Opinion ID: 668533
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: JEM's Application

Text: 8 JEM filed its application for the Bella Vista, Arkansas station on July 14, 1988. After initially accepting JEM's application for filing, the staff of the Mass Media Bureau discovered that the coordinates provided for JEM's proposed transmitter site, 36? 13' 10, were inconsistent with the site marked on JEM's map, which, the staff determined, was 36? 15' 10. The Bureau was unable to resolve the inconsistency from the face of JEM's application, and concluded that the discrepancy made it impossible to determine the veracity of the site availability certification, the environmental impact statement, or the information supplied for FAA approval. In re Gayla Joy Hendren, 5 FCC Rcd 5440, 5440 p 5 (M.M.B.1990). In accordance with the hard look rules, the Bureau dismissed JEM's application as having been inadvertently accepted for filing. Id. 9 JEM petitioned for reconsideration, acknowledging that it had provided incorrect coordinates, but contending that other information in its application allowed the staff to determine the correct site. The Commission denied the petition, finding that the engineering exhibits and FAA approval to which JEM referred did not resolve the discrepancy because the wrong coordinates might have been used to generate those exhibits and to obtain FAA approval. See In re JEM Broadcasting Company, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 4324, 4325-26 pp 8-10 (1992). The FCC further explained that it would only look to information outside an application to resolve a conflict in coordinates when an applicant intended to use an existing licensed tower; in such cases, the Commission could take official notice of the information in its records to verify the coordinates for the tower and thus resolve the inconsistency. See id. at 4326 p 14. 10 JEM petitioned for reconsideration, briefly raising the three arguments advanced in this petition for review. The Commission again denied reconsideration, finding all of JEM's arguments to be without merit. With respect to the promulgation of the hard look rules, the Commission observed both that it had provided adequate notice that the scope of the rulemaking contemplated possible changes to the cut-off rule for amendments to applications, and that the limit on curative amendments was a procedural rule exempt from the APA's notice and comment requirements. In re JEM Broadcasting Company, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 77, 77 p 3 (1992). Next, the FCC ruled that Section 309 of the Communications Act does not prevent the Commission from adopting measures to provide for orderly processing, nor does it require the Commission to hold a hearing on an application which does not comply with the Commission's rules. Id. at 77 p 4. Finally, the agency concluded that its dismissal of JEM's application complied with all due process requirements and did not amoun[t] to a governmental taking of its valuable property. Id. (citations omitted).