Opinion ID: 597788
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: p & d

Text: 5 On April 8, 1988, P & D filed an application for a permit to construct an FM radio station in Vinton, Virginia. P & D's application contained a negative response to the financial certification question, which requires applicants to check a box to indicate whether sufficient net liquid assets are on hand or ... sufficient funds are available from committed sources to construct and operate the requested facilities for three months without revenue. Joint Appendix (J.A. (P & D)) at 5. 6 More than two years later, in a Hearing Designation Order (HDO) released on May 10, 1990, P & D's application was designated for a consolidated hearing along with three others. See Carol Sue Spraker, 5 F.C.C.R. 2973 (1990). The HDO noted P & D's negative response to the financial certification question and, accordingly, specified a financial issue against P & D. Id. at 2973. 7 At a prehearing conference held on July 20, 1990, the administrative law judge assigned to the case inquired into the status of P & D's financial qualifications. See J.A. (P & D) at 14-15. P & D's counsel responded that P & D had acquired the necessary sources of financing, and indicated that he would file a motion for summary decision on the financial issue within thirty days. Id. at 15. A colloquy then ensued concerning whether P & D was required to amend the negative financial certification in its application, and whether P & D's submissions on the financial issue would be subject to 47 C.F.R. § 73.3522(b) (1991), which requires a a showing of good cause for late filing for amendments submitted more than thirty days after the issuance of an HDO. See id. at 16-19. At the conclusion of this colloquy, the ALJ admitted that it's hard to tell from the Board cases whether an amendment [to cure a negative financial certification] is necessary or whether it's not necessary. Id. at 19. He nevertheless cautioned P & D's counsel that the safest course for you to follow is to file a motion for summary decision in short order. Id. 8 On September 21, 1990, the ALJ dismissed P & D's application. See Carol Sue Spraker, FCC 90M-2997 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in J.A. (P & D) at 72. The ALJ cited two grounds for his decision. First, the ALJ determined that P & D's failure to cure its financial deficiencies in a timely and diligent manner requires dismissal.... J.A. (P & D) at 73. Relying heavily on Bernstein, the ALJ stated: 9 The Review Board has made clear that any effort to demonstrate financial qualifications after the 30 day period allowed after designation for the filing of amendments as a matter of right, must meet the rigorous good cause test for post-designation amendments set forth in Rule 73.3522(b). It is abundantly clear in light of P & D's utter lack of diligence in establishing its financial qualifications that P & D can not meet the required good cause test for post-designation amendments. 10 Id. (citations omitted). Second, the ALJ found that dismissal was also warranted on the ground that P & D had failed to comply with its discovery obligations. See id. at 73-74. In particular, the ALJ emphasized that P & D disregarded an order directing it to produce documents relevant to the financial qualifications issue by August 17. See id. 11 The ALJ's decision was subsequently affirmed by the Review Board, see Carol Sue Bowen, 6 F.C.C.R. 10 (Rev.Bd.1991), and by the Commission. See Carol Sue Bowman, 6 F.C.C.R. 4723 (Comm'n 1991). Both the Board and the Commission specifically rejected P & D's contention that prior FCC decisions had not provided sufficient notice of the FCC's policy with respect to financial amendments. See 6 F.C.C.R. at 11-12; 6 F.C.C.R. at 4723.