FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 1, Pages 1 to 409, January 5 - January 16, 1987 Page: 73
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Communications Commission Record
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In re Applications of
File No. BALH-861124HL
Pro Forma Application for Authority
to Assign License for FM Station WWDB
to MediaComm III, Limited Partnership
File No. BALH-861001GX
Application for Authority to
Assign License for FM Station WWDB
to Panache Broadcasting Corp.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: December 23, 1986
ReleasedJanuary 8, 1987
1. The Commission has before it: (i) Application for
authority to assign the license for WWDB-FM, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, from NEWSystems of Pennsylvania,
Inc. ("NEWSystems"), to Panache Broadcasting Corp.
("Panache") filed October 1, 1986;' (ii) Petitions to Deny
this assignment application filed November 6, 1986 by
Samuel L. Evans ("Evans"), November 12, 1986 by Concerned
Communicators ("CC") and November 14, 1986
on behalf of Leonard Stevens ("Stevens"); (iii) Oppositions
to Petitions to Deny filed November 19, 1986 on
behalf of NEWSystems and Panache; and (iv) Consolidated
Reply to Oppositions filed December 4, 1986 on
behalf of Stevens.
2. On April 4, 1985, the Commission designated for
hearing the renewal applications for co-owned WWDBFM
and WHAT(AM), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with
the mutually exclusive applications for construction permits
filed by Main Line Communications ("Main Line")
and American Minority Communications, Inc.
("American Minority"). See Memorandum Opinion and
Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, MM Docket No.
85-65, FCC 85-122 (released April 4, 1985). In addition to
the standard comparative issues, the Commission designated
issues concerning WHAT(AM)'s compliance with
the anti-lottery rules and the effect of any such violation
on the licensee's basic qualifications. Id. The Commission
refused to designate EEO issues against the licensees but
indicated that it would reexamine this decision once
complaints pending before the Pennsylvania Human Relations
Commission ("PHRC") and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against the licensees
of WHAT(AM) and WWDB-FM had been resolved. Id.
3. On October 9, 1985, NEWSystems and the parties to
the comparative renewal proceeding filed a Settlement
Agreement which provided for: (i) renewal of the WHAT
and WWDB licenses; (ii) dismissal of the mutually exclusive
applications filed by Main Line and American Minority;
(iii) assignment of WHAT to Main Line; (iv)
assignment of WWDB to NEWSystems; and (v) dismissal
of the EEO claims before the PHRC and EEOC. The
Commission approved this Agreement on March 31,
1986, conditioned upon the subsequent approval of the
assignment applications for WHAT and WWDB by the
Mass Media Bureau. See Banks Broadcasting Co., 60 RR
2d 1450 (1986). These assignment applications were approved
on May 1, 1986.
4. Also on May 1, 1986, a petition for reconsideration
of the Commission's approval of the Settlement Agreement
was filed by Stevens and five other minority shareholders
of the former licensees of WHAT and WWDB.
This petition was denied on July 25, 1986, because the
petitioners were found to lack standing, their participation
was deemed untimely and the issues raised in their
petition involved private contractual matters outside the
Commission's jurisdiction. See Banks Broadcasting Co., 60
RR 2d 1454 (1986).
5. Meanwhile. on June 6, 1986, Stevens and the five
minority shareholders referred to in paragraph 4, supra,
filed a petition for reconsideration of the May 1, 1986,
grant of the assignment application for WWDB. This
petition was dismissed on September 16, 1986 pursuant to
the petitioners' voluntary request.
I. THE PLEADINGS
6. The petitions to deny filed by Evans, CC and Stevens
(hereinafter collectively referred to as "petitioners," unless
specifically referred to by name) in essence charge
that NEWSystems misrepresented its intentions with regard
to WWDB at the time it proposed purchasing the
station and that the subject assignment application, which
was filed two months after consummation of the
assignment of WWDB to NEWSystems, is evidence of this
fact. In addition: (i) Evans argues that objections to the
previous sale of WWDB were withdrawn because
NEWSystems was a minority company and that
NEWSystems failed to give adequate notice of its intention
to sell WWDB thereby giving the minority community
an opportunity to participate in such a sale; and (ii)
Stevens asserts that the proposed sale violates the exceptions
to the Commission's repeal of its anti-trafficking
7. The Opposition to Petition to Deny filed by
NEWSystems argues that the petitioners' pleadings suffer
from various procedural deficiencies such as insufficient
supporting affidavits, improper service and lack of standing.
NEWSystems also argues that: (i) it made no commitments
beyond those included in the Settlement
Agreement and no commitment concerning the length of
time it would retain ownership of WWDB and therefore
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
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. 1, Pages 1 to 409, January 5 - January 16, 1987, book, January 1987; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1597/m1/80/: accessed April 26, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.