$//Trinity Broadcasting of Fla Miami Fl MM 93-75 FCC 94-124//$
$/1.106 Petition for Reconsideration/$
                                                  FCC 94-124

                                Before the
                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                          Washington, D. C. 20554

In re Applications of                 )  MM DOCKET NO. 93-75
                                      )
TRINITY BROADCASTING OF FLORIDA, INC. )  File No. BRCT-911001LY
                                      )
For Renewal of License of             )
Station WHFT(TV)                      )
Miami, Florida                        )
                                      )
               and                    )
                                      )
GLENDALE BROADCASTING COMPANY         )  File No. BPCT-911227KE
                                      )
For Construction Permit               )
Miami, Florida                        )


                       MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
                 
     Adopted: May 27, 1994            ;  Released:

By the Commission:  Commissioners Ness and Chong not
participating.
        


     1.  Before the Commission is a May 7, 1993 Petition for
Reconsideration of Hearing Designation Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2475
(1993)
(HDO), filed jointly by the Spanish American League Against
Discrimination (SALAD) and the League of United Latin American
Citizens (LULAC).  We are dismissing the Petition for the reasons
set forth below.  

     2. Section 1.106(a)(1) of the Commission's rules provides
that
petitions for reconsideration of hearing designation orders will
be
considered "if, and insofar as, the petition relates to
petitioner's participation in the proceeding."  It further
provides
that "[p]etitions for reconsideration of other interlocutory
actions will not be entertained."   47 C.F.R.  1.106(a)(1). 
Neither SALAD nor LULAC argues that their participation in this
proceeding was affected by the HDO, and they have not
demonstrated
any reason that the Commission should depart from that provision
of
the rule otherwise precluding reconsideration.  They argue that
the
aspect of the HDO they challenge is a "final" order subject to
reconsideration, not an "interlocutory" order. We reject this
argument.

     3.  In the HDO, we determined that a hearing on the renewal
application of Trinity Broadcasting of Florida, Inc.'s (Trinity)
station WHFT(TV) is necessary to consider issues of unauthorized
de
facto control and abuse of Commission processes.  At the same
time,
pursuant to Grayson Enterprises, Inc, 79 FCC 2d 936 (1980), we
considered whether to call for early renewals or institute
revocation proceedings against Trinity's other licensed stations.

We concluded that, on the evidence before us, we could not
determine that the charges leading to designation of the WHFT
license renewal application are so fundamental as to affect
Trinity's qualifications to hold any station license.  Therefore,
we declined to take action against Trinity's other licenses and
expressly stated that they are freely transferable pending the
outcome of the WHFT proceeding.  HDO, 8 FCC Rcd at 2482  45. 
SALAD and LULAC contend that this conclusion constitutes a
"final"
decision because they are now "conclusively barred from raising
the
issues designated in [the WHFT] proceeding" in any subsequent
petition to deny transfer, assignment or renewal of other Trinity
station licenses.  SALAD and LULAC err.  Assuming they both can
establish standing, they are not precluded from opposing future
Trinity applications, and action vis-a-vis such applications is
"final" only when public notice of the action appears.  See 47
C.F.R.  1.103.  

     4.  RKO General, Inc., 1 FCC Rcd 1081 (1986), cited by SALAD
and LULAC for the proposition that they are precluded from
raising
the designated issues in petitions to deny future Trinity
applications, should not be so broadly read.  At issue there was
an
assignment application for RKO's station WOR-TV, Secaucus, New
Jersey.  The proceeding was unique in its circumstances because
RKO, enmeshed in numerous charges of misconduct at various
facilities, had just been granted a five-year renewal for WOR
pursuant to action taken under a new section of the
Communications
Act, 47 U.S.C.  331, enacted to encourage licensees to move to
the
state of New Jersey, which had no VHF outlet.  Based on several
factors, we concluded that Congress "intended to give a 'clean
slate' to any qualifying licensee that volunteered to move." 1
FCC
Rcd at 1083  14.  Therefore, we did not consider petitions to
deny
the assignment to the extent that they relied on alleged RKO
misconduct prior to grant of the WOR license.  Id.  However, we
did consider petitions to deny to the extent that they relied on
allegations of RKO misconduct occurring subsequent to grant of
the
WOR license and concluded that "a determination to permit [the]
sale [was] amply supported ... as [a matter] of what will now
best
serve the public interest."  Id. at 1084-1085.  Similarly, we
would
grant future Trinity applications only after fully considering
allegations raised in any petition to deny and making a reasoned
determination that, despite those allegations, the public
interest
favors a grant. 
 
     5.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the Motion to Dismiss
filed by the Mass Media Bureau on May 17, 1993 IS GRANTED and the
Petition for Reconsideration of Hearing Designation Order, 8 FCC
Rcd 2475 (1993), filed May 7, 1993 by the Spanish American League
Against Discrimination and the League of United Latin American
Citizens IS DISMISSED.

                             FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


                                     
                             William F. Caton
                             Acting Secretary