition  to  deny  that  demonstrates  the  petitioners  standing.  16  Specifically, 
 Section  309(  d)(  1)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (  Act),  implemented  by  Section  73.3584  of  the  Commissions  rules,  provides  that  a  person  filing  a  petition  to  deny  must  demonstrate  that 
 he  or  she  is  a  party  in  interest.  17  Similarly,  Section  405  of  the  Act,  implemented  by  Section  1.106  of  the  Commissions  rules,  requires  that  a  person  seeking  reconsideration  must  have  qualified  as  a  party 
 during  the  previous  stages  of  the  proceeding,  or  demonstrate  that  he  is  aggrieved  or  adversely  affected  by  the  decision.  18  In  broadcast  proceedings,  alleged  injury  to  a  petitioner  often  arises  from  the 
 petitioners  interests  as  a  member  of  the  listening  public  rather  than  from  any  individual  economic  harm.  19 
 (Continued  from  previous  page)  found  that  it  could  not  consider  some  of  the  material  due  to  the  terms  of  a  settlement  agreement  between  the 
 Commission  and  Sagittarius  parent  company.  See  Sagittarius  Broadcasting  Corp.,  10  FCC  Rcd  12245  (1995). 
 12  Shareholders  of  CBS  Corp.,  16  FCC  Rcd  16072,  16073  (2001). 
 13  See  generally  47  C.  F.  R.    73.3587  and  1.41. 
 14  47  C.  F.  R.    73.3580(  d). 
 15  47  C.  F.  R.    1.106(  b)(  1)  (non-  party  cannot  seek  reconsideration  absent  a  showing  with  particularity 
 the  manner  in  which  the  persons  interests  are  adversely  affected  by  the  actions  taken,  and  of  a  good  reason  why  it  was  not  possible  for  him  to  participate  earlier  as  a  party). 
 16  See  47  C.  F.  R.    73.3584(  a). 
 17  47  U.  S.  C.    309(  d)(  1);  47  C.  F.  R.    73.3584(  a). 
 18  See  47  U.  S.  C.    405;  47  C.  F.  R.    1.106(  b)(  1). 
 19  Cf.  Office  of  Communication  of  the  United  Church  of  Christ  v.  FCC,  359  F.  2d  994,  1001  (D.  C.  Cir. 
 1966)  (standing  is  accorded  in  agency  proceedings  to  protect  the  public  interest  as  well  as  private  interests).  The  Commission  also  has  long  recognized  the  interests  of  competing  broadcasters  and  of  those  receiving  electronic 
 interference.  Id. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  239 
 4 
 A  member  of  the  public  can  thus  establish  standing  in  Commission  broadcast  proceedings  by  demonstrating  either  (1)  that  the  petitioner  is  a  resident  of  the  stations  service  area,  or  (2)  that  the 
 petitioner  is  a  station  listener  or  viewer  whose  contact  with  the  station  is  not  transient.  20  In  this  manner  the  Commission  recognizes  that  broadcasters  are  responsible  for  serving  the  needs  of  residents  within 
 their  service  areas  and  that  people  who  listen  to  a  station  on  a  regular  basis,  unlike  transients,  have  legitimate  interests  in  the  stations  performance.  21 
 6.  We  agree  with  the  staff  that  Westcott  is  not  a  party,  but  rather  an  informal  objector  without  standing  to  seek  reconsideration  of  the  staffs  decision.  Westcott  demonstrates  neither  residence  within 
 WXRKs  service  area  nor  a  non-  transient  listener/  viewer  relationship  with  WXRK.  22  Westcott  resides  over  3,000  miles  from  WXRKs  service  area,  on  the  opposite  coast  of  the  United  States.  He  claims  no 
 direct  contact  with  station  WXRK.  Westcott  is  a  listener  of  his  local  California  station,  not  of  the  New  York  station  whose  license  renewal  is  under  consideration  here. 
 7.  Westcotts  interest  in  the  current  proceeding  is  far  more  tenuous  than  other  professed  listener  interests  that  the  Commission  has  found  too  minimal  to  confer  standing.  For  example,  the 
 Commission  has  found  that  travelers  who  listen  directly  to  a  stations  broadcast  signal  when  visiting  a  stations  community  of  license  lack  standing.  23  Part-  time  residents  of  areas  outside  of  a  stations 
 protected  service  contour  who  can  sometimes  receive  the  stations  signal  also  lack  standing.  24  Such  individuals  are  considered  to  have  contacts  of  a  transient  nature  because  they  are  not  capable  of  receiving 
 20  See  Curators  of  University  of  Missouri,  16  FCC  Rcd  1174  (2001);  CHET-  5  Broadcasting,  L.  P.,  14  FCC 
 Rcd  13041  (1999).  Cf.  NAB  Petition  for  Rulemaking,  82  FCC2d  89,  98-  99  (1980),  as  modified  by  Maumee  Valley  Broadcasting,  Inc.,  12  FCC  Rcd  3487  (1997)  (historical  development  of  the  standard).  Our  administrative  standard 
 for  broadcast  standing  is  less  stringent  than  the  judicial  standard  applied  to  petitioners  appealing  Commission  decisions  in  federal  court.  See  Rainbow/  PUSH  Coalition,  330  F.  3d  539  (D.  C.  Cir.  2003),  petition  for  rehg  denied 
 September  10,  2003.  (organization  representing  members  residing  within  a  broadcast  stations  community  nevertheless  did  not  satisfy  courts  requirements  for  standing  because  the  organization  did  not  also  connect  the 
 stations  alleged  violation  to  a  public  injury-  in-  fact).  Judicial  standing  requirements  are  stricter  because  the  jurisdiction  of  federal  courts  is  based  on  Article  III  of  the  U.  S.  Constitution,  whereas  administrative  standing  is  a 
 matter  committed  to  agency  discretion.  See  CAPH  v.  FCC,  778  F.  2d  823,  826  n.  8  (D.  C.  Cir.  1985)  ("  The  Article  III  restrictions  under  which  this  court  operates  do  not,  of  course,  apply  to  the  FCC.  The  Commission  may  choose  to 
 allow  persons  without  Article  III  'standing'  to  participate  in  FCC  proceedings,  as  it  did  in  this  case.");  National  Welfare  Rights  Org.  v.  Finch,  429  F.  2d  725,  732  n.  27  (D.  C.  Cir.  1970).  ("[  S]  tanding  to  sue  [d]  epends  on  more 
 restrictive  criteria  than  standing  to  appear  before  administrative  agencies  .  .  .  .").  21 
 See  CHET-  5  Broadcasting,  L.  P.,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  13042. 
 22  The  staff,  while  dismissing  the  petition  for  reconsideration  procedurally  based  on  this  lack  of 
 standing,  also  noted  that  it  would  have  found  no  merit  to  Westcotts  substantive  arguments.  Because  we  uphold  the  staffs  primary  finding,  we  need  not  reach  its  secondary  conclusions.  Specifically,  we  decline  to  address 
 substantive  arguments  in  the  Application  for  Review,  including:  (1)  whether  Westcotts  allegations  against  WXRK  were  sufficient  to  make  a  prima  facie  case  of  rule  violation;  (2)  whether  Westcotts  allegations  were 
 sufficient  to  call  into  question  whether  license  renewal  would  be  consistent  with  the  public  interest,  convenience,  and  necessity;  (3)  whether  the  staffs  enforcement  of  Commission  rules  is  inadequate  or  discriminatory;  and  (4) 
 whether  an  inquiry  on  the  Commissions  own  motion  pursuant  to  47  U.  S.  C.    403  would  have  been  appropriate. 
 23  See  Maumee  Valley  Broadcasting,  Inc.,  12  FCC  Rcd  3487  (1997);  National  Broadcasting  Co.,  Inc.,  11 
 FCC  Rcd  10779  (1996);  Mutual  Radio  of  New  York,  1  FCC  Rcd  384  (1986). 
 24  See  National  Broadcasting  Co.,  Inc.,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  10780. 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  239 
 5 
 the  stations  full  offerings  on  a  regular  basis.  25  In  the  present  case,  Westcott  has  not  shown  even  transient  contacts  with  WXRK.  Westcott  cannot  receive  WXRKs  broadcast  signal  but  merely  one  WXRK-produced 
 program,  which  a  distant  station,  KLSX,  procures  by  non-  broadcast  means  for  delivery  to  its  own  listeners  and  which  does  not  reflect  the  WXRK-  unique  editing  of  the  program  that  is  heard  only  in 
 New  York. 
 8.  Westcott  also  claims  that  he  has  standing  to  challenge  the  broadcast  practices  of  WXRK  because  that  station  is  under  common  ownership  with  KLSX.  26  Congress,  however,  has  expressly  limited 
 the  scope  of  the  license  renewal  inquiry  to  matters  occurring  at  the  particular  station  for  which  license  renewal  is  sought.  27  Accordingly,  KLSX  programming  cannot  be  considered  in  determining  whether 
 grant  of  the  WXRK  renewal  application  is  in  the  public  interest.  28  We  conclude  that  the  staff  correctly  limited  its  review  to  potential  rule  violations  at  WXRK(  FM). 
 9.  As  a  KLSX  listener,  Westcotts  direct  concern  is  with  that  stations  programming  policies,  not  with  WXRKs  authorization  to  continue  broadcasting  to  audiences  in  New  York.  An  informal 
 objector  may  appropriately  bring  an  initial  challenge  to  an  application  filed  by  a  distant  station,  but  does  not  become  a  listener/  viewer  of  the  distant  station  or  otherwise  aggrieved  by  virtue  of  receiving  local 
 broadcasts  of  one  of  that  stations  programs.  Accordingly,  such  persons  lack  standing  to  seek  redress  beyond  the  initial  staff  decision. 
 10.  As  Westcott  made  no  showing  of  being  aggrieved  by  the  renewal  of  WXRKs  license,  he  has  not  shown  that  he  is  aggrieved  for  purposes  of  this  application  for  review.  29  Accordingly,  IT  IS 
 ORDERED  that  the  Application  for  Review  filed  on  March  23,  2001,  by  Al  Westcott  IS  DISMISSED. 
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Marlene  H.  Dortch  Secretary 
 25  As  we  have  long  stated,  the  Commissions  primary  concern  at  license  renewal  time  is  with  the 
 licensees  overall  performance  in  serving  the  needs  of  its  community.  See  Pacifica  Foundation,  36  F.  C.  C.  147  (1964).  A  transient  is  not  in  a  good  position  to  comment  on  a  stations  overall  performance  to  the  community. 
 26  The  two  stations  have  had  a  common  parent,  both  at  the  time  of  the  complaint  and  currently. 
 27  See  47  U.  S.  C.    309(  k)(  1)  (  the  Commission  shall  grant  the  application  if  it  finds,  with  respect  to  that 
 station  .  .  .)  (emphasis  added).  This  provision  was  added  by  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996. 
 28  See  generally  Broadcast  and  Cable  Equal  Opportunity  Rules  and  Policies,  15  FCC  Rcd  2339,  2451 
 n.  91  (2000)  (Section  309(  k)  s  renewal  standard  is  narrower  than  the  general  public  interest  renewal  standard  used  prior  to  the  1996  enactment  of  Section  309(  k)).  Public  Notice,  Media  Bureau  Announces  Certain  Revisions  to 
 Instructions  to  Form  303-  S  -  -  Application  for  Renewal  of  License  for  Broadcast  Stations,  18  FCC  Rcd  8986  (MB  2003)  (question  about  violations  on  license  renewal  application  pertains  only  to  the  station  for  which  the  renewal 
 application  is  being  submitted). 
 29  See  47  C.  F.  R.    1.115(  a);  Alaska  Native  Wireless,  LLC,  18  FCC  Rcd  11640  (2003). 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  239 
 6 
 DISSENTING  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS 
 Re:  SAGITTARIUS  BROADCASTING  CORP.  Application  for  Renewal  of  License  WXRK(  FM),  New  York,  New  York,  Facility  ID  #58579 
 In  this  Order,  the  Commission  dismisses  on  procedural  grounds  an  application  for  review  seeking  to  deny  a  radio  stations  license  renewal  application  based  on  allegations  that  the  station  aired  indecent 
 material.  In  this  case,  a  citizen  who  lives  in  California  sought  to  deny  the  license  renewal  of  KLSX(  FM),  a  station  in  Los  Angeles  that  broadcast  the  Howard  Stern  Show.  This  person  also  sought  to  deny  the 
 license  renewal  application  of  WXRK(  FM)  in  New  York,  the  station  that  originated  the  Stern  Show.  The  Bureau  dismissed  the  objection  against  KLSX(  FM)  because  this  person  relied  on  printed  excerpts  from 
 the  show  and  therefore  did  not  demonstrate  knowledge  that  the  program  actually  aired  on  KLSX(  FM).  The  Bureau  dismissed  the  challenge  to  WXRK(  FM)  s  application  concluding  that  he  did  not  prove  the 
 material  had  actually  been  broadcast  on  WXRK(  FM).  In  both  cases,  the  Bureau  apparently  made  no  effort  of  its  own  to  ascertain  the  facts  of  the  broadcast.  Additionally,  the  Bureau  decided  that,  because  the 
 complainant  lives  in  California,  he  lacks  standing  to  challenge  the  license  renewal  of  a  New  York  station.  In  todays  Order,  the  Commission  upholds  the  Bureaus  decision  with  respect  to  WXRK(  FM). 
 I  find  the  majoritys  decision  troubling,  especially  as  we  enter  a  new  license  renewal  cycle  this  fall.  It  is  the  Commissions  affirmative  responsibility  under  the  statute  to  determine  whether  a 
 broadcaster  is  serving  the  public  interest  and  deserves  to  have  its  license  to  use  the  publics  airwaves  renewed.  Unless  a  citizen  or  some  other  outside  party  complains,  licenses  are  almost  automatically 
 renewed.  The  message  from  todays  decision  is  that,  even  when  the  public  raises  issues,  this  agency  will  look  for  procedural  vehicles  to  avoid  our  substantive  responsibility  to  ensure  that  a  licensee  is  serving  the 
 public  interest. 
 The  process  by  which  the  Commission  carries  out  its  statutory  duty  places  inordinate  responsibility  upon  the  complaining  citizen.  Thats  wrong.  It  is  the  Commissions  responsibility  to 
 examine  whether  a  station  is  serving  the  public  interest.  I  hope  we  will  do  better  in  the  upcoming  license  renewal  cycle. 
6