FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 18, Pages 14770 to 15765, November 26 - December 13, 2012 Page: 14,841
ix, 14770-15765 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
On March 17, 2011, Tango filed the KKUL Petition and on March 18, 2011, Tango filed another
amendment with additional measurements and photos, purporting to provide the information initially
requested by staff. Tango seeks reinstatement and grant of the KKUL License Application.
Discussion. In all three Petitions, Tango claims reconsideration is appropriate because staff may
have been unaware of Tango's requests for additional time to submit the required information by the end
of February 2011. Because Tango did not receive a response to its extension request, it presumed the
request had been granted, which would have allowed Tango until the end of February to submit the
requested measurements and photographs. Tango claims now it was working to get the Commission the
requested information by March 2011, when "unexpectedly, without warning" the Commission dismissed
all three license applications on February 24, 2011.
Tango also seeks reconsideration because it was in contact with staff. Tango claims the Commission
incorrectly dismissed the three license applications for failure to prosecute because Tango had been in
regular contact with staff and had filed numerous amendments, evidencing responsiveness to staff's
requests and its intent to prosecute the license applications.
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 changed circumstances or unknown
additional facts not known or existing at the time of petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters.8
As discussed below, Tango has not met this test.
In all three Petitions, Tango appears to be relying on its request for an extension of time as
evidence of either new circumstances or error by the Commission. Tango first presumed the extension
had been granted and now presumes staff may not have been aware of the extension request. However, it
was Tango's error to rely on its own presumptions. Section 1.46 of the Commission's rules clearly states
it is our policy that extensions of time may not be routinely granted.9 Because none of the extensions
were granted, Tango was required to comply with the January 30, 2011 deadline.'o
Moreover, Tango argues since it had been in constant contact with the Commission, it was clear
Tango intended to prosecute the applications. This argument ignores the fact the staff provided Tango
numerous opportunities to provide the requested information over the course of almost one year. At some
point, staff had to resolve the pending applications and could not indefinitely wait for Tango's compliance
with the Special Operating Conditions on the KANM, KNOS, and KKUL CPs. Ultimately, to resolve the
pending applications, staff gave Tango a final opportunity to file all the required information for all three
license applications by January 30, 2011. Tango provides no adequate explanation for its failure to
comply with the numerous requests and opportunities to submit the requested information by the
specified deadline.
S See 47 C.F.R. 1.106; WIZ,! Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), af'd sub nom.
Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 967 (1966), and National
Association of Broadcasters, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Red 24414, 24415 (2003). It is also
appropriate to consider new facts not previously presented when such consideration is required in the public interest.
See 47 C.F.R. 1.106(c)(2).
9 See 47 C.F.R. 1.46; Royce International Broadcasting Co., 23 FCC Rcd 9010 (2008).
'0 Tango requested an extension until "no later than during the last week of February" to file the KANM, KNOS,
and KKUL License Applications. Thus, even if Tango's presumption was correct, it still failed to comply with its
own proposed filing deadline.14841
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 18, Pages 14770 to 15765, November 26 - December 13, 2012, book, December 2012; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc171133/m1/87/: accessed March 29, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.