FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 20, Pages 5848 to 6225, September 28 - October 9, 1987 Page: 6,027
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
2 FCC Red Vol. 20
Federal Communications Commission Record
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
MM Docket No. 86-109
In re Applications of
MARK L. File No. BPCT-851120KH
BHC File No. BPCT-860110KG
Richard J. File No. BPCT-860110KK
For Construction Permit
for a New Television Station
Michael R. Miller on behalf of Mark L. Wodlinger; F.
Joseph Brinig and Lawrence Bernstein on behalf of BHC
Associates, Limited Partnership; Steven C. Schaffer, Malcolm
G. Stevenson and Glenn S. Rabin on behalf of Richard
J. Fox d/b/a/ Comanche Enterprises; Norman Goldstein
on behalf of Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Commmunications
INITIAL DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE RICHARD L. SIPPEL
Issued: September 30, 1987;
Released: October 6, 1987
1. These are three mutually exclusive applications for a
new commercial television station to be constructed and
operated on Channel 6 at Billings, Montana. The applicant
parties are Mark L. Wodlinger (Wodlinger), BHC Associates,
Limited Partnership (BHC), and Richard J. Fox
d/b/a Comanche Enterprises (Comanche). These three applications,
and three others which were earlier dismissed, l
have been designated for hearing by Hearing Designation
Order (HDO) MM 3566, released April 4, 1986, and published
at 51Fed. Reg. 22,865 (June 23, 1986).
2. The following issues under the HDO remain to be
determined in this decision: 2
I.To determine, with respect to each of the applicants,
whether there is a reasonable possibility
that the tower height and location proposed by each
would constitute a hazard to air navigation.
II.To determine, with respect to Comanche Enterprises,
whether good cause exists for locating its
main studio outside of the city of license and whether
to do so would be consistent with the public
III.To determine which of the proposals would, on a
comparative basis, best serve the public interest.
IV.To determine, in light of the evidence adduced
pursuant to the foregoing issues, which of the applications
should be granted.
3. After the first prehearing conference of June 3, 1986,
by Order of the Presiding Judge, FCC 86M-1877, released
June 6, 1986, the following financial issue was added
against Comanche: 3
V.To determine whether Comanche is financially
qualified to construct and operate its proposed TV
station in light of its inability to certify to its financial
qualifications and, if not, whether Comanche is
qualified to be a licensee of the Commission.
4. By Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 86M-3665,
released December 19, 1986, the following additional issue
was specified against BHC:
VI.Whether BHC Associates Limited Partnership, by
the date for the exchange of integration statements,
April 25, 1986, was constituted as a limited partnership
under the Uniform Limited Partnership Act of
Montana; whether BHC Associates Limited Partnership
was legally qualified to prosecute its application;
whether BHC Associates Limited Partnership is
entitled to any integration credit; and the effect such
evidence has on the basic qualifications of BHC
Associates Limited Partnership in this proceeding.
5. Two prehearing conferences were held on June 3 and
September 19, 1986, and one posthearing conference was
held on December 16, 1986. Hearing sessions were held
on September 22, 23 and October 28, 1986. The record
was closed on April 30, 1987, except for the receipt of
comparative coverage evidence on May 8, 1987, under
Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 87M-1020, released
May 11, 1987. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on the above issues were filed on April
14, 1987. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law of Mark L. Wodlinger were filed on April 30, 1987. 4
Reply Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were filed
by the three applicants on May 1, 1987.
6. This decision addresses first those issues which are
qualifying and secondly the comparative issues. It is issued
in accordance with the Commission's standards at 47
C.F.R. 1.267(b) (initial decision to include findings of
fact and conclusions of law as well as reasons or basis
therefore). The burden of proof on the issues are with the
respective parties. This is an administrative proceeding
tried under 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act [5
U.S.C.A. 551 et seq.] and the preponderance of the
evidence standard applies. Steadman v. S.E.C., 450 U.S.
91, 101 S. Ct. 999, 1007 (1981). Testimony is cited where
Here’s what’s next.
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 2, No. 20, Pages 5848 to 6225, September 28 - October 9, 1987, book, October 1987; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1591/m1/185/: accessed November 17, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.