WPC: 2BJZ Courier3|x?x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4M (PCL) in Room 616HPLA4MPC.PRSx  @\CXX@2 6 ZF f 3|xHP LaserJet 4M (PCL) in Room 616HPLA4MPC.PRSx  @\CXX@",tB^ f ^>FaiiFFFiFFFFiiiiiiiiiiFF]|FRxqFFFiiF]i]i]Fii::i:iiiiNR:iiii]]i]i7iiiiiFiiiiiiiii:]]]]]]]]]]F:F:F:F:iiiiiiiiii]iiiiixi\i\\\ii~\ii\iiiiiiiF:iiiiFitiii;Ki?;iziiiiKKiqPqPqPqiK;iiiiiiii\\\iiiqiii~FiiFFFWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNiiiF]UUiiiiiiJiiiiJFFmmi66iiiii|ttFmiJ"imi<iFFFiitiiFi]ixaY|i]]FFFFtt]R]i]F:]tt]i]xiii]]tFi]FFiiiiiiiFxi]F`..u~zqq `zqqC`C`eP21OB f vCourierCG TimesCG Times BoldCourier BoldCourier ItalicCourier Bold Italic",tB^ f ^>FaiiFFFiFFFFiiiiiiiiiiFFi~Re~tFFFiiFit]t]Jit:Ft:titt]RFtiii]iiii7iiiiiFiiiiiiiit:iiiii]]]]]R:R:R:R:tiiiittttiiuiiii~tiii\\ii\ii\iiiiittP:itiiRtxiit;TiR:uutii\\iuPtRuPtiTGituttuti\]\tittiiiFiiFFFWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNiiiFiYYiiiiiiJiiiiJFFxxi66iiiiittFxiJ"ixi<iFFFiitiiFi]ixeY|iiiFFFFtt]R]]]R:]tt]i]iii]]tRi]FFiiiiiiiFi]F`..u~zqq `zqqC`C`eP"i~'K2^%*:??oa***?o****??????????**}o}8oZOV]OJZ]*1XOq]ZHZSCO]ZvZZQ***??*8?8?8*??##?#a????.1#??Z??88?8}?!?????*?????????#Z8Z8Z8Z8Z8oSV8O8O8O8O8*#*#*#*#]?Z?Z?Z?Z?]?]?]?]?Z?Z8]?Z?Z?Z?]?H?Z7Z?Z7U7U7V?V?]KN7O?O?N7Z?Z?Z?Z?Z?]?]?*#????*?[E??X?N#N-O?P&N#]?I]?]?Z?Z?oZS-S-S?D0D0D0C?N-N#O?]?]?]?]?]?]?vZZ?P7P7P7]?O?]?C?O?Z?K*??***W}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNZZZ???*833??n???oo?,????o,**AA?o }}??LL_}?}?Z?JhhEEo*A?v,"}}}}ZZ}}}?Z}}AZZoo}}}?oo}}}$o?**}}}}}ZL}oZZZZZZZZZZ*}?Z?E?o}Z}S?*?Z8?HZaQ}}ZZZZZZZZZZ}}}}}:}ZZZZ}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}ZZ}}}}}}hSLa}Z}}}5JZZZZ}}}}}}ZZZ?ZZ}ZZ}}}ZZZ8ZZZZ8ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ*ZZZ*ZZZ*ZZZ*ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZLOELES8O1Q8]?Z8*#X8SEqE]8S?Z8ZLH?L??O8Z8SLZEaLLLZO]*?ZZZL8LLLL\**????Z]???ZZZL*H?8*}}q:qXXqFKvvqqqqqqIdUUvvDDqiiiSinnSg]]ZXdnqqqxvvvsb]x]qqqq:]{qIqqqDDqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq}}}}}}}}(:(qqqqqx:qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq}}}}}}}}}}ddqqqqqq{{qqbbbbqqnnnnqqgggbbbb<0Pbqqa8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2N!pckk>  a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2#v!t!j" #a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2& # $ ,% %a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2C*&'j(C)a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2-u*E++S,a1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2/3--.B/a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 26/301e5a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:fx6X@`7X@!;}F>,u} PE37uPD":F>,1u_ pi7u#Z#J*%,wJ PE37wP?xxx,x `7X<R&HHH,D,H6X@`7h@ ?xxx,,Nx6Nhez7XH4 ?xxx,;1xhM7XFUNCTIONSCREENSAVERCONFIGUREDIALOGDLGCHANGEPASSWORDDLGINVALIDPASSWORDDTPASSWORD    2: ?< c [FOR RECORD ONLY] $// MO&O, Fox Television, FOIA 95194, FCC 95216 //$ c   c  $/ 400.05552 Public Information; agency rules, opinions, /$  ?<5c$/ 1.106 Petitions for reconsideration /$5T T T 'Before the J FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 95216  ?<Washington, D.C. 20554 ĐTP `H!(#8  ? <In re Application ofhh@) x` `  hh@)  ? <FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, @)hFile No. BRCT940201KZ  ?H <INC.x` `  hh@) x` `  hh@)  ?<For Renewal of License of@)hFOIA Control No. 95194  ?<Station WNYWTV,hh@)  ?h<New York, New Yorkhh@)  ?< \ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER  ?P< xAdopted: June 5, 1995; Released: June 6, 1995 By the Commission:  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)x I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) A 1. a (1)(a)(i) 1) a)1. The Commission has under its consideration three requests filed by the Metropolitan Conference of NAACP Branches,  ?X<Hilda Rogers, Amnews, Inc., Wilbert A. Tatum, New Jersey State Conference of Branches of the NAACP, Thomas Smith, and Lynn  ?<Johnson ("Metro Council").X5 ?@<ԍ ` ` We use the abbreviated name, Metro Council, consistent  ? <with the abbreviated name used in Fox Television Stations, Inc., FCC 95188, at 3 (May 4, 1995). Metro Council requests (1) the  ?<release under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C.  ?x< 552, et seq., of records circulated to the Commission concerning the application by Fox Television Stations, Inc. ("FTS") to renew its license for Station WNYWTV, New York, New York; (2) the release of these documents to permit judicial review on "the whole record" under the Administrative Procedure  ?`"<Act ("Due Process Request"); and (3) extensions of time for  ?(#<filing a petition for reconsideration of our decision in Fox  ?#<Television Stations, Inc., No. FCC 95188 (released May 4, 1995)  ?$<("Fox Television") and for filing comments on FTS's request for a waiver of 47 U.S.C.  310(b)(4), pending grant of its document"%0*0*0*-"  ?<disclosure requests.x5 ?X<ԍ (1) Letter of May 24, 1995, from Laura Blackburne and David Honig to Andrew Fishel, Managing Director ("FOIA Request"); (2) Letter of May 24, 1995, from Laura Blackburne and David Honig to Chairman Reed Hundt and Commissioners James Quello, Andrew Barrett, Susan Ness, and Rachelle Chong ("Due Process Request"); and (3) Contingent Motion for Extensions of Time or Stays, filed May 24, 1995.  FTS opposes Metro Council's request for  ?<extensions of time.@5 ?` <ԍ Opposition to "Contingent Motion for Extensions of Time or Stays," filed May 31, 1995. Metro Council filed a Reply to FTS's Opposition on June 1, 1995. On June 1, 1995, Metro Council also filed a request that the Commission extend the time for comments on FTS's waiver request to permit review of certain information that Metro Council asks the Commission to request from "the six television networks." Metro Council's June 1, 1995, request is not addressed in this order. For the reasons discussed herein, we deny Metro Council's requests.  ? <x FOIA Request  ?<x2. In its FOIA Request, Metro Council seeks public disclosure of "all records prepared by the Mass Media Bureau and the Office of the General Counsel concerning the [Commission's  ?<decision in Fox Television] which were circulated to the commissioners or their offices." The FOIA Request also states (at p.1) that these materials "presumably consist of an Agenda Item Memorandum as well as other memoranda," and explains further (at p.2) that Metro Council seeks "only those documents reaching the Eighth Floor which contained factual evidence not presently in the record." x3. No documents that were circulated to the Commission regarding disposition of the Fox license renewal proceeding  ?<contained evidence not in the public record of the proceeding.x5 ?x<ԍ Metro Council complains (FOIA Request, at 1 n.1; Due Process Request, at 1 n.1) that although the Commission relied on  ? <the statement of former Commissioner Mimi Dawson (Fox Television, at 13 n.21), the statement was not made available to it. The statement was in fact available to Metro Council, and it subsequently informed the Commission that it had located the statement. All of the evidence submitted and considered in the Commission's decision was placed in the public record prior to the submission of comments on February 27, 1995. Therefore, to the extent that Metro Council seeks documents containing extra record evidence, no such documents exist. However, to the extent that Metro Council's FOIA Request also seeks access to any recommendations circulated to the Commission regarding the disposition of the Fox renewal application, one document exists that is within the scope"P0*0*0*_" of the request. That document, an 83 page draft decision, accompanied by a 13 page cover memorandum describing the staff's recommended decision, is exempt from mandatory disclosure under  ?X<FOIA Exemption 5, 5 U.S.C.  552(b)(5).  x4. Exemption 5 exempts from disclosure intraagency memoranda, draft decisions, and work papers to protect the  ?x<integrity of the deliberative process. See, e.g., NLRB v. Sears,  ?@<Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150 (1975). The document in question, which consists of the staff's recommended disposition of the renewal application and the Petition to Deny the application, fits squarely within the deliberative process privilege of Exemption 5, and therefore need not be disclosed pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.  ? < x Public Interest Considerations  x5. Metro Council also requests that, if the Commission determines that the  records it seeks need not be disclosed under the FOIA, the Commission should nevertheless exercise its discretion to disclose them. In its companion Due Process Request, Metro Council advances a number of arguments in support of its request for discretionary disclosure. We have reviewed these arguments and find no basis to disclose the staff's recommendation as a matter of our discretion. x6. Metro Council first argues that withholding the staff recommendation would violate the Administrative Procedure Act's requirement that judicial review be available "on the whole  ?<record," citing Independent U.S. Tanker Owners Committee v.  ?p<Lewis, 690 F.2d 908, 922 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ("Tanker Owners") and  ?8<U.S. Lines, Inc. v. FMC, 584 F.2d 519 (D.C. Cir. 1978) ("U.S.  ?<Lines"). These cases are inapposite, however. Tanker Owners involved circumstances in which the agency failed to provide an explanation for its decision, and expressly adopted the staff's recommendation as the basis for its decision. The Commission's  ? <decision in Fox Television, in contrast, was fully explained and contained a detailed and extensive analysis of the underlying evidentiary record. Thus, the Commission's own decision provides the full basis for its decision in the matter. Moreover, in  ?@<contrast to U.S. Lines, all of the evidence relied upon by the  ? <Commission in Fox Television is in the public record of the proceeding and was fully available to the commenters in the  ?!<proceeding. The entire record in Fox Television will also be available to a court if judicial review is sought. There is thus no concern in this case that judicial review will not be based upon the entire record. x7. Metro Council also claims (Due Process Request, at 67) that disclosure would serve the public interest because, it alleges, the Commission "is under incredible political pressure in this case," and, hence, "there is an enormous public interest in full disclosure of exactly what it was that the commissioners rejected." As indicated above, however, the Commission based its"h)0*0*0*1" decision in this case exclusively on matters that are in the public record, consistent with its duty to ensure fairness to the participants and with the proper exercise of its quasi ?X<adjudicatory responsibilities.X5 ?<ԍ The deliberative document sought by Metro Council is not  ?x<like the documents involved in Request by Evening Star for  ?@<Inspection of Records, 24 F.C.C.2d 767 (1970), in which documents initially withheld pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  0.457(g), the Commission's regulation implementing FOIA Exemption 7, 5 U.S.C.  552(b)(7), were released after an investigation had ended. We have no doubt, moreover, that many cases exist in which some members of the public have an "enormous interest" in what the staff recommended to the Commission and what the Commission may or may not have rejected. Central to the purposes of the deliberative process privilege incorporated in Exemption 5, however, are protection of the Commission's deliberations in order to preserve openness in discussions between subordinates and superiors, and protection against public confusion that might result from disclosure of reasons and rationales that were not in fact grounds for the  ?( <agency's action. See, e.g., Russell v. Department of the Air  ? <Force, 682 F.2d 1045, 1048 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Disclosure of the document in question would directly implicate these policy considerations underlying Exemption 5, and we perceive no countervailing public interest benefit in this case that would be  ?<achieved by its disclosure.) @5 ?<ԍ The Commission in very rare instances has exercised its discretion to disclose deliberative materials contained in staff recommendations. The instant case, however, is not like our prior  ?8<decision in Fox Television Stations, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 2246 (1995), which involved disclosure of a tenyearold staff recommendation in order to assist in resolving a question in this  ?<case. Nor it is like Bell Communications Research, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 891, 89293 (1992), which involved disclosure of information designed to assist state regulators. Further, we have no basis to believe that there has been any public disclosure of the  ?<actual memorandum in question, as occurred in Reuben B.  ?x<Robertson, III, 25 F.C.C.2d 942, 943 (1970). We further note that any disclosure of information contained in the memoranda at issue has not been authorized by the Commission and would violate the Commission's rules (47 C.F.R.  19.735206). )  ?<x Requests for Extensions of Time x8. Metro Council has also requested that, until the Commission grants its document requests, the Commission should  ?<extend the time for seeking reconsideration of Fox Television (June 5, 1995), as well as extend the June 12, 1995, deadline for public comments on the May 11, 1995, request by FTS for a waiver of 47 U.S.C.  310(b)(4). In the alternative, Metro Council requests "appropriate stays" of the proceedings. Metro Council maintains that without the opportunity to review the evidence"0*0*0*0" relied upon by the Commission, it is "impossible" for Metro Council to make an informed selection of the issues on which to seek reconsideration, and that without access to "key evidence" related to FTS's candor, it cannot comment on the waiver request, which is based on "the presumption that [FTS] can be trusted to continue its purported public service in the future . . . ." x9. In view of our decision herein to deny Metro Council's information requests, Metro Council's request for an extension of  ?<time pending grant of those requests is denied.5 ?` <ԍ Metro Council's unexplained and unsupported request that in the alternative we stay the proceedings is also denied. Moreover, we note that the 30 day time period for filing petitions for reconsideration is a statutory time limitation. 47 U.S.C.   ?` <405(a); 47 C.F.R. 1.106(f); Reuters Ltd. v. FCC, 781 F.2d 946,  ?( <95152 (D.C. Cir. 1986).:@( 5 ?<ԍ This case is not governed by Gardner v. FCC, 530 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1976), in which the court of appeals allowed additional time for filing petitions for reconsideration in "extraordinary circumstances" in which the Commission had violated its own rules by failing to give parties timely notice of its decision. Metro Council does not allege that there was  ?<any failure to afford notice of the Commission's decision in Fox  ?P<Television as provided for in the Commission rules.: Finally, as discussed above, Metro Council has already had the benefit of access to all of the evidence compiled in this proceeding that was relied upon by the Commission, and the document that it seeks does not contain any extrarecord evidence. Metro Council, whose counsel also attended the depositions of all the witnesses in this case, thus has not been denied access to any evidence, and no impediment exists to its full and fair participation in subsequent stages of this proceeding.  ?<x Ordering Clauses  x 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Metro Council's request for release of the Agenda Item Memorandum and draft decision circulated to the Commission concerning the application by FTS to  ?<renew its license for WNYWTV, filed May 24, 1995, IS DENIED. ( 5 ?!<ԍ Metro Council's request for a waiver of any fees for processing its FOIA request is also dismissed as moot because any  ?(#<fees involved are de minimis and will not be charged pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 0.470(f). Judicial review of this action may be sought pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  552(a)(4)(B). x 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Metro Council's Due Process Request, filed May 24, 1995, is DENIED. x 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Metro Council's Contingent"X 0*0*0* " Motion for Extension of Time or Stays, filed May 24, 1995, IS DENIED. x 13. The Officials responsible for this action are the following Commissioners: Reed E. Hundt, Chairman, James H. Quello, Andrew C. Barrett, Rachelle B. Chong, and Susan Ness. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton x` ` hhActing Secretary x