Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
March 26, 2008
DA 08-713
  In Reply Refer to:
1800B3-SS
Released: March 26, 2008
 
Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc.                                                         
2625 S. Memorial Dr., Suite A
Tulsa, OK  74129
Dennis J. Kelly, Esq.
P.O. Box 41177
Washington, DC  20018
 In re: WMJY(FM), Biloxi, MS
Clear Channel Broadcasting 
Licenses, Inc.                            
Facility ID No.  61368  
File No. BRH-20040202ACQ
WKNN-FM, Pascagoula, MS
Clear Channel Broadcasting
Licenses, Inc.
Facility ID No. 61367
File No. BRH-20040202ACV
WBUV(FM), Moss Point, MS
Clear Channel Broadcasting 
Licenses, Inc.
Facility ID No. 29687
File No. BRH-20040202ACW
Applications for Renewal
Petition for Reconsideration
Dear Applicant and Counsel:
We have before us the October 30, 2006, WJZD, Inc. (WJZD) Petition for Reconsideration 
(Petition) of the staffs grant of  the above-captioned applications of Clear Channel Broadcasting 
Licenses, Inc. (the Licensee) for renewal of the licenses of WMJY(FM), Biloxi, Mississippi; WKNN-
FM, Pascagoula, Mississippi; and WBUV(FM), Moss Point, Mississippi (collectively, the Renewal 
Applications).  For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Petition.
Background.  On May 25, 2004, WJZD filed an Informal Objection (Objection) seeking 
denial of the Renewal Applications or designation of the Renewal Applications for hearing.1 On 
  
1 The Licensee filed an Opposition to the WJZD Objection on August 25, 2004.      
2
September 27, 2006, the staff denied the Objection and granted the Renewal Applications (Staff 
Ruling).2 In its Objection, WJZD alleged that:  (1) the Licensee engineered an unauthorized transfer 
of control of its station WQYZ(FM), Ocean Springs, Mississippi; (2) the Licensee may have been in 
violation of Section 73.3555 of the Commissions Rules (the Rules);3 (3) the Renewal Applications 
should have been denied or designated for hearing because the Licensee is a recidivist violator of Section 
1464 of Title 18 of the United States Code due to its continued broadcast of indecent material;4 and (4) 
the Licensee lacked the qualifications to be a licensee based on misrepresentation and lack of candor 
allegations.  In the Staff Ruling, the Bureau rejected these arguments and granted the Renewal 
Applications.5  
Discussion.  Reconsideration in this case is governed by Section 1.106 of the Rules.  Under that 
section, as interpreted by established case law, reconsideration is appropriate only when the petitioner 
either shows a material error or omission in the original order or raises additional facts not known or not 
existing until after the petitioners last opportunity to present such matters.6 WJZD has failed to make 
such a showing.
 
In its Petition,7 WJZD argues, as it did in its Objection, that the grants should be rescinded and 
that the Renewal Applications should be designated for hearing.  WJZD argues that the staff incorrectly 
concluded that Section 309(k) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), precludes 
consideration of allegations of misconduct at any station but that for which a renewal application is before 
the agency.8 WJZD claims that the Staff Ruling circumscribes Sections 308 and 309 [of the] Act in a 
manner not possibly contemplated by Congress.9 Specifically, WJZD argues that if an applicant lacks 
  
2 See Letter to Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc., 21 FCC Rcd 10756 (2006). 
3 47 C.F.R.  73.3555. 
4 WJZD did not point to any specific indecency allegations involving any of the three captioned stations.  See WJZD, 
Inc., Golden Gulf Coast Broadcasting, Inc., and Capstar TX Limited Partnership, 20 FCC Rcd 9941 (MB 2005) 
(issue of indecency complaints resolved by Consent Decree need not be further addressed).  
5 See n.2, supra.
6 WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 F.C.C. 685, 686 (1964), affd sub nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. 
FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 967 (1966). See also National Association of 
Broadcasters, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 24414, 24415 (2003). See also 47 C.F.R.  1.106(c).
7 WJZD requests that we consolidate its June 27, 2005, Petition for Reconsideration of the staffs grant of 
WQYZ(FM)s applications for assignment and renewal with the Petition.  WJZDs request is moot because the staff 
dismissed the June 27, 2005, pleading on March 12, 2007.  See Letter to Lawrence E. Steelman and Capstar TX 
Limited Partnership,  22 FCC Rcd 4866 (MB 2007).  An Application for Review filed by WJZD on April 11, 2007, 
in the WQYZ(FM) proceeding, is pending.    
8 We note that this position is reflected in the broadcast license renewal form and instructions.  See FCC Form 303-
S, Section II, Item 4, and concomitant instructions.  
9 Petition at 2. 
3
character qualifications, the public interest, convenience, and necessity can never be served by a grant 
of its application.10 WJZD cites Contemporary Media, Inc. v. FCC.11
We find that Contemporary Media is inapposite to this case.  Contemporary Media concerned a 
license revocation proceeding under Section 312(a)(2) of the Act in which the Commission revoked the 
broadcast licenses of a corporation because the entity was controlled by a convicted child molester.12  
This case concerns applications for renewal which must be evaluated under Section 309(k) of the Act.  
Section 309(k) provides that we are to grant a broadcast stations license renewal application if, upon 
consideration of the application and pleadings, we find with respect to that station that: (1) the station has 
served the public interest, convenience, and necessity; (2) there have been no serious violations of the 
Communications Act or the Commissions Rules with respect to that station; and (3) there have been no 
other violations which, taken together, constitute a pattern of abuse.13 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.14 Section 309(k) precludes 
consideration of allegations of misconduct at any station but that for which a renewal application is before 
the agency.  This position is reflected in the broadcast license renewal form and instructions.15 Because in 
the instant matter, the alleged misconduct took place at a station, i.e., WQYZ(FM), other than the stations 
whose renewal applications are before us, i.e., WMJY(FM), WKNN-FM, and WBUV(FM), we may not 
consider those allegations in connection with our evaluation of the renewal of the station licenses.16  We 
correctly stated the Commissions holding on this issue in the Staff Ruling.    
In addition, WJZD argues that Clear Channel/Capstar is a serial violator of 18 U.S.C.  1464, 
and its systematic attempts to pervert its youthful listeners ought to bring its corporate character 
qualifications into question.17 However, WJZD does not cite any instances in which any of the 
captioned stations have broadcast allegedly indecent programming.  Rather, WJZD references its 
  
10 Id.  
11 214 F.3d 187 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Contemporary Media).
12 See Contemporary Media, Inc., Order to Show Cause and Notice of Apparent Liability, 10 FCC Rcd 13685 
(1995); see also 47 U.S.C.  312(a)(2).   
13 47 U.S.C. 309(k)(1) (emphasis supplied).  The renewal standard was amended to read as described by Section 
204(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).  See Order, 
Implementation of Sections 204(a) and 204(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Broadcast License Renewal 
Procedures), 11 FCC Rcd 6363 (1996); see also Citadel Broadcasting Company, WWWZ(FM), Summerville, South 
Carolina, et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, 22 FCC Rcd 7083 at n.46 
(2007).
14 47 U.S.C.  309(k)(2), 309(k)(3).
15 See FCC Form 303-S, Section II, Item 4 and concomitant instructions. 
16 See 47 U.S.C.  309(k)(1); see also Letter to Rick Morrison  from Peter H. Doyle, Chief, Audio Services Division, 
21 FCC Rcd 2193 (MB 2006). 
17 Petition at 3. 
4
Objection in which it claims that the Renewal Applications should not be granted because of indecent 
programming aired on other Licensee stations.18 For the reasons set forth above, this argument is 
misplaced.  Moreover, the Commission previously has addressed the issue of allegedly indecent 
programming of other Licensee stations.  By terms of a Consent Decree19 entered into between Clear 
Channel Communications, Inc. (Clear Channel)20 and the Commission to resolve certain matters before 
the agency involving the possible violation by Clear Channel of the restrictions in the broadcast of 
obscene, indecent or profane material,21 Clear Channel agreed to undertake certain compliance measures 
and to pay the United States Treasury the sum of $1,750,000 in consideration for the Commission 
rescinding, vacating and canceling certain forfeiture orders and notices of apparent liability for forfeiture 
issued against Clear Channel-owned broadcast licensees, terminating certain inquiries, and dismissing, 
with prejudice, pending indecency complaints against those licensees.  In addition, the Commission 
agreed to refrain from taking any action against Clear Channel or any future application -- including 
renewal applications -- to which Clear Channel is a party, based in whole or in part on any similar 
complaints alleging violation by any [station operated by Clear Channel] of the indecency laws with 
respect to any broadcast occurring prior to the effective date.22 The Consent Decree became effective on 
June 9, 2004, the date of its public release.23 All of the alleged indecent programming of which WJZD 
complains either is specifically mentioned in the Consent Decree or otherwise occurred before June 9, 
2004.24  Finally, we note that WJZD has not alleged any subsequent instances of indecent programming 
by the Licensee. 
 
Because WJZDs Petition fails to show a material error or omission in the original decision and 
did not raise additional facts unknown or not existing until after WJZDs last opportunity to present such 
matters, the Petition will be denied.25  
  
18 See WJZD Objection at 3.    
19 Clear Channel Communications, Inc., Consent Decree, 19 FCC Rcd 10880 (2004) (Consent Decree); see also 
n.4, supra.
20 Licensee is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Clear Channel.
21 See 18 U.S.C.  1464 and 47 C.F.R.  73.3999.  
22  See Consent Decree,  8.
23 Id. at  2(h). 
24 See WJZD Objection at 3.
25 See Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 4216 (2004). 
5
Conclusion/Actions. For the reasons set forth above, WJZDs Petition fails to meet the standard 
set forth in Section 1.106(c) of the Rules.  Accordingly, WJZD, Inc.s Petition for Reconsideration IS 
DENIED.  
 
Sincerely,
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau
cc:  Martha E. Heller, Esq.
WJZD, Inc.