WPC# 2HBAX Z#|x)TT)Courier New (TT)Courier New (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (TT)XPPS - PSt 4/4MOM 228 LPT1XPPSPS.WRSSx  @G"j@zC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddP LaserJet 4/4MOM 228 LPT1HPLAS4.WRSSXj\  P6G;,,G"kXP2 z+#|xCourier New (TT)Courier New (Bold) (TT).WRSSx  @,,G"k@2E^!X@@ Courier New (TT)Courier New (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Roman?xxxX.7Xx6X@DQX@6?xxxXsXx `NQX7PC2X+ XP\  P6QXP.7UC2XAXU4  pQXCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 315(b).   For the reasons which  X-follow, we will deny Complainant's Application for Review.   X|- xk   2. Complainant maintains that the effect of the Bureau's Order is the creation of a statute  x=of limitations for Section 315(b) complaints, contrary to the intent of Congress and contrary to  xythe intent of the Commission. In this regard, Complainant observes that neither the statute nor  X7- xzthe Commission's Lowest Unit Charge Requirements, 6 FCC Rcd 7511 (1991), recon. denied,  X - xL7 FCC Rcd 4123 (1992) ("Declaratory Ruling"), specifies a time by which a LUC complaint must  xbe filed. Given the foregoing, Complainant contends that the Commission should use a local  xjstatute of limitations applicable to similar claims, such as breach of contract, in determining the  x/timeliness of a LUC complaint. In any event, Complainant insists that any limitation period  xshould be tolled since the licensee never allowed Complainant to view records of charges to  xcommercial advertisers in order to determine whether he was, in fact, charged the lowest unit rate. ""0*''99!"Ԍ x ԙ 3. Complainant also notes that the station was put on notice of a possible LUC claim as  xKearly as the spring of 1991, and, for that reason, believes the former licensee should have retained  xrecords of the charges made to commercial advertisers. Complainant contends that, if the  x.licensee destroyed records after being put on notice of a possible claim, it would subject itself  X-to civil charges of fraud.   x. 4. Complainant also submits that, in view of the amount of time which elapsed between the  X_- x=filing of the complaint and the Bureau's Order, it was unfair of the Bureau to find his complaint  xuntimely. Complainant further maintains that dismissal of his complaint means that he has no  X1- xremedy. Complainant concludes that the effect of the Bureau's Order is that the Commission has  xchosen not to preempt with respect to his complaint, thereby allowing him to seek relief in court  X -contrary to the purpose of the Declaratory Ruling.  x 5. In opposition, Shamrock submits that the Commission is not obligated to employ a local  xistatute of limitations because the application of such a statute would not comport with the federal  xpolicies underlying Section 315(b) of the Communications Act. In this regard, Shamrock points  xto the two year retention period for political records. In addition, Shamrock disputes that any  xlimitation period should be tolled. Shamrock denies that it has committed any fraud upon  xComplainant and notes that it was under no obligation to provide Complainant with documents  xcontaining highly sensitive competitive and proprietary information regarding its advertising rates.  x-Finally, Shamrock contends that it no longer has complete records concerning this complaint and  xkthat, in any event, whether it still possesses certain records relating to commercial time sold  xjduring the periods preceding the 1990 elections is irrelevant to whether the complaint is timely.  X- Discussion  X- x 6. Complainant does not dispute the core facts upon which the Order relies. Specifically,  x.prior to the instant complaint, which was filed on February 4, 1993, Complainant contacted the  xstation once by letter dated March 28, 1991, regarding possible overcharges during the 1990  xprimary and general elections. Thereafter, Shamrock conducted a review of its records,  xdetermined that its own policies concerning political rates had been violated, and rebated to  x\Complainant the sum of $450. Six months after sending the rebate check, Shamrock and the  x>current licensee of the station submitted an application to assign the station's license. The  xCommission gave public notice of the grant of the application on December 18, 1991. The  xparties consummated the assignment on January 29, 1992. During the pendency of the  xassignment application and prior to its consummation, Complainant neither lodged an objection  xto the proposed assignment nor communicated in any way with Shamrock. Further, once the  x.assignment was consummated, Complainant never alerted the new licensee that records in the  xstation's political file should be retained beyond the time required by the Commission's Rules or  x[that commercial records relating to Shamrock's activities should be retained. Thus, by the time  xComplainant filed the instant complaint, Shamrock was no longer the licensee of the station and"h$0*%%99(#"  xKhad not been so for a year; it no longer possessed any records concerning political or commercial  xtime sold in 1990, except for those records summarizing the results of the review it undertook  X- xin response to Complainant's March 28, 1991, letter.bs OK<Ѝ#C\  P6QpP##C\  P6QpP# #X\  P6G;pP##C\  P6QpP#See #C\  P6QpP#Answer, filed March 4, 1993, by Shamrock at n. 4, pp. 67.#x6X@`7.7X@#b Given these circumstances, the Bureau's  X-Order concluded that the complaint was untimely and should be dismissed.  X- x 7. We find no basis to set aside the Bureau's ruling. In the Declaratory Ruling, we did not  xKestablish a hard and fast rule, but advised complainants that their LUC complaints should be filed  X_- xkin a timely manner. Declaratory Ruling, 6 FCC Rcd at 7521 n. 46. In assessing timeliness we  xfocus on whether the benefits of entertaining the complaint and allowing discovery are likely to  xadvance the public interest and allow the Commission "to remedy violations before a pattern of  X - xabuse develops." Id., quoting National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting v. FCC, 567 F.2d  X - x=1095, 1116, cert. denied, 436 U.S. 926 (1978). Thus, under our current policy, our determination  X -as to whether a LUC complaint is timely will depend upon the facts of each case.  X - xy 8. We conclude that the public interest will not be advanced by further consideration of the  X - xinstant complaint. We find no equities favoring the Complainant in this case. Complainant had  xample time in which to submit a complaint prior to the station's sale or otherwise notify  xShamrock that its LUC practices or the adequacy of its LUC rebate would be challenged, thereby  xallowing Shamrock to retain necessary records and maintain contact with appropriate personnel.  xLBy failing to follow either course, Complainant has no basis for faulting either Shamrock or the  X4- xBureau's disposition of the complaint.4hs OM< xЍ#X\  P6G;pP##C\  P6QpP# The instant case is distinguishable from Zell Miller, Roy Barnes, Johnny Isakson and Andrew Young,  yO%- xx10 FCC Rcd 7303 (MMB 1995). In Miller the Bureau found timely a complaint lodged against a station that had  yO- x+ become silent. Although the complainants in Miller waited approximately one year from the time they first contacted  xJthe station to the time they filed their complaint, the station had notice that its sales practices were in question and  xZthe complaint was filed before the station went off the air. Here, although the former licensee had notice of the  xoriginal complaint, the Complainant's failure to raise this matter again prior to the station's transfer, justified the licensee's belief that the matter had already been satisfactorily resolved.  By waiting to initiate action until long after the sale of  X-Shamrock's station, Complainant has forfeited his opportunity to conduct discovery.  X-  X- x 9. Finally, we reject Complainant's argument that we should measure the timeliness of a  X- xcomplaint by judging it against any state statute of limitations. In deciding to exercise exclusive  x jurisdiction over all questions arising under Section 315(b) of the Communications Act, we  X- xsought to ensure uniform enforcement of the statute. Because the claims at issue stem  xexclusively from provisions of federal law, we believe that their enforcement should be governed by a single federal policy rather than by a multiplicity of state laws. "e0*%%99"  X-  ORDERING CLAUSE  X-  X- x 10. ACCORDINGLY, in light of the foregoing, Complainant's Application for Review is hereby DENIED. x` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  William F. Caton x` `  Acting Secretary  ? <#x6X@`7.7X@#