Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
August 6, 2008
 DA 08-1851
In Reply Refer to:
1800B3-MJW
Released: August 6, 2008
CSN International
c/o Lauren A. Colby, Esq.
10 E. Fourth Street
P.O. Box 113
Frederick, MD  21705-0113
In re: CSN International
KOGR(FM), Rosedale, California
Facility ID No. 93176
BPED-19990407MD
Request for Additional Time to Construct 
Petition for Reconsideration
Dear Counsel: 
We have before us a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) filed January 10, 2007, by CSN 
International (CSN), former permittee of the captioned station.  CSN seeks reconsideration of the 
December 19, 2006, letter1 (Division Letter) denying CSNs request for additional time to construct its 
authorized facilities.2 For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Petition.
Background. The Commission granted CSN a construction permit (the Construction Permit) 
for KOGR(FM) on October 29, 2003.  By its terms, the Construction Permit expired on October 29, 2006, 
if CSN failed to construct the station.3 CSN, however, did not start construction until October 24, 2006.  
When it began to install its antenna that day on the American Tower Corporation (ATC) tower 
specified in the Construction Permit, CSN learned that the United States Forest Service (USFS) 
prohibited installation of broadcast antennas at that location.4 The following day, CSN filed a request 
with the Commission to toll the Construction Permit expiration date. 
The Division Letter denied CSNs tolling request.  It held that Section 73.3598(b) of the 
Commissions Rules (Rules)5 provides for tolling of construction permit deadlines only in specific 
circumstances beyond a permittees control that delay construction, including litigation over government 
  
1 Letter to Lauren Colby, Esq., Dec. 19, 2006.
2 See Division Letter at 1.
3 See 47 C.F.R.  73.3598(a),(e).  (Construction permits are forfeited automatically, without further Commission 
action, if the permittee fails to construct its authorized facilities and file a license application before the permit 
expires.) 
4 The ATC tower is on Plowshare Peak in the Los Padres National Forest which is under USFS jurisdiction.
5 47 C.F.R.  73.3598(b) (Section 73.3598(b)).
2
requirements for construction.6 It pointed out that there was no such litigation pending, and that CSNs 
circumstances did not qualify as a tolling event under any other provision of the Rule.7
The Division Letter also found that a waiver of Section 73.3598(b) was unwarranted because 
CSN was not diligent in ascertaining the restrictions on construction at its site, having discovered the 
restrictions only three days before its FCC construction permit was about to expire,8 and that [i]t was 
incumbent upon CSN to determine the USFSs requirements and to allow sufficient time to obtain any 
necessary permits and approvals.9 The Division Letter also noted that the restrictions on installation of 
broadcast antennas in the Los Padres National Forest were contained in a draft USFS Forest Management 
Plan (the Management Plan).10  
CSN makes three arguments in its Petition.  Its principal argument is that its construction deadline 
should have been tolled, or Section 73.3598(b) waived, because the USFS allegedly did not follow the 
Administrative Procedure Act when it adopted the Management Plan.11 Second, CSN argues that it relied 
on ATC as an agent of the Forest Service to determine whether the USFS permitted broadcast antennas 
on the ATC tower.12 Third, CSN submits that the Commission waives Section 73.3598(b) in rare and 
exceptional circumstances.  It encountered those circumstances, CSN argues, because (a) it was 
confronted at the very last moment with an unexpected surprise which it could not have possibly 
anticipated,13 i.e., the USFS restriction on broadcast antennas, and (b) it cannot relocate to a site where 
such antennas are permitted.14
Discussion. The Commission will consider a petition for reconsideration only when the petitioner 
shows either a material error in the Commission's original order, or raises additional facts, not known or 
existing at the time of petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters.15 CSN has not met those 
threshold requirements in its Petition. 
First, CSN elected to use a site in a National Forest.  It therefore knew, or should have known, 
that the site was under USFS jurisdiction.  A diligent applicant would have contacted the USFS before it 
filed its application - and remained in contact with the USFS thereafter - to determine any restrictions on 
CSNs proposed site.16 Thus, CSNs ignorance of the site restriction was not caused by a lack of APA 
notice from the USFS to CSN.  Instead, it was due to CSN remaining - as it candidly concedes -
  
6 Division Letter at 1.
7 Id. at 2.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 The USFS issued the draft Management Plan more than a year before CSNs construction permit expired.  Id.
11 CSN claims it had no notice, actual or constructive, of the [Management Plan], which, CSN claims, was posted 
only on a website, was not published in the Federal Register and to this day [] has never been adopted as a final 
rule.  It submits, therefore, that the revised plan cannot bind CSN, because the USFS promulgated it without the 
notice and comment required by the APA.  See Petition at 4
12 Id. at 5.
13 Id. at 6.
14 Id. 
15 See 47 C.F.R  1.106.  See also WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), aff'd sum 
nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 967 (1966).
16 Applicants and permittees are required to ensure that their sites remain available.  See Marlene V. Borman , Letter, 
23 FCC Rcd 4786, 4788-4789 (2008) (citing 1998 Regulatory Review - Streamlining of Mass Media Applications, 
Rules, and Processes, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 17525, 17540 (1999) (Streamlining 
MO&O); Arizona Number One Radio, Decision, 103 FCC 2d 551, 555 (Rev. Bd. 1986)). 
3
blissfully unaware that there was any problem17 with its site until its construction period had nearly 
expired.18
Second, CSNs purported but improbable reliance on ATC as an agent of the Forest Service 
does not justify a waiver.  It is well established that applicants and permittees are responsible for ensuring 
that their sites are suitable, initially, and that they remain so during the term of a construction permit.  
They may delegate, but not abdicate, that responsibility to third parties.19 Thus, it was CSN - not ATC -
that had the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that CSNs broadcast antenna could be installed on the 
ATC tower.
 Third, CSN has not established that its surprise at learning broadcast antennas were not permitted 
on the ATC tower justifies a waiver under the rare and exceptional circumstances exception discussed 
in the Commissions Streamlining proceeding.20 The threshold requirement for a rare and exceptional 
circumstances waiver is that failure to timely construct facilities is due to reasons beyond [a 
permittees] control. . . .21 Here, however, CSNs failure to inform itself - and remain informed - about 
USFS restrictions on its site was a matter entirely within its control.22
 Decision/Action.  CSN has not shown a material error or omission in the Division Letter.  
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by CSN International IS 
DENIED.
Sincerely,
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau
  
17 Petition at 4.
18 With diligence, CSN could have identified the restriction on broadcast antennas well before its permit expired and 
challenged the USFS restriction on APA or other grounds. 
19 See KM Radio of St. Johns, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, 19 FCC Rcd 5847 
(2004) (actions of engineering contractor); Belo Broadcasting Corp., Decision, 68 FCC 2d 1479, 1486 (1978) aff'd 
sub nom. Wadeco, Inc. v. FCC, 628 F.2d 122 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (purported reliance on former counsel).
20 Streamlining MO&O, 14 FCC Rcd at 17541.
21 Id.
22 CSNs argument that a waiver is warranted because it lacks an alternative site is undercut by the fact it did not 
timely exhaust its remedies at the ATC site.  For example, CSN - had it exercised diligence - could timely have 
initiated litigation against the USFS, Petition at 3, or timely have sought a special use permit pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 
251.54.  Id. at 5.  It did neither.