FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 9, Pages 2437 to 2750, April 27 - May 8, 1987 Page: 2,506
This book is part of the collection entitled: Federal Communications Commission Record and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Communications Commission Record
2 FCC Red Vol. 9
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
BY DIRECTION LETTERAdopted: March 17, 1987; Released: April 30, 1987
Bernadine H. Layne
High Point Community Television, Inc.
2600 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive
Atlanta, Georgia 30311
Re: Station WIUW(TV)
High Point, North Carolina
BMPCT-860128KF
Dear Mrs. Layne:
On February 25, 1986, the Chief, Video Services Division,
denied your above
captioned application for an
extension of time within which to construct Station
WIUW(TV), High Point. North Carolina, cancelled your
construction permit, and deleted your call sign. Your
petition for reconsideration of that action was denied on
May 28, 1986. This is with respect to your June 27, 1986.
application for review of those decisions.
The Commission's records show that Consolidated
Broadcasters, Inc. (Consolidated) acquired a 100 percent
interest in the permittee by a transfer of control approved
September 14, 1984, and consummated January 5, 1985.
On January 23, 1985, the staff extended your completion
date to July 28, 1985, on the basis of representations that
construction would commence within 45 days of consummation.
On July 26, 1985, however, you indicated
that the station was still not built, and you requested an
additional five months in which to complete construction.
At that time, you stated that your transmitter site was no
longer available and that you had entered into negotiations
for a new site. You further asserted that equipment
valued at $66,000 was already on hand and that you had
expended $65,000 toward construction of the station and
had obligated the expenditure of another $42,000. Finally,
you pledged to have the station on the air by March 15,
1986. On the basis of these allegations, your application
was granted on October 11, 1985, and your construction
permit was extended to January 28, 1986. On that date
you filed this, your third, application for an extension of
time, in support of which you argued that you had spent
more than $135,000 toward construction of the station
but that you had lost your source of financing. You also
stated that grant of the application would further the
Commission's goal of greater minority ownership of the
media, since Bernadine Layne, a Black, controls all of the
stock. On February 25. 1986, the staff found that you had
not performed according to your promises and that you
were without financial resources to build the station.
Moreover, the staff was unable to find that circumstances
beyond your control had prevented construction. Accordingly,
it denied your application, cancelled your construction
permit, and deleted the call sign. Your petition for
reconsideration of that action followed on April 3, 1986.In support of your petition for reconsideration, you
reiterated the Commission's policy of encouraging the
minority ownership of broadcast properties and urged the
Commission not to "pull the plug" on your implementation
of that policy. At the same time, however, you stated
that, on March 28, 1986, you had entered into an agreement
to assign the construction permit to Piedmont
Telesystems, Ltd. (Piedmont), and you requested an extension
of time in order to file the assignment application
and recoup some of the $135,000 that had already been
spent. On May 28, 1986, the staff denied your petition,
stating that it had long been Commission policy not to
grant an extension application simply to permit an applicant
to seek an assignee in order to recoup outof-pocket
expenses. MG
TV Broadcasting Co. v. F. C. C.,
408 F. 2d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 1968); Continental Summit
Television Corp., 27 F.C.C. 2d 945 (Rev. Bd. 1971). The
staff added that assignment of the construction permit
would displace a member of a minority group from
broadcasting rather than facilitate entry and that you
could not, therefore, argue that grant of the application
would further the Commission's goal of promoting minority
ownership of the media. Finally, the staff found
that, although you had acquired the construction permit
more than 18 months previously, you had still not begun
construction. It therefore concluded that the public interest
would be best served by opening the channel to
further applications. Your application for review followed
on June 27, 1986.
In support of your application for review, you argue
that the staff ignored a May 20, 1986, memorandum in
which you proposed. a reorganization of the permittee
corporation with Mrs. Layne remaining in control.'
Moore Broadcast Industries, Inc. (Moore), which would
obtain a 49 percent interest in the new entity, would assist
in raising additional funds for construction and pledged
to have the station operational within five months. Solicitation
of additional funds is necessary, you state, because
previous sources became unavailable. You further allege
that the staff was arbitrary and capricious in denying your
application and that it failed to carry out the Commission's
concern for minority broadcasters. Specifically, you
argue that the staff reached opposite results with respect
to extensions of time to construct Stations
WHSW(TV)(formerly WKJL-TV). Baltimore, Maryland,
KCKU-TV, Tyler, Texas, and WZGA(TV), Rome, Georgia.
On December 10, 1985, we amended our rules to
establish strict guidelines for the granting of broadcast
applications for extensions of time to construct. Construction
of Broadcast Stations, 102 F.C.C. 2d 1054 (1985).
Your extension application was filed after our new policy
took effect and, when applied here, clearly warrants denial
of your extension. Specifically, before an extension
application can now be granted, a permittee must show
either that the station has been substantially completed or
that reasons clearly beyond its control prevented construction
and that all possible steps have, nevertheless,
been taken to resolve the problem and to proceed with
construction. See 73 C.F.R. Section 73.3534(b). A permittee
can no longer rely on "other matters," such as the
pendency of an assignment application, to support an
extension request. Moreover, an extension would not be
warranted if earlier Commission precedents were considered
in assessing your showing, including the material
contained in your May 20, 1986, memorandum.
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 2, No. 9, Pages 2437 to 2750, April 27 - May 8, 1987, book, May 1987; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1602/m1/75/: accessed May 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.