WPC, 2HBVX@Z3|P (TT)7PC2,CXP\  P6QXP"5@^2BRdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BB!BBPRBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdBdBBBdNdz8zRdddBRoNoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddHP LaserJet IIISiRoom 610HPLAIISI.WRSXP\  P6Q,,, 1|XP2& zR@3|PTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)"5@^2BTdd+BBd2B28ddddddddddBBdzzzzBYozzdozzooN8NTdBddYdY8dd88Y8ddddNN8dYYYNP7Pl2BB!BBPRBddzdzdzdzdzdYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8dddddddddoYzddddoYdzdzdzdzdYYYzYzYzYddddddPdBdBBBdYYo8oRdddzNzRdNdNNF2hdNdddddd7>d<d<BBoodBBddBoBddzzzzzzzzzzBBBBozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd2<@X@ Z 2"5@^(1<d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddHP LaserJet IIISiRoom 610HPLAIISI.WRSXP\  P6Q,,, 1|XP2@nXvp|"5@^2Boddȧ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BB!BBPRBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNBNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldBddddddthe pleadings before us, the parties' exceptions, and the evidentiary record compiled in this  xproceeding, we agree with the Board that CAM has notdemonstrated reasonable assurance for  xits $200,000 bank loan from Adel Banking Company. We therefore affirm its decision with minor modifications.  X -" BACKGROUND ă   {x2. In certifying CAM's financial qualifications, its sole voting stockholder, Lyra Coxwell,  xMrelied on a $200,000 bank letter from Adel Banking Company that she had secured after two  xphone conversations with bank president R.T. Tebeau on May 3, 1988. During the first call,  xCoxwell identified CAM's two investors, attorney Randall Acree and physician Fred McLean,  xorally discussed CAM's proposal (i.e., the proposed tower site, the land, and the buildings, as well  xZas the equipment needs and initial operating expenses), and indicated that she needed reasonable  xassurance of a bank loan to establish CAM's financial qualifications. (CAM Ex. 4). After faxing  xTebeau a copy of a draft bank letter provided by her communications counsel, Coxwell called  X:&- xhim to ascertain whether CAM could rely on the bank for reasonable assurance. Id. According  xzto Coxwell, Tebeau advised that the bank   was willing to grant the $200,000 loan request and"#'0*o(o(qq%"  X- xywould issue the commitment letter that she had requested. Id. The bank then issued the letter.   x3. The Board concluded that CAM had not established reasonable assurance of the bank  xloan. Specifically, it noted inconsistencies between the bank letter, which detailed Coxwell's  xprofessional background and set forth the bank's lending requirements, and testimony that Tebeau  x.was unaware of Coxwell's background and had not discussed the bank's lending requirements  xwith her. On this basis, the Board concluded that the bank letter itself was unreliable. In  xdetermining that the bank had not preliminarily reviewed CAM's qualifications before issuing the  xletter, the Board rejected the contention that, due to its past dealings with Randall Acree and Dr.  xMcLean and its negotiations with Coxwell, the bank had sufficient information to determine that  xjCAM qualified for the $200,000 bank loan. The Board noted that Coxwell had not discussed or  xiprovided any documentation of her personal finances or those of the other stockholders, and that  xithe record did not reflect that the other stockholders were willing to personally guarantee the loan  xor that they would be acceptable to the bank if itwere to depend on them for security. As to  xthe argument that Tebeau had all the information that he wanted to issue the bank letter, the  xBoard held that the bank's practice of requiringdetailed documentation only with the formal loan  xapplication did not explain why Tebeau could not have informally reviewed such material and given a preliminary assessment of CAM's creditworthiness.   x4. The Board also credited Tebeau's testimony that all he meant by the letter was a  xwillingness to pursue the matter if CAM secured the permit, that he had not determined whether  x]CAM's proposal warranted a $200,000 investment, and that he would review information  xregarding the applicant's creditworthiness only after CAM got the permit and filed a formal loan  x-request. In doing so, the Board rejected CAM's claim that Tebeau's memory about the 1988 letter  xwas so impaired by the passage of time as to makereliance on his testimony reversible error.  xIt found that, although he did not recall discussing the purported loan with Coxwell, Tebeau's  xrecollectionwasotherwise unimpaired, and thus there was no basis to conclude that he was an  x=incompetent witness concerning the preparation of the bank letter. Finally, the Board refused  xto accept a posthearing statement from Tebeau concerning the bank's intentions. In doing so,  xit noted that an applicant is not entitled to a postdecisional opportunity to adduce favorable  xevidence, and that consideration of the statement would require an opportunity for crossexamination and disrupt the proceeding.  X- zAPPLICATION FOR REVIEW ă   x5. In its application for review, CAM faults the Board for relying on Tebeau's 1995  xtestimony to reject its facially valid 1988 bank letter. Such reliance, CAM argues, is arbitrary  x0and capricious given the Board's recognition, 11 FCC Rcd at 4636 6, that Tebeau could  xiremembervery little about the circumstances surrounding preparation of the 1988 letter other than  xthat either Randall Acree or Lyra Coxwell asked him to write it. CAM submits, moreover, that  xjTebeau's hearing testimony as a whole corroborates, rather than contradicts, the existence of a"Q%0*&&qq $"  xloan commitment. Specifically, it cites testimony confirming that the letter contains the actual  x[loan terms that would govern the loan, that the bank did not need any further information from  xCAM in order to issue the May 1988 bank letter, and that a final decision on CAM's loan was  ximpossible until it submitteda formal application, which could not occur until CAM received the  xZpermit. According to CAM, this clarifies that when Tebeau testified that the letter expressed only  x"a willingness to pursue the matter," he meant no more than that the loan would be available  xZfuture conditions permitting. CAM argues that this is the essence of reasonable assurance under  X_- xMerrimack Valley Broadcasting, Inc., 82 FCC 2d 166, 167  2 (1980).  Accordingly, CAM  XH- xkmaintains that, as in MultiState Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 590 F.2d 1117 (D.C. Cir. 1978)  X1- xand Las Vegas Valley Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 589 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1978), it was improperly disqualified for lacking what amounts to a legally binding financial commitment.   x6. CAM argues further that the Board erred in not considering Tebeau's postdecisional  xstatement refuting the ALJ's erroneous interpretation of his hearing testimony. According to  xCAM, this rejection is arbitrary, capricious, and unprecedented. It claims, moreover, that the  x-written statement makes clear that, when the bank issued the 1988 letter, it intended to give CAM  xLreasonable assurance of its financial qualifications, that the bank went as far as it could in that  xzletter without making it a legally binding commitment, and that it remains willing to make the  Xb- xloan. Citing Harrison County Broadcasting, 6 FCC Rcd 5819, 5821 (Rev. Bd. 1991), and  XK- xlAnnette B. Godwin, 8 FCC Rcd 4098, 4101  10 (Rev. Bd. 1993), which emphasize that the  x]Commission does notsecondguess a banker's judgment, CAM maintains that Tebeau's  xunambiguous statement reaffirming the bank's commitment to loan the necessary funds to CAM mandates a finding that it is financially qualified.  X-( DISCUSSION ă   x7. We affirm CAM's disqualification on the financial issue. For the reasons stated below  xywe find that the record is devoid of evidence that, before it issued the bank letter, the bank had  xpreliminarily reviewed CAM's individual qualifications, as required. Thus, we conclude that,  x even assuming that adequate collateralization is demonstrated and tentative loan terms are  xxidentified, the bank letter does not establish reasonable assurance of financing under Commission precedent.   x8. As an initial matter, we agree with CAM that Tebeau's testimony has limited probative  xvalue, given his faint recollection of any of the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the  xMay 5, 1988 bank letter. Tebeau testified that, although he recalled being asked by either  xjCoxwell or McLean to draft a bank letter and he recalled signing the letter, he did not remember  xxthe substance of any discussion concerning this matter. (Tr. 13942). Under these circumstances,  xhis testimony provides no evidentiary basis to find what he had intended by that letter or which  xkportions of the letter were copied from a sample letter and which portions were drafted to fit  xCAM's particular situation. Thus, we place no reliance on Tebeau's testimony that, when he  x signed the May 1988 letter, he did not have a present firm intention to lend CAM $200,000,"Q%0*&&qq $"  xfuture conditions permitting, and vacate that portion of the Board's decision, 11 FCC Rcd at 4638  x 17, finding that Tebeau's testimony is inconsistent with the bank letter. Regarding Tebeau's  xpostrecord statement, the Board is correct that CAM, having had ample opportunity to present  X- xevidence on this issue, is not entitled to "parry with the offer of more evidence." Colorado Radio  X- x\Corp. v. FCC, 118 F.2d 24, 26 (D.C. Cir. 1941). Moreover, even if admissible, the postrecord  xjstatement, in which Tebeau acknowledges extreme difficulty in remembering the conversations  x[in question, has no relevance to the financial issue since it purports to clarify testimony that is  xnot entitled to any weight. And to the extent that CAM argues that Tebeau's hearing testimony,  xas a whole, establishes reasonable assurance, that testimony offers no additional insight into the  xbank's intention at the time it issued the letter, beyond what is evident from the language of the  x[letter and from the testimony of Coxwell, who was responsible for arranging CAM's financing.  xiThus, even viewed in its most favorable light, Tebeau's hearing testimony establishes neither that  x.the bank preliminarily reviewed the borrower's qualifications before issuing the bank letter nor that the bank then had a present, firm intention to finance CAM's proposal.   !x9. Having found that Tebeau's testimony is unreliable, we conclude, based on the May  x\1988 bank letter itself and the testimony of CAM principal Lyra Coxwell, that the bank letter  xdoes not establish reasonable assurance. To demonstrate reasonable assurance of a bank loan,  xan applicant must show that the bank has preliminarily reviewed the borrower's individual  x-qualifications (i.e. borrower's assets, credit history, current business plan, and other similar data),  xthat adequate collateral has been demonstrated, and that the letter sets forth tentative loan terms  x(i.e., interest rate, repayment terms, collateral requirements, and other basic terms) that are  X- xmutually acceptable to the lender and the borrower. Liberty Productions, 7 FCC Rcd 7581, 7584  X- xz(1992), citing Scioto Broadcasters, 5 FCC Rcd 5158, 5160 (Rev. Bd. 1990). Preliminary review  xby the bank of the borrower's individual qualifications can be established either by a showing that  xkthe bank has a long and established relationship with the borrower or that the borrower has  xxprovided the bank with appropriate information as to its current business proposal, its assets, and credit history.  Xe-  x10. In contrast to MultiState and Las Vegas, where the banks' intent to make the loan  xwas clear from the bank letter and from corroborating testimony, CAM has not met its burden  xLof showing by probative evidence that, when Tebeau wrote the letter, the bank had a "present  X - xfirm intention to make the loan, future conditions permitting." Merrimack, 82 FCC 2d at 167   X - x2. See also Northampton Media Associates, 4 FCC Rcd 5517, 5519  1516 (1989), aff'd sub  X- xnom. Northampton Media Associates v. FCC, 941 F.2d 1214 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (applicant has the  xburden of establishing reasonable assurance by probative evidence, which necessarily includes  x<something more than the selfserving, uncorroborated testimony of the individual responsible for  xythe certification). Here, the bank letter itself, as well as the testimony of Lyra Coxwell, who was  xresponsible for procuring that letter, reflects that the bank merely issued an invitation for CAM  xyto apply for a loan if and when it receives a construction permit. Whatever the bank's rationale  xfor following this approach, such an invitation doesnot constitute reasonable assurance under  XQ%- xCommission precedent. See e.g. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 2361, 243639  91"Q%0*&&qq $"ԫ X- x94 (Rev. Bd. 1993), modified, 9 FCC Rcd 62 (1993), aff'd sub nom. Rainbow Broadcasting, Inc.  X- xv. FCC, 1995 WL 224866, F.3d (D.C. Cir. 1995) (Table) (bank's aversion to being legally  xbound did not establish reasonable assurance where its willingness to make the requested loan  xwas expressly conditioned on satisfaction of the bank's normal lending requirements, including  xcollateralization and an acceptable comprehensive business plan, when the formal loan application is made).   x11. The May 1988 bank letter does not contain any indication that the bank meaningfully  xLreviewed CAM's individual qualifications. Although Tebeau "anticipate[s] the opportunity to  xarrange financing" for CAM, the bank's willingness to grant the $200,000 loan is expressly  xLconditioned on "[y]our satisfaction of the bank's normal lending practices (ie: collateralization,  X - xkan acceptable comprehensive business plan, and execution of all customary documentation  x?required by the bank) at the time your written loan request is made." (Emphasis added.)  X - xMoreover, unlike the bank letter ultimately deemed sufficient in MultiState, which was expressly  xyconditioned upon the continued participation of several stockholders with whom the bank was  xfavorably acquainted or their replacement by stockholders who were acceptable to the bank,  xnothing on the face of the May 1988 bank letter reflects that the bank had any established  xrelationship or familiarity with CAM Broadcasting or with any of its principals, or that it had  xreviewed data concerning their qualifications. Addressed to Coxwell, the letter from Tebeau  x<reflects that they had discussed "the construction of the FM station and tower," and it alludes to  xCoxwell's "professional abilities and knowledge of the business." (CAM Ex. 4). As to the latter,  xjhowever, CAM does not claim that Coxwell has any broadcast experience, and the reference to  xCoxwell's background is virtually identical to language in a sample bank letter that Coxwell faxed to Tebeau. (Tr. 241; Lawhorne Ex. 10).   x12. The testimony of Coxwell confirms that the bank extended only an invitation to apply  xfor a loan in the future, and that the bank had not preliminarily reviewed CAM's individual  x[qualifications when it issued the $200,000 loan letter. Coxwell testified that she had two phone  xcalls with Tebeau. During the first call, she identified the two other investors, and discussed the  xconcept of reasonable assurance with Tebeau. (Tr. 249, 251). Specifically, she claims to have  xdiscussed CAM's need for "a statement from the bank stating that if and when the construction  xpermit was granted, that he would be willing to discuss with CAM legal financing for building  xthe radio station." (Tr. 249). It is clear from Coxwell's testimony that she was asking for nothing  xkother than assurance that, if CAM prevailed at the Commission, the bank would accord due consideration to a loan application filed by CAM at that time.   x13. It is also clear from Coxwell's testimony that Tebeau lacked sufficient information  X!- x/to preliminarily review CAM's qualifications for a bank loan. In this regard, CAM does not  x<claim to have provided Tebeau with any written documentation other than the sample bank letter.  x\(Tr. 250). Nor does it claim that Coxwell had an existing relationship with the bank. Coxwell  xcandidly testified that she had had no personal dealings with bank (Tr. 25051), and that she had  xnot discussed her personal financial situation or that of her two investors with Tebeau (Tr. 252). "Q%0*&&qq $"  xThere is no evidence, moreover, that the other two stockholders discussed their financial situation with Tebeau, or provided him with any written documentation of their finances.  X-  Ox14. CAM claims that it has met the first test set forth in Scioto, because the bank, by  xzvirtue of its past dealings with nonvoting stockholders Randall Acree and Fred McLean, is  x sufficiently familiar with their financial backgrounds that it would be willing to approve the  x{$200,000 bank loan to CAM. However, the record does not reflect that the bank had any  xsignificant financial information about either investor. Neither the fact that Acree was a bank  xcustomer, nor that McLean had cosigned a loan as an equity owner of the hospital, is sufficient  X1- xto establish that the bank letter constitutes reasonable assurance. Even assuming that the bank  xhad a long and established relationship with Acree and/or McLean and that it would have been  xwilling to rely on either or both of them to guarantee the loan, the bank letter does not reflect  xsuch reliance. Nor is there any evidence that either Acree or McLean had agreed to provide  xysecurity for a $200,000 loan. A lender's relationship with the principal of an applicant, standing  X - xalone, does not necessarily establish reasonable assurance. Coast TV, 10 FCC Rcd 2852, 2858  X - x 30 (Rev. Bd. 1995), review denied, 10 FCC Rcd 10623 (1995), appeal pending sub nom.  X- xMission Broadcasting Corp. v. FCC (D.C. Cir. 951548) (bank letter rejected as mere  xiaccommodation to valued customer, because the bank, despite having an established relationship  xwith the applicant's president and reaffirming its willingness to make the loan, did not know the  xAidentity of the other investors, had not received any information concerning their  xifinancial/professional backgrounds or the proposed station, and had not specified loan terms that  X- xwere acceptable to the borrower); Marlin Broadcasting of Florida, 5 FCC Rcd 5751 (1990), aff'd  X- xLsub nom. 952 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (brief phone conversation with a friend at the bank does not establish reasonable assurance).  X-  ]x15. In support of its claim that the bank letter also meets the second prong of the Scioto  x=test for reasonable assurance, CAM relies on Coxwell's description of the FM proposal during  xher first phone call to Tebeau. Specifically, Coxwell testified that during the first phone call to  xTebeau, she discussed with him the tower, the antenna, the land, the buildings that CAM would  xneed, as well as its operating expenses, but that this discussion was not followed up with any  xwritten documentation. (Tr. 251). Nor did Coxwell send Tebeau any written correspondence  xmemorializing their oral discussion. (Tr. 252). We agree with CAM that it is not fatal that this  X - xyexchange was oral. Harrison County, 6 FCC Rcd at 5821  1214 (reasonable assurance found,  xKwhere the applicant made an oral financial presentation to the banker and the banker testified that  x\the bank had a present, firm intention to finance the application). Nor is it critical in today's  xbusiness world, where much is accomplished by fax machines, that Tebeau and Coxwell never  xmet facetoface. Nevertheless, the Board is correct (11 FCC Rcd at 4638  15) that the record  X!-reflects that Tebeau had only minimal information concerning the proposal.    x16. In addition, CAM asserts that reasonable assurance is demonstrated because the  xrecord reflects that the bank did not regard written documentation as a prerequisite for the bank  xletter. Coxwell testified that, when she called Tebeau back, she asked him whether he needed"Q%0*&&qq $"  x=any written documentation from her at that time. (Tr. 252). According to Coxwell, Tebeau told  xher no, not at that time, that the bank would go forward with any requirements when CAM  X- xreceives the construction permit. Id. This would be premature, he explained, since the  X- xrequirements for a loan might have changed by that time. Id.ĠHer understanding was that,  xalthough she had not provided a detailed business plan, Tebeau was comfortable with her earlier  xoral recitation of the list of what the $200,000 must cover (i.e., tower, land, buildings, equipment, as well as construction and initial operating expenses). (Tr. 25253).   x17. Notwithstanding CAM's contention, the bank's willingness to issue the bank letter  xwithout written documentation of the proposal or other data relating to the applicant's  X - xicreditworthiness does not demonstrate reasonable assurance under Welch Communications, Inc.,  X - x8 FCC Rcd 1285 (1993), aff'd sub nom. on other grounds, Swan Creek Communications, Inc. v.  X - xFCC, 39 F.3d 1217 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The lender in that case was not a bank, but BROADCAP,  x>an entity organized specifically to make loans to minority broadcast applicants. Its lending  xpractices recognized that, as a practical matter, such applicants are unlikely to have the financial  xwherewithal to qualify for a traditional bank loan. To this end, BROADCAP requires a showing  xof broadcast experience, rather than detailed financial information, from its loan applicants. In  x{addition, it undertakes an independent evaluation of the market instead of relying on the  xborrower's business proposal. Because BROADCAP had followed its usual lending practices in  XK- xissuing the loan commitment to the Welch applicant, the loan commitment was deemed to afford  xthe applicant reasonable assurance of funding. There has been no comparable showing, however,  xthat Adel bank has devised unusual lending practices that eschew the traditional financial data  x(i.e., assets, credit history, current business plan, etc.) ordinarily required of loan applicants and  X- xthat it issued the May 1988 bank letter in accordance with those practices. CompareĠLiberty  X- xProductions, 7 FCC Rcd at 7584 (no financial issue warranted where, despite omission of an  xexpress statement that the bank had reviewed the borrower's financial wherewithal, the letter  xindicated the bank was familiar with the borrower and there was nothing to indicate that the bank had departed from its usual practices in issuing the commitment letter).  Xe-  x18. We thus emphasize that Welch is a very narrow exception to the holding of Scioto  XN- xthat, where an applicant relies on a loan commitment letter, it must show, inter alia, that the  xjlender has preliminarily reviewed the borrower's individual qualifications for a loan. Moreover,  xeven assuming that the bank's practice was to defer consideration of such matters until CAM  xreceived the construction permit, this would not warrant a different result under Commission  xprecedent. Our policies are clear that, whatever the bank's practice, the applicant has the burden  xof establishing that a bank letter affords reasonable assurance that the necessary funding will be  xavailable, and that to do so, the applicant must show, at a minimum, that the bank has made a  X!- xmeaningful evaluation of, and is satisfied with, the borrower's individual qualifications. Absent  xprobative evidence that the lender has made such a judgment, however, we have no basis for  xjfinding that the bank letter affords reasonable assurance that, future conditions permitting, the  Xh$- xnecessary funding will be available. See Isis Broadcast Group, 7 FCC Rcd 5125, 5129  17  XQ%- x(Rev. Bd. 1992), review denied, 8 FCC Rcd 7040 (1993) (the issue is whether the applicant had"Q%0*&&qq $"  xreasonable assurance of financing, not the reasonableness of the lender's decision to grant or  x<withhold such assurance, or the likelihood of the applicant ultimately qualifying for the loan once it submits the necessary loan request information).  X-  }x19. In this regard, Harrison County and Annette B. Godwin, cited by CAM for the  xproposition that the Commission does not secondguess the judgment of a bank, are clearly  Xv- x.inapposite. In Harrison County, the applicant had discussed her business plan with the bank,  x-provided the bank with her cost estimates as well as the rough outline used to derive them, orally  xdiscussed her personal financial conditions (including her assets and credit history) with the bank,  X1- x>and told the bank that she had sufficient funds to prosecute her application. In Annette B.  X - xmGodwin, the applicant had provided the bank with the ordinary loan request data and  x=documentation. In the face of probative evidence in both cases that the dialogue between the  x<bank and the applicant was sufficient to permit a meaningful review of the prospective borrower's  x[individual qualifications, there was no basis to secondguess the banks' decisions to issue the  xcommitment letters, particularly in light of the bankers' testimony corroborating that, at the time  xof the bank letters in question, there was a present, firm intent to make the loan. Here, by  x]contrast, it is clear from the testimony of Lyra Coxwell, the CAM principal who allegedly  x<secured the bank letter, that she had not provided the bank with any information that would have  x[enabled it to meaningfully assess CAM's creditworthiness. Moreover, the Board is correct (11  xFCC Rcd 4639  20, 23) that there is no probative evidence indicating on what basis Tebeau,  xbefore issuing the bank letter, could have made a meaningful judgment as to CAM's  xcreditworthiness. In these circumstances, the May 1988 letter signed by bank president Tebeau  xand specifying tentative loan terms does not afford reasonable assurance that, future conditions  x=permitting, the bank will lend CAM the $200,000 that it needs to construct and initially operate  xthe station. CAM has therefore failed to establish that it is financially qualified and its application was properly denied.  X-  ORDERING CLAUSES ă  Xe-  x20. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED That the Supplemental Decision, 11 FCC Rcd  x4635 (Rev. Bd. 1996) IS MODIFIED to the extent reflected herein, that the Application for  x.Review, filed May 17, 1996, by CAM Broadcasting IS GRANTED to the extent reflected herein  X - xand IS DENIED in all other respects, and that the Contingent Application for Review, filed May 20, 1996, by Thomas W. Lawhorne IS DISMISSED as moot. "0*&&qq"   x21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the Partial Motion to Strike, filed June 7, 1996,  X-by Thomas W. Lawhorne IS GRANTED.-H XK-ԍLawhorne objects to references in CAM's Application for Review to the asserted indictment on seven felony counts of Thomas W. Lawhorne, noting that Lawhorne has never been indicted. We will grant the partial motion tostrike. This apparently refers to an arrest  X-warrant issued against Lawhorne in September 1991. By Order, FCC 94M581 (Oct. 18, 1994), the ALJ accepted an amendment reporting that the arrest warrant was subsequently  X-dropped without prejudice. SeeĠalso Thomas W. Lawhorne, 7 FCC Rcd 4341  34 (1992), holding that Lawhorne should have reported this matter to the Commission, pursuant to section 1.65, but that its failure to do so did not warrant the addition of a reporting issue.-  XxX` ` X XFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION(#   XxX` ` X XhhWilliam F. Caton(# XxX` ` X XhhActing Secretary