*Pages 1--3 from  Microsoft Word - 33905*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  274 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  re  Application  of  )  ) 
 CALVARY  CHAPEL  OF  TWIN  FALLS,  INC.  )  Facility  ID  No.  89823  ) 
 For  Construction  Permit  for  a  New  Noncommercial  )  File  No.  BPFT-  19980204TA  Educational  FM  Translator  Station  in  Nampa,  Idaho  ) 


 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  November  4,  2003  Released:  December  2,  2003 
 By  the  Commission: 
 1.  The  Commission  has  under  consideration  an  application  for  review  filed  on  December  18,  2000,  by  Southern  Idaho  Corporation  of  Seventh-  day  Adventists  (  SIC).  SIC  seeks  review  of  the 
 November  14,  2000,  staff  action  denying  its  petition  for  reconsideration  of  the  grant  of  an  application  by  Calvary  Chapel  of  Twin  Falls,  Inc.  (  CCTF)  to  construct  a  new  noncommercial  educational  (  NCE) 
 FM  translator  station  1  at  Nampa,  Idaho.  CCTF  filed  an  opposition  on  December  29,  2000.  For  the  reasons  set  forth  below,  we  deny  SICs  application  for  review. 


 Background 
 2.  On  February  4,  1998,  CCTF  filed  an  application  for  a  construction  permit  to  build  a  new  NCE  FM  translator  station  at  Nampa,  Idaho.  On  July  13,  1998,  SIC  filed  a  petition  to  deny  the  application, 
 alleging  that  CCTF  had  not  demonstrated  its  financial  qualifications  to  construct  and  operate  the  proposed  facility.  Specifically,  SIC  maintained  that  the  Commission  "must  question  the  validity"  of  CCTF's 
 financial  certification  due  to  the  pendency  of  a  large  number  of  applications  filed  by  CCTF  for  new  translator  stations  and  an  application  for  a  new  full-  service  noncommercial  FM  station.  2  In  response, 
 CCTF  stated  that  it  had  the  funds  necessary  to  construct  each  of  the  stations  for  which  it  had  applied,  noting  that  it  had  already  constructed  over  one  hundred  FM  translator  stations. 


 3.  On  February  15,  2000,  the  staff  denied  SICs  petition  to  deny,  stating  that,  while  the  Commission  has  indicated  that  the  staff  may  question  the  validity  of  a  commercial  full-  service  station 
 applicants  financial  qualifications  if  that  applicant  has  multiple  broadcast  applications  pending,  it  did  not  direct  that  the  staff  do  so  in  all  cases.  The  staff  found  that  SIC  had  failed  to  adduce  any  probative 
 evidence  putting  in  issue  CCTFs  financial  qualifications.  Based  on  SICs  wholly  speculative  allegations  and  CCTFs  proven  track  record  of  station  construction,  the  staff  concluded  that  further  inquiry  into 
 CCTFs  financial  qualifications  was  unwarranted. 
 1  The  stations  call  sign  is  K204DV. 
 2  SIC  cited  George  Edward  Gunter,  104  F.  C.  C.  2d  1363  (Rev.  Bd.  1986). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  274 
 2 
 4.  SIC  petitioned  for  reconsideration,  maintaining  that  the  staff  erred  in  concluding  that  it  was  not  required  to  question  the  validity  of  CCTFs  financial  certification  in  light  of  CCTFs  pending  multiple 
 applications.  In  denying  SICs  petition  for  reconsideration,  the  staff  held  that  the  Commissions  1987  Public  Notice  regarding  financial  certifications  by  broadcast  applicants  accorded  the  staff  the  discretion  -- 
 but  not  the  obligation  --  to  question  whether  an  applicant  with  multiple  pending  applications  is  financially  qualified.  3  In  addition,  the  staff  again  referred  to  CCTFs  long  record  of  timely  constructing  authorized 
 facilities  and  SICs  failure  to  provide  any  documentation  to  support  its  challenge  of  CCTFs  financial  qualifications. 


 5.  In  its  application  for  review,  SIC  maintains  that  the  staffs  interpretation  of  Certification  of  Financial  Qualifications  requirements  is  at  odds  with  rulings  by  administrative  law  judges  and  the 
 Review  Board  in  cases  such  as  Gunter,  supra,  and  Modesto  Broadcast  Group.  4  These  adjudicatory  cases  establish  a  policy,  SIC  argues,  in  favor  of  comprehensive  audits  of  multiple  filers  because  an  applicant 
 with  many  applications  must  be  able  to  demonstrate  that  it  is  financially  qualified  as  to  all  pending  applications.  SIC  concludes  that  the  Commission  should  routinely  audit  the  claimed  financial 
 qualifications  of  any  applicant  with  a  substantial  number  of  simultaneously  pending  applications. 
 6.  Discussion.  SICs  argument  that  Gunter  and  Modesto  Broadcast  Group  are  in  conflict  with  Certification  of  Financial  Qualifications  is  without  merit.  Those  cases,  the  latter  of  which  cites 
 Certification  of  Financial  Qualifications,  do  not  support  the  principle  that  an  examination  of  an  applicants  financial  certification  is  mandatory  when  an  applicant  has  multiple  pending  applications.  We 
 reject  SICs  patent  misreading  of  these  cases.  5  Rather,  they  merely  establish  that  the  staff  may  seek  additional  financial  data  based  on  the  pendency  of  a  large  number  of  broadcast  applications. 


 7.  In  this  case  the  staff  reasonably  concluded  that  a  financial  qualifications  inquiry  was  unwarranted.  Unlike  the  applicants  in  Gunter  and  Modesto,  CCTF  has  a  proven  record  of  timely 
 constructing  a  network  of,  by  its  count,  over  280  authorized  facilities.  6  SIC  has  presented  no  information,  beyond  mere  conjecture,  to  put  at  issue  CCTFs  financial  qualifications.  Based  on  the  foregoing,  we  find 
 that  SIC  has  failed  to  raise  a  substantial  or  material  question  of  fact  to  warrant  an  examination  of  CCTFs  financial  certification,  and  we  affirm  the  staffs  conclusion  that  the  grant  of  CCTFs  application  is 
 consistent  with  the  public  interest,  convenience,  and  necessity. 


 3  Public  Notice,  Certification  of  Financial  Qualifications  by  Applicants  for  Broadcast  Station  Construction  Permits, 
 2  FCC  Rcd  2122,  2123  (1987)  (  Certification  of  Financial  Qualifications)  (  in  cases  where  an  applicant  has  a  large  number  of  pending  broadcast  applications,  the  staff  may  question  the  validity  of  the  applicants  financial 


 qualifications)  (emphasis  supplied).  4 
 5  FCC  Rcd  4674  (1990).  5 
 In  March,  2001,  the  Commission  modified  Form  349,  Application  for  Authority  to  Construct  or  Make  Changes  in  an  FM  Translator  or  FM  Booster  Station  and,  inter  alia,  deleted  the  financial  certification. 


 6  See  page  3,  Opposition  to  Application  for  Review.  Compare  Modesto,  supra,  5  FCC  Rcd  at  4675,  in  which  the 
 Review  Board  observed  that  the  presiding  judge,  in  specifying  a  financial  issue,  [  knew]  nothing  about  the  applicant  or  her  financial  condition. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  274 
 3 
 8.  ACCORDINGLY,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  That  the  Southern  Idaho  Corporation  of  Seventh-  day  Adventists  application  for  review  IS  HEREBY  DENIED. 
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Marlene  H.  Dortch  Secretary 
3