WPCL" 2BVTZ3|P)?xxxX/Xx6X@DQX@HP LaserJet 4Si/4Si MX919M RM 344HPLA4SMX.WRSx  @,,R!xX@ X-#XP\  P6QXP##XP\  P6QXP##XP\  P6QXP#2(@X1Courier New (TT)Times New Roman (TT)"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd?xxxX/Xx6X@DQX@7PC2XXP\  P6QXP X-#XP\  P6QXP##XP\  P6QXP##XP\  P6QXP#3|P2 Z@%@e R HP LaserJet 4Si/4Si MX919M RM 344HPLA4SMX.WRSC\  P6Q,,R!xP"5@^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSS"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)2 #)@L@@ X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#XP\  P6QXP##XP\  P6QXP##XP\  P6QXP#"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddd<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd"5@^(1<@@Ry.C8*XC\  P6QP7PC2XXP\  P6QXP.7UC2XXU4  pQX5PC2X3_XP*f9 xQXXW!0(X_h0\  P6QhPI(!XO,(\  P6Q,P{,C8*X3ֳC*f9 xQX"5@^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006!!!!()!22H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H2H2H2H282H2H,H,C,C,C,=,=,=,H2H2HH2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2==)H2H2H2YHC!C)8'8'N#-2!,22222KK2LL2K!!,,2d!!22bd!,d!t!77778c<&-  .on September 19, 1995; and (3) engaged in post hoc rationalization in holding that the relevant   time period for evaluation of Wong's extension of construction permit application was the most   =recent authorized construction period and as a result erroneously denied Wong's extension of"(,))ZZ&"   permit application. Accordingly, Wong requests that the Commission reinstate the KPTO(AM) construction permit and approve Wong's previously dismissed modification application.   j3. Wong has no basis for reconsideration. To the extent that Wong merely repeats arguments   concerning the importance of minority ownership as it related both to his extension of permit   -application and his proposal to assign KPTO(AM) to de la Rosa and concerning the merits of his   construction permit extension request, his petition for reconsideration is repetitious and subject   yto summary dismissal. Sections 1.106(b)(2) and 1.115(g) of the Commission's rules provide that   =the Commission will entertain a petition for reconsideration of an order denying an application for review only if the petition relies on newly discovered facts or changed circumstances.   4. The only changed circumstance Wong presents is the filing of a September 19, 1995   assignment application. The Bureau initially cancelled Wong's construction permit for   KPTO(AM) and dismissed an application to assign the permit to de la Rosa on May 29, 1992.   The Bureau subsequently denied Wong's petition for reconsideration of the cancellation of the   permit and Wong filed the September 19, 1995 assignment application following the Bureau's   jdenial of his petition for reconsideration. Although the Commission was not aware that Wong   .had filed the 1995 assignment application when Wong's application for review was denied, we  Xb-  noted in the Memorandum Opinion and Order that because the new agreement by and between   <Wong and de la Rosa occurred after cancellation of the KPTO(AM) construction permit and after   !dismissal of the initiallyfiled assignment application had become final, the initiallyfiled  X-assignment application was not subject to review. See 11 FCC Rcd at 11,93031.   5. Likewise, the existence of the September 19, 1995 assignment application does not provide  X-  La basis for reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Commission will not   accept for filing an application for authorization to assign a cancelled construction permit. In   this regard, we note that Wong was on notice that the Commission does not entertain applications   for authorization to assign cancelled construction permits when the Bureau in 1992 cancelled the   .KPTO(AM) construction permit and dismissed Wong's thenpending assignment application.   Indeed, the Commission's records reflect that the September 19, 1995 application was submitted,   ybut not accepted for filing. Because we otherwise conclude here that Wong has not presented   a basis for reinstating his construction permit, the September 19, 1995 assignment application is not a circumstance warranting reconsideration.  X-  .6. In addition, Wong claims that the Commission engaged in post hoc rationalization when, in   acting on Wong's application for review, it considered only the most recent construction period   Kin analyzing his extension of permit application, while the staff previously had considered actions   that occurred after the expiration of Wong's construction permit. Wong's claim is without merit.   [In holding that only the most recent construction period could be considered, the Commission   applied established policy concerning the evaluation of construction permit extension applications.  Xp$-  See, e.g., Mansfield Christian School, 10 FCC Rcd 12,589 (1995). The Commission has the   authority, whether in the context of an application for review, or on its own motion, to ensure   that an action taken pursuant to delegated authority is consistent with established Commission  X-'-  policy and precedent. 47 U.S.C.  155(c); 47 C.F.R.  1.115(b); see also Edmund Dinis, 11 FCC"-',-(-(ZZ%"   Rcd 11,074, 11,077 (1996)(In reviewing action pursuant to delegated authority, Commission   excludes postauthorization construction efforts considered by the staff). It is well settled   Commission policy that only those activities undertaken during the most recent construction   ]period are relevant to the Commission's evaluation of an extension of permit application.  X-  .Rainbow Broadcasting Company, 11 FCC Rcd 11671168 (1995)(subsequent history omitted);  X-  kPanavideo Broadcasting, Inc., 6 FCC Rcd 5259 (1991); see also Miami MDS Co. v. FCC, 14   F.3d 658, 660 (D.C. Cir. 1994)(upholding Commission's refusal to credit postauthorization   construction). The Commission appropriately considered only the most recent construction period  XL-and therefore did not engage in post hoc rationalization.$L# yO -  ԍ Moreover, we note that the Commission nevertheless considered Wong's postauthorization activities to   determine whether any equities existed in favor of waiving the Commission's stated policy regarding consideration  {OU -  of postauthorization. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 11,93536. The Commission concluded  {O -that no such equities existed. Id.     7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That the petition for reconsideration filed by Kin Shaw Wong on October 25, 1996 is DENIED. ` `  hh,VFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,VWilliam F. Caton ` `  hh,VActing Secretary