*Pages 1--7 from  Microsoft Word - 35513*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  18 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 

 In  the  Matter  of 
 GLENDALE  ELECTRONICS,  INC.  Regarding  the  License  of  SMR  Station 
 WNGQ365,  Santiago  Peak  And  Mount  Lukens,  California 

 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 File  No.  9806D142824 

 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  January  27,  2004  Released:  February  9,  2004 
 By  the  Commission: 
 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  We  have  before  us  an  Application  for  Review  (Application)  filed  by  Glendale  Electronics,  Inc.  (GEI)  on  December  5,  2002.  1  The  Application  seeks  review  of  an  order  released  by  the  Commercial 

 Wireless  Divisions  Policy  and  Rules  Branch  (Branch)  on  November  5,  2002,  2  denying  GEIs  Petition  for  Reconsideration  filed  on  April  6,  2001  (Petition).  3  Finding  that  Station  WNGQ365  had  discontinued 
 operations  from  November  1995,  to  at  least  May  1998,  the  Branch  Order  affirmed  a  letter  released  by  the  Divisions  Licensing  and  Technical  Analysis  Branch  (Licensing  Branch)  explaining  that  the  above-captioned 
 license  for  Station  WNGQ365  automatically  cancelled  pursuant  to  Section  90.157  of  the  Commissions  rules.  For  the  reasons  discussed  below,  we  deny  GEIs  Application  for  Review. 

 II.  BACKGROUND 
 2.  Three  licenses  are  relevant  to  this  proceeding:  WNGQ365,  WNHN211,  and  KGE571.  Mr.  Harry  Kohli,  Sr.,  d/  b/  a  Glendale  Electronics  (Glendale),  was  the  original  licensee  for  Stations  WNGQ365 

 and  WNHN211,  and  the  City  of  Los  Angeles,  on  behalf  of  the  Los  Angeles  Police  Department  (LAPD),  is  the  licensee  for  Station  KGE571.  All  three  licenses  have  authorized  operation  at  various  times  over  the 
 course  of  this  proceeding  at  the  same  location  at  Mount  Lukens  in  Los  Angeles  County,  on  the  same  frequency,  853.8875  MHz.  4 

 3.  In  November  1994,  Matson  Development  Corporation  (Matson),  the  predecessor-  in-interest  to  Lone  Star  Radio,  Inc.  (Lone  Star),  entered  into  an  agreement  with  Glendales  General 
 Manager,  Paul  Northup,  apparently  acting  on  behalf  of  Glendale,  to  assign  Stations  WNGQ365  and 

 1  Application  for  Review,  filed  by  Glendale  Electronics,  Inc.  (Dec.  5,  2002). 
 2  In  the  Matter  of  Glendale  Electronics,  Inc.  Regarding  the  License  of  SMR  Station  WNGQ365,  Santiago  Peak  and 
 Mount  Lukens,  California,  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  22189  (2002)  (Branch  Order).  3 
 Petition  for  Reconsideration,  filed  by  Glendale  Electronics,  Inc.  (Apr.  6,  2001).  4 
 Glendale  was  authorized  to  operate  at  Mount  Lukens  in  LA  County,  California  under  WNHN211,  and  at  Santiago  Peak  in  Orange  County  and  Mount  Lukens  in  LA  County  under  WNGQ365.  LAPD  is  authorized  under  KGE571  to 

 operate  on  several  frequencies  at  San  Pedro  Hill,  San  Vincente,  and  Mount  Lukens  in  LA  County. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  18 
 2 
 WNHN211  from  Glendale  to  Matson  (1994  Agreement).  5  Pursuant  to  the  Agreement,  the  license  for  Station  WNHN211  was  to  be  assigned  to  Matson  and  then  to  the  LAPD.  6  On  February  20,  1996,  the 
 LAPD  was  granted  a  license,  now  KGE571,  which  includes  the  Mount  Lukens  site  originally  licensed  on  a  primary  basis  to  Station  WNHN211.  We,  however,  have  no  record  that  any  assignment  application  for 
 Station  WNGQ365  from  Glendale  to  Lone  Star  was  ever  filed  or  granted.  7  Reasoning  that  operations  for  the  station  had  been  discontinued  since  November  1995,  Lone  Star  decided  not  to  submit  the  assignment 
 application  intending  to  allow  Glendales  license  for  Station  WNGQ365  to  expire  on  its  scheduled  expiration  date,  June  8,  1998.  8  Because  Lone  Star  chose  not  to  file  an  assignment  application,  Glendale 
 remained  the  licensee  of  record  in  the  Commissions  database  for  Station  WNGQ365. 
 4.  In  July  1997,  because  of  Mr.  Kohlis  declining  health,  Ms.  Frumeh  Labow  was  appointed  Conservator  of  his  estate.  9  According  to  GEI,  Ms.  Labow  was  unaware  of  the  license  for  Station 

 WNGQ365  until  she  received  an  automated  renewal  reminder  in  May  1998.  10  That  same  month,  in  response  to  the  renewal  notice,  Ms.  Labow  filed  a  renewal  application  for  the  station.  The  Licensing 
 Branch  had  no  information  at  that  time  that  the  station  had  discontinued  operations  and  therefore  granted  the  uncontested  renewal  application  on  June  8,  1998,  for  a  ten-  year  term.  In  July  1998,  the  Superior 
 Court  of  Los  Angeles  County  created  the  Kohli  Family  Trust  and  appointed  A.  Verne  Tjarks  as  Trustee,  who  incorporated  Glendale  Electronics  as  Glendale  Electronics,  Inc.  (GEI).  11  In  January  2000,  Tjarks, 
 who  states  that  he  had  no  knowledge  of  the  1994  Agreement,  submitted  an  application  seeking  the  assignment  of  the  license  for  WNGQ365  from  Glendale  Electronics  to  GEI.  12 

 5.  On  February  4,  2000,  while  Glendales  assignment  application  was  pending  and  after  learning  that  the  authorization  for  WNGQ365  had  been  renewed,  Lone  Star  submitted  a  copy  of  an  FCC 
 Form  405A  allegedly  signed  almost  six  years  earlier  by  Harry  Kohli  on  September  2,  1994,  requesting  cancellation  of  the  station  license  for  WNGQ365.  13  According  to  Lone  Star,  the  cancellation  notice  was 
 part  of  the  1994  Agreement  between  Lone  Star  and  Glendale,  but  having  elected  to  let  the  license  expire, 

 5  Branch  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  22190,    4.  According  to  GEI,  Mr.  Kohli  involuntarily  withdrew  from  his  business 
 affairs  because  of  a  serious  illness  in  November  1994,  leaving  his  businesses,  including  Glendale,  in  the  hands  of  its  employees.  Id.  (citing  Petition  at  Ex.  1,  Tjarks  Declaration  at  2-  3). 

 6  Id.  at  22190,    4  (citing  Letter  from  Russell  H.  Fox,  Counsel  for  Lone  Star  Radio,  Inc.  to  Secretary,  FCC  at  1-  2 
 (Dec.  1,  2000)  (Lone  Star  December  1  Letter)).  7 
 Branch  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  22190,    4  (citing  Lone  Star  308(  b)  Reply  at  Ex.  B,  Matson  Declaration  at  2).  According  to  Lone  Star,  the  assignment  application  from  Glendale  to  Matson  for  Station  WNGQ365  was  filed,  but 

 never  processed.  Henry  Matson,  in  a  declaration,  stated  that  the  file  number  for  the  assignment  application  of  Station  WNGQ365  was  FCC  File  No.  501400.  Id.  at  n.  10.  Our  records  show  that  File  Number  501400  was  Lone 
 Stars  attempt  to  take  assignment  of  the  license  for  Station  WZN649,  which,  at  the  time  of  the  application,  was  authorized  to  operate  on  frequency  853.  5375  MHz.  The  Licensing  Branch  found  technical  problems  with  the 
 assignment  application  for  Station  WZN649,  and  returned  it  to  Lone  Star.  Our  records  do  not  reflect  that  the  application  was  ever  resubmitted. 
 8  Id.  (citing  Lone  Star  December  1  Letter  at  2). 
 9  Id.  at  22190,    5  (citing  Letter  of  Conservatorship  from  John  A.  Clarke,  Clerk,  to  Ronald  Gold,  Gold  &  Murphy, 
 Attorney  for  Frumeh  Labow  (July  16,  1997)).  10 
 Id.  (citing  Petition  at  7  and  Petition  at  Ex.  1,  Tjarks  Declaration  at  6;  Letter  from  John  J.  McVeigh,  Counsel  for  GEI,  to  Paul  DAri,  Chief,  Policy  and  Rules  Branch,  Commercial  Wireless  Division  at  2  (Aug.  23,  2002)  (GEI 

 308(  b)  Response)).  11 
 Id.  (citing  Petition  at  7-  8  and  Ex.  1,  Tjarks  Declaration  at  4).  12 
 Id  (citing  Petition  at  8  and  Ex.  1  Attachment  A).  13 
 Id.  at  22191,    6  (citing  Lone  Star  December  1  Letter  at  2  and  Ex.  2). 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  18 
 3 
 Lone  Star  had  not  submitted  the  September  2,  1994  cancellation  notice  to  the  Commission.  14  The  Licensing  Branch  cancelled  the  license  for  WNGQ365  on  March  28,  2000,  on  the  basis  of  the 
 cancellation  notice,  even  though  the  notice  was  submitted  by  a  third  party,  not  the  licensee.  On  April  7,  2000,  the  Licensing  Branch  informed  Tjarks  of  the  cancellation  and  on  April  14,  2000,  Tjarks  wrote  a 
 letter  to  Commission  staff  asserting  that  neither  he,  nor  Kohli,  nor  Glendale  had  submitted  the  cancellation  notice.  15  The  Licensing  Branch  subsequently  reinstated  the  station  license  on  June  15, 
 2000,  16  and  granted  the  assignment  of  WNGQ365  to  GEI  on  June  29,  2000. 
 6.  On  December  1,  2000,  Lone  Star  filed  a  letter  seeking  cancellation  of  the  license  for  WNGQ365,  arguing  that  the  station  had  not  been  in  operation  since  November  1,  1995.  17  On  February  9, 

 2001,  the  LAPD  filed  a  letter  in  support  of  Lone  Stars  December  1  Letter.  18  Both  parties  argued  that  the  station  had  permanently  discontinued  operations  and,  as  a  result,  the  license  had  cancelled  automatically. 
 Based  on  the  information  provided  in  the  letters,  the  Licensing  Branch  issued  a  letter  on  March  7,  2001,  explaining  that  the  license  for  WNGQ365  had  automatically  cancelled  pursuant  to  Section  90.  157  of  our 
 rules.  Section  90.157  provides  that  a  license  cancels  automatically  upon  a  stations  permanent  discontinuance  of  operations,  and  any  station  that  has  not  operated  for  one  year  or  more  is  considered  to 
 have  been  permanently  discontinued.  19 
 7.  GEI  filed  a  petition  on  April  6,  2001,  seeking  reconsideration  of  the  license  cancellation.  20  The  Branch  issued  its  decision  on  November  5,  2002,  finding  that  Station  WNGQ365  had  discontinued 

 operations  from  November  1995,  to  at  least  May  1998,  and,  as  a  result,  the  license  automatically  cancelled  pursuant  to  Section  90.157  of  our  rules.  21  On  December  5,  2002,  GEI  filed  its  Application  for 
 Review.  On  December  20,  2002,  Lone  Star  filed  an  Opposition  to  the  Application  for  Review.  22 
 III.  DISCUSSION 
 8.  We  find  that  the  license  for  Station  WNGQ365  cancelled  pursuant  to  Section  90.  157  of  our  rules,  which  clearly  provides  for  the  automatic  cancellation  of  a  station  license  upon  permanent 

 14  Id.  (citing  Lone  Star  308(  b)  Reply  at  6). 
 15  Id.  (citing  Letter  from  A.  Verne  Tjarks,  Glendale  Electronics,  Inc.  to  FCC,  Gettysburg,  Pennsylvania  (Apr.  14, 
 2000)).  16 
 Id.  (citing  Letter  from  Terry  L.  Fishel,  Deputy  Chief,  Licensing  and  Technical  Analysis  Branch,  Commercial  Wireless  Division  to  A.  Verne  Tjarks,  Glendale  Electronics,  Inc.  (June  15,  2000)). 

 17  Id.  at  22191,    7  (citing  Lone  Star  December  1  Letter  at  2-  3). 
 18  Id.  (citing  LAPD  February  9  Letter  at  1-  2). 
 19  47  C.  F.  R.    90.157. 
 20  On  June  19,  2002,  the  Branch  issued  a  letter  under  Section  308(  b)  of  the  Communications  Act,  as  amended,  47 
 U.  S.  C.    308(  b),  seeking  additional  information  from  GEI  on  whether  operations  for  Station  WNGQ365  had  been  permanently  discontinued.  Branch  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  22191-  92,    8  (citing  Letter  from  Paul  DAri,  Chief, 

 Policy  and  Rules  Branch,  Commercial  Wireless  Division  to  John  J.  McVeigh,  Counsel  for  GEI  (June  19,  2002)  (GEI  308(  b)  Letter)).  GEI  filed  its  response  on  August  23,  2002,  and  Lone  Star  filed  a  reply  on  September  6,  2002. 
 21  Branch  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  22192,    9. 
 22  Opposition  to  Application  for  Review,  filed  by  Lone  Star  Radio,  Inc.  (Dec.  20,  2002).  GEI  filed  a  reply  to  Lone 
 Stars  opposition  on  January  6,  2003,  Reply  to  Opposition  to  Application  for  Review,  filed  by  Glendale  Electronics,  Inc.  (Jan.  6,  2003).  Section  1.  115  of  the  Commissions  rules  allows  parties  to  file  replies  to  oppositions  within  ten 

 days  after  the  date  on  which  the  opposition  is  filed.  Because  Lone  Stars  opposition  was  filed  on  December  20,  2002,  GEIs  reply  was  due  no  later  than  Monday,  December  30,  2002.  We  will  not  consider  GEIs  reply  here 
 because  it  is  late  and  does  not  include  a  request  for  waiver  of  the  filing  deadline.  See  Mercury  PCS  II,  LLC,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  9654,  9658,    6  n.  30  (2000). 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  18 
 4 
 discontinuance  of  operations.  23  The  rule  section  defines  permanent  discontinuance  of  operations  as  any  station  which  has  not  operated  for  one  year  or  more.  In  this  case,  the  record  reveals  that  Station 
 WNGQ365  was  non-  operational  from  November  1995,  to  at  least  May  1998.  24  Significantly,  GEI  does  not  contest  the  Branchs  finding  that  Station  WNGQ365  was  not  operating  during  this  period.  Instead, 
 GEI  raises  three  alternative  arguments.  GEI  first  argues  that  it  must  be  provided  a  revocation  hearing  under  Section  312  of  the  Communications  Act,  as  amended,  before  its  license  automatically  cancels.  GEI 
 also  argues  that  the  documents  related  to  the  assignment  of  the  station  from  Glendale  to  Lone  Star  were  fraudulent,  requiring  reinstatement  of  the  license.  Finally,  GEI  seeks  a  waiver  of  Section  90.157  based  on 
 the  alleged  fraudulent  assignment  of  the  station.  We  address  each  argument  below. 
 9.  GEI  argues  that  the  Commission  cannot  revoke  its  license  for  the  permanent  discontinuation  of  operations  without  being  afforded  a  revocation  hearing  under  Section  312  of  the 

 Communications  Act,  as  amended.  25  GEIs  argument  is  ultimately  a  direct  challenge  to  our  authority  to  impose  on  the  license  for  Station  WNGQ365  the  condition  set  forth  in  Section  90.157  of  our  rules.  26  GEI 
 contends  that  the  Commission  could  not  determine  by  rule  that  a  prohibition  against  permanently  discontinued  operations  should  be  a  license  condition  and  that  permanently  discontinuing  operations 
 would  result  in  automatic  cancellation  of  the  license.  We  reject  this  argument.  Our  authority  to  impose  license  conditions  is  firmly  grounded  in  statutory  law.  Section  301  of  the  Communications  Act,  as 
 amended,  provides  [  i]  t  is  the  purpose  of  this  Act    to  provide  for  the  use  of  such  channels,  but  not  ownership  thereof    under  licenses  granted  by  [the  Commission],  and  no  such  license  shall  be  construed 
 to  create  any  right,  beyond  the  terms,  conditions,  and  periods  of  the  license.  27 

 23  47  C.  F.  R.    90.157. 
 24  The  Branchs  finding  was  based  on  several  pieces  of  evidence  presented  in  this  case,  including  the  declaration  of 
 Glendales  General  Manager  that  he  dismantled  the  station  facilities  on  or  about  November  1,  1995.  Lone  Star  308(  b)  Reply  at  Ex.  A,  Declaration  of  Paul  Northup  at  3.  In  his  Declaration,  Mr.  Northup,  General  Manager  of 

 Glendale,  stated  that  he  personally  removed  WNGQ365  and  WNHN211  from  service  on  or  about  November  1,  1995,  and  did  not  put  the  stations  back  into  operation  during  his  tenure  as  General  Manager  of  Glendale.  Id.  GEI 
 acknowledged  that  it  only  became  aware  of  the  license  for  WNGQ365  in  1998,  and,  after  investigation,  found  that  most  of  the  station  facilities  had  already  been  removed.  GEI  308(  b)  Response  at  3  and  5;  see  Petition  at  Ex.  1,  Tjarks 
 Declaration  at  11  (acknowledging  that  radio  frequency  equipment  had  been  removed).  GEI  also  stated  that  its  best  estimate  of  when  it  restored  the  station  facilities  was  the  week  of  May  13,  1998.  GEI  308(  b)  Response  at  6  and  10, 
 and  at  Ex.  A,  Montes  Declaration  at  1-  2.  Finally,  GEI  could  not  provide  any  billing  records  for  any  unaffiliated  subscribers  or  any  other  information  to  suggest  it  provided  service  to  any  subscriber  from  November  1,  1995,  to 
 May  13,  1998.  Petition  at  7;  GEI  308(  b)  Response  at  6  and  Ex.  A,  Montes  Declaration  at  2-  3;  see  47  C.  F.  R.    90.  633(  d)  (failure  to  provide  service  to  at  least  one  unaffiliated  end-  user  results  in  automatic  cancellation  of  the 
 license).  25 
 Application  at  10  (citing  47  U.  S.  C.    312).  Section  312(  c)  provides  that  [  b]  efore  revoking  a  license  or  permit  pursuant  to  [the  seven  conditions  under  which  the  Commission  may  revoke  the  license  or  permit  listed  in] 

 subsection  (a),    the  Commission  shall  serve  upon  the  licensee,  permittee,  or  person  involved  an  order  to  show  cause  why  an  order  of  revocation    should  not  be  issued.  Any  such  order  to  show  cause  shall  contain  a  statement 
 of  the  matters  with  respect  to  which  the  Commission  is  inquiring  and  shall  call  upon  the  licensee,  permittee,  or  person  to  appear  before  the  Commission  at  a  time  and  place  stated  in  the  order.  Id.    312(  c). 
 26  47  C.  F.  R.    90.157.  Section  90.  157  provides  [  a]  station  license  shall  cancel  automatically  upon  permanent 
 discontinuance  of  operations.  Unless  stated  otherwise  in  this  part  or  in  a  station  authorization,  for  the  purposes  of  this  section,  any  station  which  has  not  operated  for  one  year  or  more  is  considered  discontinued.  Id. 

 27  47  U.  S.  C.    301;  see  id.    303(  r)  (authorizing  the  Commission  to  [  m]  ake  such  rules  and  regulations  and  prescribe 
 restrictions  and  conditions,  not  inconsistent  with  law,  as  may  be  necessary  to  carry  out  the  provisions  of  this  Act). 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  18 
 5 
 10.  Moreover,  a  license  that  cancels  for  failure  to  satisfy  a  license  condition  is  not  revoked  and  does  not  trigger  a  hearing  requirement.  28  GEIs  argument  that  the  Commission  must  hold  a  hearing  to 
 determine  whether  discontinuing  station  operations  for  one  year  or  more  should  result  in  license  cancellation  is  erroneous.  As  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  District  of  Columbia  stated  in  P&  R  Temmer  v. 
 FCC,  29  a  Commission  licensee  takes  its  license  subject  to  the  conditions  imposed  on  its  use.  These  conditions  may  be  contained  in  both  the  Commissions  regulations  and  in  the  license.  Acceptance  of  a 
 license  constitutes  accession  to  all  such  conditions.  A  licensee  may  not  accept  the  benefits  of  the  license  while  rejecting  the  corresponding  obligations.  30 

 11.  We  further  reject  GEIs  argument  that  we  must  reconsider  in  an  individual  hearing  the  issues  concerning  whether  a  license  automatically  cancels  upon  permanent  discontinuation  of  service. 
 The  Commission  decided  in  a  rulemaking  proceeding  after  notice  and  comment  that  it  would  adopt  a  license  condition  that  provides  for  automatic  cancellation  upon  permanent  discontinuation  of  service.  In 
 making  this  decision,  the  Commission  concluded  that  restricting  prolonged  periods  of  discontinued  operations  is  a  necessary  corollary  to  promoting  the  efficient  use  of  spectrum.  Accordingly,  we  decline  to 
 reconsider,  in  this  proceeding,  the  rationale  supporting  the  Commissions  decision  to  adopt  rules  governing  discontinuation  of  service. 

 12.  We  also  conclude  that  GEIs  reliance  on  Section  312(  g)  of  the  Act  is  erroneous.  Section  312(  g)  provides  for  automatic  cancellation  of  a  broadcasters  license  if  its  station  fails  to  transmit  a 
 broadcast  signal  for  any  consecutive  twelve-  month  period.  31  Congress  added  Section  312(  g)  to  the  Communications  Act  in  1996,  to  simplify  our  regulatory  scheme  in  cases  where  broadcasters  fail  to 
 transmit  broadcast  signals  for  a  prolonged  period  of  time.  32  GEI  reasons  that  because  Congress  did  not  include  what  GEI  terms  as  non-  broadcast  stations  within  the  scope  of  Section  312(  g),  the  Act  mandates 
 a  hearing  under  Section  312(  c)  for  any  loss  of  any  non-  broadcast  license,  including  the  license  for  Station  WNGQ365.  33  We  disagree.  The  elimination  of  the  hearing  requirement  for  one  group  of  licenses 
 under  defined  circumstances  pursuant  to  Section  312(  g)  does  not,  by  itself,  circumscribe  our  authority  to  establish  by  rulemaking  conditions  on  licenses  with  automatic  cancellation  provisions  for  other  stations  or 

 28  See  Peninsula  Communications,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  No.  01-  1273,  slip  op.  at  2  (D.  C.  Cir.  Jan.  30,  2003)  (finding  that 
 rescission  of  the  conditional  grant  of  licenses  for  failure  to  satisfy  the  condition  is  not  a  revocation  without  a  hearing  as  required  under  Section  312(  c)  of  the  Communications  Act,  47  U.  S.  C.    312(  c)). 

 29  P&  R  Temmer  v.  FCC,  743  F.  2d  918,  928  (D.  C.  Cir.  1984). 
 30  Id.  (citing  Capital  Telephone  Co.  v.  FCC,  498  F.  2d  734,  740  (D.  C.  Cir.  1974)).  The  Court  in  Temmer  found  that  a 
 license  is  modified,  for  purposes  of  Section  316  of  the  Communications  Act,  as  amended,  when  an  unconditional  right  conferred  by  the  license  is  substantially  affected.  Temmer,  743  F.  2d  at  927-  28.  Because  loading  requirements 

 were  a  conditional  right  that  appellants  failed  to  meet,  the  Court  determined  that  revocation  of  15  of  20  channels  from  appellants  licenses  for  failing  to  meet  SMR  loading  requirements  did  not  constitute  a  license  modification  and, 
 as  a  result,  appellants  were  not  entitled  to  a  hearing  under  Section  316.  Id.  at  927. 
 We  also  note,  as  we  have  previously  stated,  that  license  renewal  only  affords  the  licensee  approval  to  continue  operating  under  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  original  license.  In  the  Matter  of  Alee  Cellular  Communications 

 Cellular  Radiotelephone  Station  KNKN271,  New  Mexico  RSA  3,  Market  555A,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  FCC  03-  200  at    11  (rel.  Aug.  8,  2003)  (citing  In  the  Matter  of  Richard  Duncan  d/  b/  a  Anderson  Communications, 
 Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  on  Remand,  18  FCC  Rcd  4189,  4192,    9  (2003);  In  the  Matter  of  Donna  J.  Olson  Automatic  Cancellation  of  License  for  Station  WPFN331,  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  5075,  5077,    6  (CWD  2003)). 
 31  47  U.  S.  C.    312(  g).  Section  312(  g)  provides  that  [  i]  f  a  broadcasting  station  fails  to  transmit  broadcast  signals  for 
 any  consecutive  12-  month  period,  then  the  station  license  granted  for  the  operation  of  that  broadcast  station  expires  at  the  end  of  that  period,  notwithstanding  any  provision,  term,  or  condition  of  the  license  to  the  contrary.  Id. 

 32  In  the  Matter  of  Implementation  of  Section  403(  1)  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996  (Silent  Station 
 Authorizations),  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  16599,  16599,    3  (1996).  33 
 Application  at  10. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  18 
 6 
 for  broadcast  stations  under  other  circumstances.  Accordingly,  because  Section  90.157  was  a  condition  on  Glendales  license  for  Station  WNGQ365,  34  and  because  Section  312(  c)  does  not  apply,  GEI  is  not 
 entitled  to  a  revocation  hearing. 
 13.  We  further  reject  GEIs  contention  that  documents  relating  to  the  assignment  of  the  station  to  Lone  Star  and  the  cancellation  notice  were  fraudulent  and,  therefore,  require  reinstatement  of  GEIs 

 license  for  Station  WNGQ365.  GEI  faults  Commission  staff  for  failing  to  take  into  account  its  argument  that  Mr.  Kohli  did  not  consent  to  the  1994  Agreement  and  that  the  signatures  of  Mr.  Kohli  on  documents 
 related  to  the  assignment  of  the  license  for  Station  WNGQ365  and  the  cancellation  notice  were  allegedly  forged.  35  GEI  argues  that  protection  of  the  integrity  of  the  Commissions  processes,  as  well  as  case 
 precedent,  requires  further  inquiry  into  these  matters.  36  This  argument  is  unpersuasive,  however,  because  Glendale  never  assigned  the  license  for  Station  WNGQ365  to  Lone  Star.  Because  Glendale  never 
 assigned  the  license  for  Station  WNGQ365  to  Lone  Star,  the  integrity  of  our  processes  was  not  affected  by  the  alleged  fraud.  Moreover,  the  cancellation  notice  did  not  provide  the  basis  for  the  Branchs  finding 
 that  Station  WNGQ365  permanently  discontinued  its  operations.  Accordingly,  GEIs  allegations  of  fraud  in  relation  to  the  cancellation  notice  or  assignment  are  not  relevant  to  our  determination  that  the  license 
 for  WNGQ365  cancelled  automatically  when  the  stations  operations  were  permanently  discontinued.  37 
 14.  For  the  same  reasons,  we  find  that  GEI  has  not  presented  any  basis  for  granting  its  request  for  waiver  of  Section  90.157.  38  GEI  contends  that  if  Mr.  Kohli  neither  signed  nor  agreed  to  the  1994 

 34  Branch  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  22194,    11;  see  Amendment  of  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Concerning  the 
 Construction,  Licensing,  and  Operation  of  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Stations,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  5  FCC  Rcd  6401,  6401,    6  (1990)  (Part  90  NPRM)  (stating  that  [  t]  he  rule  governing  discontinuance  of  station 

 operation,  like  the  rule  regarding  construction,  is  a  condition  on  a  stations  authorization.  The  license  is  valid  only  as  long  as  the  station  had  not  discontinued  operation  on  a  permanent  basis,  i.  e.,  for  one  year  or  more);  A-  1-  A 
 Repeater  Company,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  9748,  9749,    6  (2001)  (Licensing  Branch  grant  of  assignment  application  set  aside  where  there  was  no  authorization  to  assign  because  license  automatically 
 cancelled  pursuant  to  Section  90.  157);  Nationwide  Radio  Communications,  Inc.,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  8129,  8132,    8  (2001)  (in  accordance  with  Section  90.  157,  800  MHz  General  Category  system  that  is 
 non-  operational  for  more  than  one  year  is  deemed  to  have  permanently  discontinued  operations,  which  results  in  automatic  cancellation  of  the  license);  Mobile  U.  H.  F.,  Inc.,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  3286, 
 3288,    5  (2000)  (under  Section  90.  157,  discontinuance  of  operations  for  more  than  one  year  results  in  automatic  license  cancellation). 
 35  Application  at  11-  14. 
 36  Application  at  12-  14.  In  support  of  these  arguments,  GEI  points  to  Ronald  Brasher,  Order  to  Show  Cause, 
 Hearing  Designation  Order,  and  Notice  of  Opportunity  for  Hearing,  15  FCC  Rcd  16326  (2000)  (questionable  signatures  on  assignment  applications  warrant  an  evidentiary  hearing)  and  Comtex  Communications,  Inc., 

 Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  4784  (2001)  (submission  of  inauthentic  documents  in  the  context  of  the  assignment  of  a  Part  90  license  resulted  in  the  reinstatement  of  the  license  in  the  name  of  the  original  licensee). 
 Neither  of  these  cases,  however,  supports  GEIs  position  because  the  issues  raised  fall  within  the  scope  of  Section  312(  a)  of  the  Act. 
 37  Branch  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  22194,    10.  We  also  note  that  it  is  the  Commissions  long  standing  policy  not  to 
 adjudicate  private  contractual  disputes  where  forums  for  those  disputes  exist  in  state  court.  See  e.  g.,  Listeners  Guild,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  813  F.  2d  465,  469  (D.  C.  Cir.  1987)  (citing  Agreements  Between  Broadcast  Licensees  and  the  Public, 

 57  F.  C.  C.  2d  42  (1975);  Carnegie  Broadcasting  Co.,  5  F.  C.  C.  2d  882,  884  (1966);  Transcontinental  Television  Corp.,  44  F.  C.  C.  2d  2451,  2461  (1961)). 
 38  Branch  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  22195,    13.  Section  1.  925(  b)(  3)  of  our  rules  provides  that  a  waiver  request  may 
 be  granted  if  it  is  shown  that:  (1)  the  underlying  purpose  of  the  rule  would  not  be  served,  or  would  be  frustrated  by  application  to  the  instant  case,  and  that  a  grant  of  the  requested  waiver  would  be  in  the  public  interest;  or  (2)  in  view 

 of  unique  or  unusual  factual  circumstances  of  the  instant  case,  application  of  the  rule(  s)  would  be  inequitable,  unduly  burdensome  or  contrary  to  the  public  interest,  or  the  applicant  has  no  reasonable  alternative.  47  C.  F.  R.   
 1.  925(  b)(  3). 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  18 
 7 
 Agreement  or  the  license  cancellation  notice,  it  would  be  unjust  to  penalize  GEI  by  stripping  GEI  of  the  license.  39  We  find  that  it  would  not  be  in  the  public  interest  to  grant  a  waiver  in  this  case  because  the 
 assignment  of  the  license  from  Glendale  to  Lone  Star  never  occurred  and  the  cancellation  notice  did  not  provide  the  basis  for  the  determination  that  Station  WNGQ365  permanently  discontinued  operations. 
 GEIs  suggestions  of  fraud  are,  therefore,  not  relevant  to  the  automatic  cancellation  of  Glendales  license  for  Station  WNGQ365.  Accordingly,  we  deny  GEIs  Application  for  Review. 

 IV.  ORDERING  CLAUSE 
 15.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Section  4(  i),  and  303(  r)  of  the  Communications  Act,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  303(  r),  and  Sections  1.115  and  90.157  of  the 

 Commissions  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    1.  115,  90.157,  the  Application  for  Review  filed  by  Glendale  Electronics,  Inc.  on  December  5,  2002,  IS  DENIED. 

 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 

 Marlene  H.  Dortch  Secretary 

 39  Application  at  13.  GEI  asserts  that  [  i]  f  any  actions  that  Mr.  Northup  took  were  not  known  and  countenanced  by 
 Mr.  Kohli,  it  is  fundamentally  unjust  and  extremely  dangerous  to  attribute  them  to  Mr.  Kohli  and  to  invoke  them  to  penalize  GEI  as  successor-  in-  interest  to  Mr.  Kohli  by  stripping  GEI  of  the  license.  Id.  at  14. 
7