Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
June 19, 2007
  DA 07-2679  
 In Reply Refer to:
 1800B3-BSH       
   Released: June 19, 2007
Dianne Johnston, Communications Director
Montmorenci United Methodist Church
P.O. Box 610
Candler, NC  28715-0610
Rick Anderson, President
Mount Pisgah Adventist Educational Media
75 Academy Drive
Candler, NC  28715 
In Re: Montmorenci United Methodist Church
Candler, North Carolina
Facility ID No. 133487
File No. BNPL-20010614ACY
Mount Pisgah Adventist Educational 
Media
Candler, North Carolina
Facility ID No. 135779
File No. BNPL-20010615BDV
Applications for New LPFM Stations
Petition for Reconsideration
Dear Ms. Johnston and Mr. Anderson:
This letter refers to the above-noted applications of Montmorenci United Methodist Church
(MUMC) and Mount Pisgah Adventist Educational Media (Mount Pisgah) for a new Low Power FM 
(LPFM) station in Candler, North Carolina.  By letter dated April 19, 2005,1 the Audio Division, Media 
Bureau granted MUMCs application and dismissed Mount Pisgahs application (Letter Decision).  On 
May 23, 2005, Mount Pisgah filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition).2 For the reasons set forth 
below, we deny the Petition.
Background. MUMC and Mount Pisgah filed mutually exclusive applications for a construction 
permit to build a new LPFM station in Candler, North Carolina.  
MUMC Application Issues.  On April 12, 2004, Mount Pisgah filed a Petition to Deny the 
MUMC application, first alleging that MUMC is not an incorporated, not-for-profit local entity as 
  
1 Letter to Donald E. Martin, Esq. Henry A. Solomon, Esq., and Vernon G. Snyder, Ref. 1800B3-SS (MB Apr. 19, 
2005). 
2 MUMC filed an Opposition on June 7, 2005, and Mount Pisgah filed a Reply on June 17, 2005.
2
required by Section 73.853(a)(1) of the Commissions Rules (the Rules).3 Mount Pisgah further alleged 
that, through its relationship to the broader United Methodist Church, MUMC has prohibited attributable 
interests in at least one LPFM station, as well as in other full-service broadcast stations.  The Letter 
Decision initially found that MUMC had demonstrated that it was a bona fide unincorporated association 
recognized by North Carolina law and engaged in activities in the Candler community at the time that it 
filed its original application.4 In rejecting Mount Pisgahs claim to the contrary, the Letter Decision 
stated that [T]here is no requirement in the Commissions LPFM rules requiring applicants for LPFM 
facilities to be incorporated . . . .5  
Concerning Mount Pisgahs prohibited attributable interests claim against MUMC, the Letter 
Decision next found that MUMC has demonstrated that it has a local purpose that can be distinguished 
from the purpose of the national organization with which it is affiliated.6  Additionally, the Letter 
Decision stated that the program statement submitted with MUMC application7 also serves to 
distinguish MUMC from other individual UMC applicants, and individual UMC licensees that operate 
various broadcast stations throughout the country.8  Accordingly, the Letter Decision found that MUMC 
held no attributable media interests and therefore complied with the LPFM cross and multiple-ownership 
restrictions.  The Letter Decision concluded that Mount Pisgah had raised no substantial and material 
question of fact calling for further inquiry regarding MUMCs application.9  
Mount Pisgah Application Issues. On May 7, 2004, WTL Communications, Inc. filed an 
Informal Objection to the Mt. Pisgah application, alleging, inter alia, that Mount Pisgah failed to 
demonstrate that it was a non-profit legal entity, as it failed to provide its articles of incorporation or 
indicate the status of its incorporation on the application filing date.  The Letter Decision agreed and 
found that Mount Pisgah was not incorporated on June 15, 2001, when it filed the captioned application,
claiming to be a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of North Carolina.10  Thus, the staff 
found that Mount Pisgah had incorrectly claimed corporate status at the time of filing.  Moreover, unlike 
MUMC, Mount Pisgah had not provided any other official documentation showing the applicants 
existence as a legal entity at the time the application was filed.11 Accordingly, the Letter Decision 
dismissed Mount Pisgahs application as inadvertently accepted for filing.
 
  
3 47 C.F.R.  73.853(a)(1).
4 Letter Decision at 3.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 4, citing Instructions for FCC Form 318, pp. 5-6.
7 MUMC Application, Exhibit 2,
8 Letter Decision at 4-5.
9 Id. at 4.
10 Id. at 6. Review of the North Carolina Secretary of State database of corporations revealed that Mount Pisgah was 
not incorporated until July 3, 2001.
11 Id.
3
Discussion.  The Commission will consider a petition for reconsideration when the petitioner 
shows either a material error in the Commissions original order, or raises additional facts, not known or 
existing at the time of the petitioners last opportunity to present such matters.12  The Petition repeats 
arguments previously made, but has failed to show a material error or omission in the grant of MUMCs 
application.  
MUMC Application.  On reconsideration, Mount Pisgah again contends that MUMCs application 
should not be granted because MUMC holds attributable interests in other broadcast stations.13  
Specifically, Mount Pisgah reargues that MUMC is not sufficiently autonomous from the national United 
Methodist Church to escape the attribution of ownership interests in broadcast stations held by other 
entities within the denomination.  Mount Pisgah acknowledges that under the Rules a local chapter of a 
national or other large organization shall not have the attributable interests of the national organization 
attributed to it provided that the local chapter is separately incorporated and has a distinct local presence 
and mission.14 It contends, however, that MUMC cannot avail itself of this exemption because MUMC 
is not incorporated.   
We disagree.  As stated in the Letter Decision, there is no requirement in the Commissions 
LPFM Rules that applicants be incorporated.  Eligible applicants must be non-profit educational 
organizations,15 but may include NCE institutions, non-stock corporations, associations, state and local 
governments, or other entities recognized under state law.  It therefore follows that a local entity applying 
for an LPFM license that is affiliated with an unincorporated national organization16 need not be 
incorporated to qualify for the exception.  The rule is designed to limit the attribution of the parents 
media interests in situations in which the applicant has both a distinct legal status and a local presence and 
mission.  In this regard, MUMC has met its burden.  As stated in the Letter Decision, [A]lthough
MUMC is not incorporated, it has clearly demonstrated that it is lawful, locally organized, and 
independent of the national UMC.17  
Mount Pisgah argues in the alternative that if the exemption is not limited to incorporated 
applicants, attribution is required because MUMC is not truly independent of the national organization.18  
We find Mount Pisgahs argument unpersuasive.  In its Opposition, MUMC attests that it has shown 
independence from the United Methodist Church during its close to 150-year ministry to congregants in 
  
12 47 C.F.R.  1.106.  See also WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 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).
13 See 47 C.F.R.  73.855, 73.860.
14 47 C.F.R.  73.858(b).
15 47 C.F.R.  73.853(a)(1).
16 A staff call to the information service number provided at the United Methodist Church website confirms that the 
United Methodist Church is not incorporated.  See http://www.umc.org (accessed Apr. 26, 2007).
17 Letter Decision at 4.
18 Petition at 4.
4
Candler, N.C.19 Moreover, we agree with the Letter Decisions finding that [T]he information 
contained in the program statement,20 coupled with the fact that MUMC has been physically
headquartered in the city of Candler, North Carolina, since its establishment in 1857 persuades us that 
MUMC can be considered to have a local purpose distinguishable from any national UMC entity.21 On 
reconsideration, Mount Pisgah argues for the first time that The Book of Discipline of the United 
Methodist Church, the book of law of the United Methodist Church,22 supports its contention that 
MUMC lacks independence from the United Methodist Church.  We will not consider this untimely 
raised issue because Mount Pisgah has failed to demonstrate that it could not have raised this argument at 
an earlier stage of this proceeding or that consideration of this flyspecking argument is required in the 
public interest.23   
Mount Pisgah Application.  Concerning the dismissal of its application, Mount Pisgah argues that
the staff action is unsustainable because Mount Pisgah completed its incorporation process less than three 
weeks after application filing, on July 3, 2001.24  Mount Pisgah further argues that, should the 
Commission fail to recognize Mount Pisgahs corporate status . . . Mount Pisgah is entitled to 
recognition as an eligible unincorporated association for the period of time between its FCC filing date 
and the date on which the corporation came into existence.25  We disagree.  As an initial matter, Mount 
Pisgah was unincorporated when it filed its application on June 15, 2001.  It is simply not the case, as 
Mount Pisgah erroneously claimed in its initial application filing, that it was at the time of application 
filing a non-stock, not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina in 
2001.26  
Moreover, we note that Mount Pisgah fails to provide any documentation in support of its new 
alternative theory that it was an eligible unincorporated association at the time that it filed the application.  
This theory is based solely on Mount Pisgahs claim that by associating together for the purpose of 
obtaining and operating new a LPFM station (sic), the principals of Mount Pisgah performed enough 
conduct to indicate a unity of purpose that would qualify it to be a cognizable legal entity under North 
Carolina law.27  In support of this theory Mount Pisgah states that North Carolina law recognizes and 
permits unincorporated associations, and submits portions of three state statutes.  The first cited statute 
  
19 Opposition at 2.
20 See notes 7 and 8 supra and accompanying text.
21 Letter Decision at 5.
22 Petition at 4.
23 See 47 C.F.R.  1.106(c); see also Southeast Arkansas Radio, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 61 FCC 2d 
72 (1976) (reconsideration denied where evidence could have been discovered with due diligence). 
24 Petition at 6.
25 Id. at 10.
26 Mount Pisgah Application, Exhibit response to Section II, Question 2(a).
27 Petition at 10.
5
states that unincorporated associations may hereafter sue or be sued under the name by which they are 
commonly known or called, or under which they are doing business, to the same extent as any other legal 
entity established by law. . . .28 The second state statute is cited to demonstrate that unincorporated 
entities can be non-profit in nature,29 and the third statute is cited to show that such entities are authorized 
to hold real estate in their own names.30 Notwithstanding the state recognition of unincorporated 
associations, Mount Pisgah posits that there is no statutory guidance for the requisites to become a 
recognizable unincorporated association.31 However, Mount Pisgah contends, a decision from the North 
Carolina Court of Appeals indicates that the requirements are minimal.
 
The only case cited as support by Mount Pisgah involves a dispute between two factions of the 
Cherokee Home Demonstration Club (Club).32  Club members had erected a clubhouse on property
owned by the club.  The decision states that the clubhouse was used for approximately fifteen years for 
Club activities and fellowship dinners. Two factions of the Club had a falling out and litigation ensued.  
The decision notes that the Club had no rules, regulations, bylaws, or membership cards of its own.  
Instead, the decision states, the Club followed the guidelines of the North Carolina Extension 
Homemakers Association, Inc., a state organization administered through the offices of North Carolina 
County Agents.  Mount Pisgahs only argument that this case supports Mount Pisgahs existence as an 
unincorporated association is that the Club did not have its own bylaws.  We find the case to be 
inapposite, and that citation to a Club which engaged in activities for fifteen years does not support Mount 
Pisgahs assertion of being an unincorporated entity at the time of filing its application, merely because 
the Club did not have its own bylaws.  
Mount Pisgahs argument that unincorporated, non-profit organizations are recognized under 
North Carolina law does not demonstrate that Mount Pisgahs modest pre-filing activity qualified it to be 
such an organization at the time of the filing of its application.  Furthermore, Mount Pisgah has offered no 
evidence to indicate that it was considered by itself or others to be an unicorporated association at the 
time of its filing.  In sum, Mount Pisgah has not provided a sufficient legal basis to demonstrate that it 
qualifies under North Carolina law as a recognizable unincorporated association.  Accordingly, we must 
reject Mount Pisgahs conclusory assertion that it is eligible to hold an LPFM authorization as an 
unincorporated association.  The Petition neither establishes material error nor raises additional facts after 
its last opportunity to present such matters, and will therefore be denied.33
  
28 North Carolina General Statutes,  1-69.1.
29 Id.,  55-1-40(9)a.3.
30 Id.,  39-24.
31 Petition at 10.
32 Cherokee Home Demonstration Club v. Oxendine, 100 N.C. App. 622, 397 S.E.2d 643 (1990).
33 See National Association of Broadcasters, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 24414, 24415 (2003). 
6
Conclusion/Actions. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that Mount Pisgah Adventist Educational 
Medias May 23, 2005, Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED.
 
Sincerely,
Peter H. Doyle 
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau
cc:  Donald E. Martin, Esq.
Henry A. Solomon, Esq.