Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-229
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In re Application of
Nameloc, Inc.
(Assignor) 
and
ABC, Inc.
(Assignee)
for Assignment of License
of Station KDIS-FM, 
(formerly KYFX(FM)),
Little Rock, Arkansas
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Facility ID No. 47309 
File No. BALH-20030319AEZ
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  September 24, 2008  Released:  September 30, 2008 
By the Commission:
1. The Commission has before it an Application for Review submitted by Nameloc, Inc. 
(Nameloc), an Application for Review submitted by Arkansas Regional Minority Supplier 
Development Council, et al. (Arkansas), a Petition for Reconsideration submitted by Dale Charles, et 
al. (Charles), and various other pleadings submitted by Nameloc, Arkansas, Charles, and ABC, Inc. 
(ABC).1 Nameloc, Arkansas, and Charles seek to stay and reverse a staff decision issued on May 30, 
2003 (Staff Decision).2 That decision granted an application to assign the license of station 
KYFX(FM), Little Rock, Arkansas (the Station) from Nameloc to ABC.3 For the reasons discussed 
below, we deny Namelocs Application for Review, Arkansass Application for Review, and Charless 
Petition for Reconsideration, and dismiss as moot all of the related motions.4
  
1 Specifically, we have:  (1) the Application for Review and (2) a Motion for Stay, both filed on June 13, 2003, by 
Nameloc; (3) a Request for Emergency Relief and Motion to Dismiss filed on July 2, 2003, also by Nameloc; (4) the 
Application for Review and (5) an Emergency Motion for Stay, both filed on July 7, 2003, by Arkansas; (6) the 
Petition for Reconsideration filed on June 16, 2003, and (7) a Motion to Dismiss ABCs Opposition to Namelocs 
Motion for Stay filed on July 1, 2003, both by Charles.  ABC filed oppositions to all seven pleadings.  Additionally, 
Charles filed a Reply to ABCs Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration.  Because the issues raised in Charless 
Petition for Reconsideration are related to those raised in the Nameloc and Arkansas Applications for Review, the 
staff has referred the Petition for Reconsideration to the Commission pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  1.106(a)(1) and we 
address it herein.  See Manahawkin Communications Corp., 17 FCC Rcd 342, 342-43 (2001).
2 See Letter to Susan L. Fox, et al., Ref. No. 1800B3-BSH (MB May 30, 2003) (Staff Decision).
3 Following consummation of the assignment, the Stations call sign was changed to KDIS-FM.  In this Order, 
however, we will refer to the Station by its former call sign, KYFX.
4 The assignment has already been consummated.  Nameloc in its Motion for Stay asks the Commission to stay the 
assignment of license until the Commission has acted upon Namelocs Application for Review.  Namelocs stay 
request will be dismissed as moot, as will Charless Motion to Dismiss ABCs Opposition to Namelocs Motion for 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-229
2
I. BACKGROUND
2. This case stems from an adjudicated contractual dispute between Nameloc, a minority-
owned company, and ABC, concerning the sale of the Station.  On March 25, 2002, Nameloc entered 
into an Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement (Sale Agreement) with ABC, under which ABC would 
acquire the license of the Station, subject to approval by the Commission, as well as substantial tangible 
and intangible Station assets.  Use of the KYFX call letters and trademarks held by Nameloc for FOXY 
99.5 was explicitly excluded from the assets being sold.  Nameloc agreed to deliver the completed and 
signed sellers portion of an assignment application to ABC by April 15, 2002.  The transaction did not 
proceed as planned because a dispute developed concerning the conveyance of Namelocs lease for the 
Stations transmission tower.  On November 8, 2002, ABC sued Nameloc for breach of contract in the 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (U.S. District Court).  On February 18, 
2003, the U.S. District Court granted ABCs motion for summary judgment and held that ABC was 
entitled to specific performance for the sale of the Station.5 The U.S. District Court ordered Nameloc to 
execute an assignment application by March 17, 2003.6 Nameloc filed a Motion for Stay.  On March 18, 
2003, upon denial of that motion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Nameloc delivered 
the executed assignment application to ABC.7 ABC filed the assignment application with the 
Commission on March 19, 2003.
3. On March 10, 2003, one week prior to delivering the assignment application to ABC, 
Nameloc filed a complaint with the Commissions Enforcement Bureau.  Nameloc alleged that ABC had 
violated Section 310(d) of the Act8 by engaging in an unauthorized transfer of control of the Station, and 
was thus not qualified to hold a Commission license.  Specifically, Nameloc alleged that ABC, by 
posting job availability notices on the internet for Radio Disney KYFX before an assignment 
application was even filed, was identifying ABC as the owner of the Station with rights to the KYFX call 
sign.  Namelocs enforcement complaint also alleged that Namelocs objection to ABCs use of the 
KYFX call sign was met by ABCs retaliation in not renewing a programming agreement for the Station 
to broadcast The Tom Joyner Show (Joyner Show).
4. The Enforcement Bureau denied Namelocs complaint.9 In the Enforcement Letter, the 
staff found that the facts alleged by Nameloc do not create a basis for believing that an unauthorized 
transfer of control has occurred . . . .10 The staff concluded that Namelocs allegations, if taken as true, 
  
(continued from previous page)
Stay.  Similarly, we will dismiss as moot Namelocs Request for Emergency Relief and Arkansass Emergency 
Motion for Stay of the assignment grant (both of which cited to the emergency of the previously scheduled July 9, 
2003, date for consummation of the KYFX sale).  
5 See ABC, Inc., v. Nameloc, Inc., No. 4:02-CV0714 GTE (E.D. Ark. Feb. 18, 2003) (order granting summary 
judgment) (Summary Judgment Order) (copy submitted as Exhibit A to ABCs Opposition to Namelocs 
Application for Review)), affd, 362 F.3d 449 (8th Cir. 2004).  
6 See ABCs Opposition to Namelocs Application for Review at 4-5 n.16 (citing ABC, Inc. v. Nameloc, Inc., (E.D. 
Ark. Mar. 11, 2003)).
7 Id. at 5 n.17 (citing ABC, Inc. v. Nameloc, Inc., No. 03-1691 EA (8th Cir. Mar. 18, 2003) (denying Namelocs 
request for stay)).  
8 See 47 U.S.C.  310(d).
9 See Letter to James L. Winston, Esq., et al. (EB Apr. 18, 2003) (Enforcement Letter).  
10 Enforcement Letter at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-229
3
do not suggest to us that Nameloc itself has not retained actual control of the basic policies concerning 
operation of the station, including its programming, personnel, and finances.11  
5. On April 28, 2003, Arkansas filed a Petition to Deny the assignment application.  Arkansas 
argued that the proposed assignment to ABC raised issues of market concentration, loss of minority 
ownership, and unauthorized transfer of control that should be investigated.  As noted above, the staff 
granted the assignment on May 30, 2003.  The Staff Decision explained that changes in Commission 
policies regarding market concentration and the promotion and retention of minority ownership would be 
appropriately addressed in the omnibus review of the broadcast ownership rules that was then ongoing.12
The staff concluded that the proposed transaction raised no market concentration concerns because ABC 
would not own any other stations in the Little Rock market.  The assignment also complied with the local 
radio multiple ownership rules then (and still) in effect.  The Staff Decision rejected Arkansass attempts 
to re-argue private contractual matters between Nameloc and ABC.13 Finally, the Staff Decision noted 
that the transfer of control allegations had already been considered and rejected in the Enforcement 
Letter.  The Media Bureau staff found that further consideration of the allegations was not warranted 
because Arkansas did not present any additional evidence.  On July 10, 2003, Nameloc and ABC 
consummated the assignment of license to ABC.  Nameloc, supported by Arkansas and Charles, now 
challenges the assignments validity.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Unauthorized Transfer of Control
6. Namelocs and Arkansass primary argument is that ABC is not qualified to be a 
Commission licensee because ABC prematurely assumed control of the Station.14 As stated previously, 
  
11 Id. at 2 (citing WGPR, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 8140, 8141 (1995), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Serafyn v. FCC, 
149 F.3d 1213 (D.C. Cir. 1998)).
12 The omnibus review was concluded on June 2, 2003.  See 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review  Review of the 
Commissions Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 18 FCC Rcd 13620 (2003) (Broadcast Ownership Order), affd in part and 
remanded in part sub nom. Prometheus Radio Project  v. F.C.C., 373 F.3d 372 (2004).  
13 As noted by the staff, the Commission has consistently held that it is not the proper forum for the resolution of 
private contractual disputes.  See John R. Runner, Receiver (KBIF), 36 R.R. 773, 778 (1976) and Decatur 
Telecasting, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 8622 (1992) (cited in Staff Decision at 5 n.18).
14 In the instant pleadings, Nameloc and Arkansas, as well as Charles, also argue that the Staff Decision failed to 
consider pleadings that were filed in the initial stages of this proceeding.  Arkansas seeks a reversal and remand of 
the Staff Decision to consider its June 2, 2003, reply.  Arkansas also asserts that its due process rights were violated 
because: (1) the staff did not provide notice that its May 21, 2003, motion for an extension of time to file a late reply 
would be denied; and (2) it did not receive the two business days from denial to file pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  1.46(b). 
Ideally, of course, the staff would have been aware of the motion prior to issuing the Staff Decision and thus would 
have addressed the extension issue therein.  We find, however, that Arkansas was not prejudiced under the 
circumstances.  Section 1.46(b) which pertains to rulemaking proceedings is inapplicable here.  The untimely reply 
was properly not considered in the Staff Decision.  See 47 C.F.R.  1.46(a) (It is the policy of the Commission that 
extensions of time shall not be routinely granted.).  We nevertheless address below Arkansass assertion that the 
Staff Decision erroneously found that there were no market concentration concerns and ignored specific evidence of 
market failure, i.e., that two groups in the Little Rock market control 69.1 percent of the markets advertising 
revenue which warrants an investigation of the instant transaction.  See infra  8-9.  Charles states that his timely 
filed Petition to Deny was not considered by the staff.  The Staff Decision did not directly address Charless Petition 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-229
4
the alleged transfer of control is based solely on ABCs posting of job advertisements on the Internet for 
Radio Disney KYFX before the assignment application was filed with the Commission.  We reject the 
argument that the Media Bureau staff erred by relying on the Enforcement Bureaus finding that there 
had not been an unauthorized transfer of control.  The Media Bureau staff action was proper given that 
Arkansas merely repeated the same evidence that Nameloc had presented in its complaint to the 
Enforcement Bureau.  The Enforcement Letter has long been final; neither Nameloc nor any other party 
appealed it.  Nameloc and Arkansas are thus without legal basis to raise the issue anew.15  
7. On our own motion, however, we have reviewed the Enforcement Letter and agree with it. 
To determine whether an unauthorized transfer of control has occurred, the Commission looks to whether 
a new entity has the right to determine the basic operating polices of the licensee or station, particularly 
with respect to programming, personnel, and finances.16 ABCs use of the Stations call sign in 
employment advertisements does not establish any ABC control of the stations programming, personnel, 
or finances.17 To the extent that Nameloc and Arkansas argue that the use of call sign KYFX in ABCs 
ads disrupted the stations operations, resulted in the loss of advertising revenues, and interfered with 
Namelocs ability to retain staff, these are private contractual disputes.  The Commission has consistently 
declined to intervene in such matters and we see no reason to deviate from that course here.  Namelocs 
President and sole shareholder stated that she at all times served as the General Manager of the station, 
providing day-to-day supervision . . . .18 Moreover, the U.S. District Courts Summary Judgment Order
found that ABCs use of the call letters in the job listing was for identification purposes only . . . .19  
There is no indication that ABCs employment advertisements on the internet were anything more than 
planning efforts to identify staff available to begin work at the Station immediately following 
Commission approval of the assignment application and consummation of the sale.20
  
(continued from previous page)
to Deny, nor, as Nameloc points out, did the staff mention an objection filed by D.A. Lams, President of the Student 
Government Association of Philander Smith College.  The staff did not timely receive a filing from Philander Smith 
College, which in any event, though captioned as a Petition to Deny, failed to satisfy the requirements of 47 U.S.C.  
309(d)(1) and 47 C.F.R.  73.3584.  We have now reviewed both the Charles Petition to Deny and the Lams 
pleading.  Charless and Lamss primary concerns were about retaining and promoting minority broadcast 
ownership.  The staff considered similar concerns raised by other petitioners, and hence, the absence of direct 
references to the Charles and Lams pleadings was not prejudicial.  Charles also objected to generic Radio Disney 
programming, but that objection is immaterial because the Commission does not regulate or scrutinize 
programming formats.  See 47 U.S.C.  326.  See also, e.g., Brawley Broadcasting Co., 13 FCC Rcd 21119, 21123  
(1998).    
15 See 47 C.F.R.  1.103 (referencing 47 C.F.R.  1.4(b)).
16 See, e.g., Stereo Broadcasters, Inc., 87 FCC 2d 87 (1981), recon. denied, 50 R.R.2d 1346 (1982); WHDH, Inc., 
17 FCC 2d 856, 863 (1969), affd sub nom. Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 
1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923 (1971).
17 See North Idaho Broadcasting Co., 8 FCC Rcd 1637, 1638 (1993) (allegations which consist of ultimate, 
conclusory facts or more general allegations on information and belief, supported by general affidavits . . . are not 
sufficient to establish a prima facie case) (quoting Gencom v. FCC, 823 F.2d 171 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 1987)).
18 See Declaration of Ms. Loretta Lever House, President and sole shareholder of Nameloc, Enforcement Complaint, 
Exhibit 1.
19 Summary Judgment Order at 24.
20 See, e.g., Secret Communications II, LLC, 18 FCC Rcd 9139, 9149 (2003) (allegations based on internet website 
idiom are speculative and inadequate to raise a substantial and material question of fact concerning abdication of 
control) (Secret Communications).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-229
5
B. Market Concentration
8. Nameloc and Arkansas assert that the Staff Decision failed to give full consideration to 
market concentration concerns. Arkansas contends that the staff did not address specific evidence of 
market failure  namely, that two firms [Citadel Communications Corp. and Clear Channel 
Communications] in the Little Rock market presently control 69.1 percent of the markets advertising 
revenue.21 Arkansas asserts that such market concentration rises to the standard of the 50/70 screen 
then used by the staff to flag applications with possible concentration issues.22 Arkansas appears to 
conclude from these facts that a hearing is needed to determine whether anti-competitive market 
conditions and the loss of a female/minority-owned station warrant a denial of the assignment 
application.  In opposition, ABC asserts that the 69.1 percent advertising revenue figure is irrelevant 
because it would not be affected by ABCs purchase of the Station.    
9. The staff correctly did not flag the Nameloc/ABC application.  Arkansas previously 
acknowledged that at the time of the proposed transaction, KYFX garnered only 2.2 percent of the 
advertising revenues in the Arbitron-rated metropolitan area of Little Rock (the Metro).23 The  
transaction would result in ABC owning only one radio station in the Metro, and ABC would not be one 
of the top two owners.24 The existence of two other large group owners in the Metro  whose combined 
revenues in any event fell below the 70 percent screen  is irrelevant.  Arkansass and Namelocs market 
concentration argument is frivolous.
C. Anti-Competitive Practices
10. Nameloc and Arkansas assert that the staff erred in failing to find that ABC engaged in 
anti-competitive practices.  Specifically, they allege that ABC abused its national market power and 
unlawfully attempted to manipulate or coerce the sale of the Station to ABC by not renewing the 
programming agreement for KYFX to broadcast the Joyner Show.  Arkansas asserts that ABCs award of 
the show to the Stations main competitor provides evidence that ABC was seeking to cause a 
  
21 Arkansass Application for Review at 10-11 nn.25 & 27 (citing Declaration of Kofi A. Ofori, Esq., Ofori & 
Associates (Ofori Declaration) (attached to Arkansass Petition to Deny)).  The Ofori Declaration (at 4 n.2) cites 
Investing in Radio 2003, BIA Financial Network, Inc.
22 See Rules and Policies Concerning Multiple Ownership of Radio Broadcast Stations in Local Markets, 16 FCC 
Rcd 19861, 19870, 19894-97 (2001) (adopting interim policy procedures for subjecting certain transactions to 
competition analysis); AMFM, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 16062, 16066 n.10 (2000).  
23 See Ofori Declaration at 4.  Arkansas now erroneously states that it did not receive sufficient notice to file 
comments in the ownership proceeding that resulted in the Broadcast Ownership Order (see supra note 12) because 
the Staff Decision was issued on June 2, 2003, more than four hours after the commissioners had voted to issue a 
decision in the rulemaking proceeding. Arkansass Application for Review at 13.   First, the Staff Decision was 
issued on May 30, 2003, prior to the Commissions June 2, 2003, adoption of the Broadcast Ownership Order.  
More importantly, the ownership proceeding was long pending and provided ample opportunity for the filing of 
comments.  See also FCCs Media Bureau Extends Comment Deadlines for 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review of 
Commissions Media Ownership Rules, 17 FCC Rcd 22172 (MB 2002).  
24 In 2007, Citadel Communications Corp. acquired most of the radio stations operated by ABC, but the Station, 
along with all other radio stations operated as part of Radio Disney, was excluded from that transaction.  See 
Citadel Broadcasting Co., 22 FCC Rcd 7083, 7105 n. 133 (2007).  Accordingly, the Station remains ABCs sole 
radio station in the Little Rock, Arkansas market.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-229
6
devaluation of the Station to force the sale to ABC.  In response, ABC states that it simply opted not to 
renew the programming agreement [for the Joyner Show,] a right expressly granted to ABC by the 
[programming] Contract itself.25 According to ABC, this was a business decision related to the 
anticipated acquisition of KYFX and change in its format. ABC also asserts that the decision could not 
be an attempt to coerce the sale of the Station because Nameloc had already entered into the Sale 
Agreement eight months prior to non-renewal of the Joyner Show.
11. Adjudicated anti-competitive broadcast practices can be relevant to a licensees character.26
In the present case, however, there has been no court finding of any anti-competitive violation by ABC.  
To the contrary, the U.S. District Court found that ABC acted pursuant to the plain language of the 
[programming] contract in not renewing the agreement [for the Joyner Show]; the contract did not require 
either party to give cause for its non-renewal.27 We find that ABCs decision not to renew the 
programming agreement for the Joyner Show does not raise any character issues, nor is it indicative of 
any abuse cognizable under our current policies.28
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the Application for Review filed on June 13, 2003, by 
Nameloc, Inc., the Application for Review filed on July 7, 2003, by Arkansas Regional Minority Supplier 
Development Council, et al., and the Petition for Reconsideration filed on June 16, 2003, by Dale 
Charles, et al., ARE DENIED.
13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Motion for Stay filed on June 13, 2003, by Nameloc, 
Inc., the Request for Emergency Relief and Motion to Dismiss filed on July 2, 2003, by Nameloc, Inc., 
the Emergency Motion for Stay filed on July 7, 2003, by Arkansas Regional Minority Supplier 
Development Council, et al., and the Motion to Dismiss ABC, Inc.s Opposition to Nameloc, Inc.s 
Motion for Stay filed on July 1, 2003, by Dale Charles, et al. ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary  
  
25 ABCs Opposition to Arkansass Application for Review at 7.
26 See Secret Communications, 18 FCC Rcd at 9151 n.57.
27 Summary Judgment Order at 25. 
28 See Secret Communications, 18 FCC Rcd at 9149-50 (rejecting as not properly supported petitioners allegation 
that Clear Channel uses its market power to bully and abuse its competitors and advertisers).