Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
October 28, 2008
 DA 08-2361
In Reply Refer to:
1800B3-MJW
Released: October 28, 2008
Family Life Ministries, Inc. 
c/o Joseph C. Chautin, III, Esq.
Hardy, Carey Chautin & Balkin, LLP 
1080 West Causeway Approach
Mandeville, LA  70471
 In re:  Family Life Ministries, Inc.
DW245AV, Northeast, Pennsylvania
Facility ID No. 14451
File No. BPFT-20070720ABM 
Petition for Reconsideration
Application for Modification of License
Dear Counsel:
We have before us a Petition for Reconsideration (the Petition) filed by Family Life Ministries, 
Inc. (FLM) seeking reconsideration of two staff letters, the first notifying FLM that the license for 
translator station DW245AV (the Translator) had expired,1 the second notifying FLM that its 
application for renewal of the Translator license had been dismissed.2 We also have before us an 
application for modification of the Translator license (the Application) specifying a new site.  For the 
reasons set out below, we deny the Petition and dismiss the Application.
Background.  The Commission granted FLM a license for the Translator on April 26, 2005.  
FLM claims that, immediately thereafter, it discovered that the Translator utterly failed to provide its 
intended coverage.3 FLM then removed the Translator equipment and canceled its prohibitively 
expensive4 tower lease.
FLM pursued a lease for another tower (the Second Tower) owned by Adelphia 
Communications Corporation, which FLM knew was in bankruptcy and attempting to sell its tower to a 
third party.5 By March 29, 2006, when FLM filed an application for renewal of the Translators license, 
the Translator remained inoperative.6 At that time, FLM was attempting to identify the new owner of the 
Second Tower.7 Over a year passed and, on April 5, 2007, the staff advised FLM that the Translator 
license would be deemed expired by operation of law unless FLM demonstrated that the Translator had 
  
1 The D prefix to the call sign signifies that the authorization has been canceled. 
2 See Letter to Family Life Ministries, Inc., Apr. 5, 2007 (License Expiration Notice); Letter to Family Life 
Ministries, Jun. 26, 2007 (Renewal Dismissal). 
3 Petition at 2.  (Almost as soon as it obtained the license, however, FLM realized that the tower site that was the 
only site that appeared suitable at the time, was incapable of fulfilling the two functions FLM had intended for the 
translator.)  Id. at 6.  ([T]he site that it had originally used for Northeasts translator utterly failed in this regard.)
4 Id. at n.2.
5 Id.
6 See id. at 3.
7 Id.
2
resumed operation before March 30, 2007.8 On May 1, 2007, FLM responded and reported that the 
translator was still silent and that FLM had encountered difficulty in locating a new site.9 It asked the 
Commission to reinstate the Translator license pursuant to the provision in Section 312(g) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act)10 that gives the Commission discretion to reinstate 
licenses to promote equity and fairness.  The staff rejected FLMs request, finding, (a) that the 
Translator had been silent for considerably longer than 12 consecutive months, (b) that there was no 
persuasive evidence . . . that the Stations silence was due to circumstances beyond its control. and (c) 
that the record in this case discloses that the Station was taken off the air due to Family Lifes desire to 
meet its goals for the station in a more economical manner.11
In its Petition, FLM reports that its attempt to relocate to the Second Tower has failed because it 
was not able to reach a satisfactory agreement with the towers new owner, Time-Warner.12 FLM does 
not state whether it was cost, or some other factor, that led it to conclude that the agreement was 
unsatisfactory.  FLM claims, however, that it now has permission to locate the Translator at another new 
site.  The Application, tendered with the Petition, specifies that new site.13
The Petition essentially restates the arguments made in FLMs May 1, 2007, letter to the staff: 
(a) that maintaining operation of the translator at the original site was a matter outside its control because 
the coverage was inadequate and the lease payments were prohibitively expensive, and exorbitant,14  
and (b) FLM was diligent in pursuing a lease for the Second Tower but encountered unforeseen obstacles, 
for example, that Adelphia referred FLMs representative to Comcast which strung him along for several 
months before sending him to Time-Warner.15 FLM claims that, but for the appalling lack of 
responsiveness of the telecom companies, FLM probably would have been able to get on the tower within 
the 12-month period.16
FLM urges the Commission to exercise its discretion in favor of reinstating the Translator license, 
citing the V.I. Stereo Communications Corporation decision in which the Commission reinstated the 
license of WVIS(FM), Vieques, Puerto Rico, when that station had remained off the air for more than 
twelve months due to circumstances beyond its control -- damage from successive hurricanes.17 FLM 
claims that its situation is comparable because the bankruptcy proceedings against Adelphia and the 
subsequent reassignment of the tower were circumstances beyond FLMs control.18
Discussion. FLM has not explained why the Translator utterly failed to provide its intended 
coverage from its original site.19 Moreover, we are unpersuaded that the cost of the lease at the original 
site was so prohibitively expensive that FLMs discontinuing operation of the Translator was beyond its 
  
8 See License Expiration Notice at 1.
9 See Petition at 4.
10 47 U.S.C.  214(g).
11 Renewal Dismissal at 2.
12 Petition at 3.
13 See id.
14  Id. at 5, n.3. 
15 Id. at 3.
16 Id. at 5.
17 Id. (citing V.I. Stereo Communications, Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14259 (2006)).
18 Petition at 6.
19 FLM states that [g]iven its time constraints, FLM could find only one suitable tower from which to operate the 
translator.  Id. at 2.
3
control.20 Had the cost been exorbitant, - as FLM asserts21 - it is not apparent why FLM would have 
agreed to the lease in the first instance.  
We are likewise unpersuaded that FLMs inability to timely locate a new site was a matter outside 
its control.  Sites other than the Second Tower were available.  Thus, after FLM was unable to reach a 
satisfactory agreement with Time-Warner for the Second Tower, it went door-to-door and was able to 
find an acceptable location elsewhere.22 With diligence, FLM would have begun that door-to-door 
tower search as soon as it knew that it was unlikely that negotiations for the Second Tower would be 
completed in time to return the Translator to service before the license expired, e.g., when it realized it 
was being strung along . . . for several months23 in its efforts to identify the new owner of the Second 
Tower.  
The short answer to FLMs claim that its circumstances are comparable to those encountered by 
WVIS(FM) in Puerto Rico24 is that a hurricane is an act of God and not within a licensees control.  
FLMs choosing an unsuitable and/or uneconomic site initially, and then failing timely to find a 
replacement site, however, were FLMs own acts, well within its control.
FLMs attempt to distinguish the Zacarias Serrato decision25 is unpersuasive.  There, the licensee 
claimed it was unable to locate an affordable transmitter site within twelve months after terminating 
operations at its original site. The Commission declined to reinstate the license, finding that the licensees 
failure to return the station to service within twelve months was essentially due to a business decision on 
the part of the licensee not to find an alternative site promptly.26 Similarly, FLMs deactivating the 
Translator and pursuing the Second Tower to the exclusion of all other available sites was a business 
decision for which FLM, alone, is responsible.  
Decision/Action.  Section 312(g) of the Act and Section 73.1750 of the Rules provide for 
automatic termination of inactive licenses so that scarce broadcast spectrum does not lie fallow and 
unavailable to others capable of instituting and maintaining service to the public.27 In furtherance of that 
objective, and in accord with precedent,28 we decline to exercise our discretion under the Section 312(g) 
  
20 Petition at 2, n.2.
21 Id. at 5, n.3.
22 Id. at 3.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 5.
25 Id. (citing Zacarias Serrato (KHOS-AM), Letter, 20 FCC Rcd 17232 (MB 2005)).
26 20 FCC Rcd at 17232
27  Cf. 1998 Biennial Review - Streamlining of Mass Media Applications, Rules and Processes, Report and Order, 
13 FCC Rcd 23056, 23093 (1998), recon. granted in part, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 17525 
(1999).  (Commission construction deadlines strike a balance between our fundamental interests in expediting new 
service to the public and preventing the warehousing of scarce spectrum . . . .)
28 See Eagle Broadcasting, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 588, 601 (2008) (licensees securing 
local permissions [and] filing the . . . Application with the Commission for a new site did not justify discretionary 
relief under 47 U.S.C. 312(g) when station had remained silent for more than a year).   See also Kirby Young, Letter, 
23 FCC Rcd 35 (MB 2008) (discretionary relief under 47 U.S.C. 312(g) denied when station remained silent for 
more than a year and no natural disasters or other compelling circumstances forced the cessation of the Station's 
operations.);  but see Mark Chapman, Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 6578, 6580 (MB 2007) (relief granted under 47 U.S.C. 
312(g) to accommodate court ruling).
4
equity and fairness provisions to reinstate FLMs license which expired by operation of law due to 
circumstances within FLMs control.29
Accordingly IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Family Life 
Ministries IS DENIED.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Application for Modification of License, 
File No. BPFT-20070720ABM, tendered by Family Life Ministries, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Sincerely,
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau
  
29 Once the FLM license expired, there was no authorization remaining for FLM to modify.  Therefore, we are 
dismissing the modification Application.  See WCYQ Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16900, 
16904 (2003) (by operation of law, there no longer existed any translator station license to modify, and the 
modification application had become null and void).