WPC 2 BPZ Courier 10cpi#|xx6X@8;X@HP LaserJet IIISiHPLASIII.PRSx  @HCtX@27< ZsCourier 10cpiCourier 10cpi (Bold)CG Times (Scalable)HP LaserJet IIISiHPLASIII.PRSx  @8;HCt@#|x2XgF`?xxx,wx6X@8;X@?xxx,x `B;XV"G($,#hG P7hP"Sh5^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx+"  xh<any reason that the Commission should depart from that provision of  xh<the rule otherwise precluding reconsideration. They argue that the  ?< x<aspect of the HDO they challenge is a "final" order subject to  ?X< x<reconsideration, not an "interlocutory" order. We reject this  C <argument.{$ ( Cx< x<ԍ Trinity and the MMB argue that LULAC does not have standing  ?D< x<to petition for reconsideration of the HDO. Since in any event we  xh<are dismissing the Petition pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  1.106(a)(1), we  ?<need not address that argument here. {  ?<  <x3. In the HDO, we determined that a hearing on the renewal  x<application of Trinity Broadcasting of Florida, Inc.'s (Trinity)  ?D< xh<station WHFT(TV) is necessary to consider issues of unauthorized de  ? < xh<facto control and abuse of Commission processes. At the same time,  ?< x<pursuant to Grayson Enterprises, Inc, 79 FCC 2d 936 (1980), we  x0<considered whether to call for early renewals or institute  Cd < x<revocation proceedings against Trinity's other licensed stations. d ( C< x<ԍ Grayson required that, when the Commission designates a  x<license application of a multiple owner for hearing, it  x<simultaneously decide the transferability of his other stations,  x<but any limit on transferability could be expressed either by  x<including a statement in the designation order, attaching a  xh<condition on the renewal of the multiple owner's other stations, or  ?\< x<designating the other stations for early hearing. Grayson, supra,  x <79 FCC 2d 940 at n. 8. Subsequently the Commission modified  ?< x<Grayson to eliminate the option of conditioning other station  x<license renewals on the outcome of the hearing, so that the  x<Commission now either designates the licensee's other station  x <licenses for early renewal or permits them to be transferred  ? < xP<freely. Modification of Grayson Enterprises Policy on  ?<Transferability, 53 RR 2d 126 (1983).   x0<We concluded that, on the evidence before us, we could not  x<determine that the charges leading to designation of the WHFT  x<license renewal application are so fundamental as to affect  xx<Trinity's qualifications to hold any station license. Therefore,  x<we declined to take action against Trinity's other licenses and  x<expressly stated that they are freely transferable pending the  C< x<outcome of the WHFT proceeding.p( C < x<<ԍ We made the same determination regarding stations licensed  x<both to Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), an affiliate of  x<Trinity, and to National Minority TV, Inc. (NMTV), to whom the  ?<#< x0<charges specified in the HDO also related. However, since  xh<Petitioners challenge only our determination as to Trinity, we will limit our discussion to Trinity.  HDO, 8 FCC Rcd at 2482  45.  x<SALAD and LULAC contend that this conclusion constitutes a "final"  xh<decision because they are now "conclusively barred from raising the  x<issues designated in [the WHFT] proceeding" in any subsequent"<0*((@@"  xx<petition to deny transfer, assignment or renewal of other Trinity  x<station licenses. SALAD and LULAC err. Assuming they both can  x<establish standing, they are not precluded from opposing future  x<Trinity applications, and action visavis such applications is  ? < x<"final" only when public notice of the action appears. See 47  C<C.F.R.  1.103.\( C@< x<ԍ In light of this ruling, we need not consider now SALAD and  ? < x0<LULAC's further arguments that the portion of the HDO they challenge is a departure from established Commission policy.   ?|<   <x4. RKO General, Inc., 1 FCC Rcd 1081 (1986), cited by SALAD  x<and LULAC for the proposition that they are precluded from raising  x<the designated issues in petitions to deny future Trinity  xh<applications, should not be so broadly read. At issue there was an  x<assignment application for RKO's station WORTV, Secaucus, New  x<Jersey. The proceeding was unique in its circumstances because  x0<RKO, enmeshed in numerous charges of misconduct at various  x<facilities, had just been granted a fiveyear renewal for WOR  x<pursuant to action taken under a new section of the Communications  xh<Act, 47 U.S.C.  331, enacted to encourage licensees to move to the  x<state of New Jersey, which had no VHF outlet. Based on several  x<factors, we concluded that Congress "intended to give a 'clean  x<slate' to any qualifying licensee that volunteered to move." 1 FCC  xh<Rcd at 1083  14. Therefore, we did not consider petitions to deny  x <the assignment to the extent that they relied on alleged RKO  C4< x<misconduct prior to grant of the WOR license. Id.4( C< x<<ԍ See also Straus Communications, Inc., 2 FCC Rcd 7469, 7470  x < 78 (1987) (upholding Bureau decision to grant assignment  xh<application despite character issues designated against assignor in  xh<another proceeding when Bureau had considered allegations raised in  x<informal objection to assignment and balanced public interest factors involved in light of allegations raised therein).  However, we did  x <consider petitions to deny to the extent that they relied on  x<allegations of RKO misconduct occurring subsequent to grant of the  x<WOR license and concluded that "a determination to permit [the]  x<sale [was] amply supported ... as [a matter] of what will now best  ? < xh<serve the public interest."  Id. at 10841085. Similarly, we would  x<grant future Trinity applications only after fully considering  x<allegations raised in any petition to deny and making a reasoned  x<determination that, despite those allegations, the public interest  C@<favors a grant.@h ( C8#< x<ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(2) (requiring that an application be  xx<designated for hearing when a petition to deny raises substantial  ?$< x<and material questions of fact). In this regard, we note that the  ?%< xh<Grayson policy by its own terms does not foreclose consideration of  xh<petitions to deny applications to renew, assign, or transfer simply  x@<because they are based on allegations pending in another"$'0*((("  ?< xh<proceeding. Cf. Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc., 8 FCC  x<Rcd 4038 n. 1 (1993) (indicating in response to allegations raised  x<in a petition to deny renewal application of Trinity's WHSG(TV)  xh<that, though issues raised would not be specified or adjudicated in  xh<the WHSG proceeding because they are already under consideration in  x<this Miami proceeding, any grant of the WHSG application "shall be  x<subject to whatever action the Commission deems appropriate in  x <light of the final resolution of issues ... specified in the  ?<Hearing Designation Order in the Miami proceeding").   ?<  u "@` 0*((@@L"Ԍ ?<   ?<  0<x5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the Motion to Dismiss  xx<filed by the Mass Media Bureau on May 17, 1993 IS GRANTED and the  ?X< x<Petition for Reconsideration of Hearing Designation Order, 8 FCC  xx<Rcd 2475 (1993), filed May 7, 1993 by the Spanish American League  x<Against Discrimination and the League of United Latin American Citizens IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary