WPC/ 2BJ3 Courier3|P  (TT)x6X@KX@Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)MX@26 ZF93|o HP LaserJet 4/4MtScript RM 332)HPLAS4.WRSSC\  P6Q,,"rPPTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Romanan Bold Italic X4 I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xj\  P6G; DXP#2n]EBibliogrphy6wDBibliography%=(&V3>*&W-83E Tech Init6wDInitialize Technical Style3>*&W-83E 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1Technical+&W-8Technical Document Style8%=(&V3>*&4!     a2Technical+&W-8Technical Document Style8%=(&V3>*&*    2Xqa3Technical+&W-8Technical Document Style8%=(&V3>*&'     a4Technical+&W-8Technical Document Style8%=(&V3>*&&     a5Technical+&W-8Technical Document Style8%=(&V3>*&&   . a6Technical+&W-8Technical Document Style8%=(&V3>*&&  . 2 (  2 * a7Technical+&W-8Technical Document Style8%=(&V3>*& &  . a8Technical+&W-8Technical Document Style8%=(&V3>*& &  . Doc Init36wDInitialize Document Style3>*&W-83E     I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲa1DocumentE+&W-8Document Style8%=(&V3>#*& F *  ׃  2   q> e a2DocumentE+&W-8Document Style8%=(&V3>#*& *    a3DocumentE+&W-8Document Style8%=(&V3>#*&0     a4DocumentE+&W-8Document Style8%=(&V3>#*& . a5DocumentE+&W-8Document Style8%=(&V3>#*&   2eF p p[a6DocumentE+&W-8Document Style8%=(&V3>#*& !" a7DocumentE+&W-8Document Style8%=(&V3>#*&#$` ` ` a8DocumentE+&W-8Document Style8%=(&V3>#*&%&` ` ` Pleading3$6wDHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper*&W-83E'(   ,#X\  PG;P##\  PG;P# X  y*dddyy*dddy H\1 H\2 H\3 H\4 H\5 H\6 H\7 H\8 H\9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   2ep}s`Heading 2(6wDUnderlined Heading Flush Left(*&W-83E)* Heading 1)6wDCentered Heading(&V3>)*&W-83E+,* Ã  Bullet List6wDIndented Bullet ListV3>**&W-83E-.` ` ` a1Right Par+&W-8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&V3>L*&8/0@   2$ca2Right Par+&W-8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&V3>L*&A12@` `  ` ` ` a3Right Par+&W-8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&V3>L*&J34` ` @  ` `  a4Right Par+&W-8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&V3>L*&S56` `  @  a5Right Par+&W-8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&V3>L*&\78` `  @hh# hhh 2 Pa6Right Par+&W-8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&V3>L*&e9:` `  hh#@( hh# a7Right Par+&W-8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&V3>L*&n;<` `  hh#(@- ( a8Right Par+&W-8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&V3>L*&w=>` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp Default Para@6 Default Paragraph Font^D+*!')\D.E ;/;0#x6X@KX@##b6X@C@#2$!2P"2#2$2!toc 1\D-@6 toc 1lE! =(!^D-*!')\D.E!12!(#B` hp x (#toc 2\D.@6 toc 2lE! =(!^D.*!')\D.E"34` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3\D/@6 toc 3lE! =(!^D/*!')\D.E#56` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4\D0@6 toc 4lE! =(!^D0*!')\D.E$78 !(# ` hp x (#2j+%2J$&2|&'((28)toc 5\D1@6 toc 5lE! =(!^D1*!')\D.E%9:h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6\D2@6 toc 6lE! =(!^D2*!')\D.E&;<!(#` hp x (#toc 7\D3@6 toc 7lE! =(!^D3*!')\D.E'=>toc 8\D4@6 toc 8lE! =(!^D4*!')\D.E(?@!(#` hp x (#2d4)2+*2-+20,222toc 9\D5@6 toc 9lE! =(!^D5*!')\D.E)AB!(#B` hp x (#index 1D6@6 index 1lE! =(!^D6*!')\D.E*CD` !(# ` hp x (#index 2D7@6 index 2lE! =(!^D7*!')\D.E+EF` !(#B` hp x (#toa heading@6 toa heading! =(!^D8*!')\D.E,GH!(# ` hp x (#27-4.n5/<606captionD9@6 captionlE! =(!^D9*!')\D.E-EI;J#x6X@KX@##b6X@C@#_Equation Ca@6 _Equation Caption!^D:*!')\D.E.;K;L#x6X@KX@##b6X@C@#Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font/11#Xv6X@CX@##b6X@C@#_Equation Caption_Equation Caption011#Xv6X@CX@##b6X@C@#29172}a8384f9head1 #1'd#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf2$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf3/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf4:` ` `  2<5+:6:7r;8&<a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf5E` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf6P  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf7[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf8f  2B9=:|=|]>X@a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf9q footnote tex :$ d\  PC Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)RomanTimes New Roman (Italic) (TT)Times New Roman (Bold Italic) (TT)P6QXP.7UC2XxXU4  pQXx2S=FX3RY&S\  P@Q&PLS8JSSSSS.4}}S2S}2JJS88SS]]8J2t^^\\^^ee*C^.wR)Ewn\1fy\r\Sxx\rTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)RomanTimes New Roman (Italic) (TT)zC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`lC2CC!CCCCCCCCCCd8YYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddodYYYYYYdzYzYzYzYdddddddCdCdCCCdNCdz8zCzCzCz8dddddCCCoNoNoNoNzCzCzCdddddzYzYNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<$YYdCCddooCYd<d<+oodCCddddCo%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%n%%%%%%%%%%7O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O1O1I1I1I1I1O7C1C1C1C1O7O7O7O7O7O7O7%7%7%%%7+%O7CC%C%C%CO7O7O7O7O7bOI%I%I%=+=+=+=+C%C%C%O7O7O7O7hOO7C1C1N'27%177777"SS7!TT7S!117n%%77l==n%1n!t>><<>>mBBs,>[N6-msTN[TTTH_<1CPd<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd2Qk@d@hA"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddd<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYdy.C8*XC\  P6QP7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.7UC2XxXU4  pQXx2S=FX3RY&S\  P@Q&P5PC2X9EXP*f9 xQXX2J=.X &J\  P6Q&P.2N=.X7&N4  pQ&"5@^.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc.====IK=\\QQQQQzzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\f\\QQzQzQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\\I\=\===\G\p3pK\\\z=zKfGfGN@.S\=Q\\\\\39\7\7==QQ\==\\=Q=7t=eeeegoo.Ijg2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc=\Q\\=f===QQ@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\g=\Ie77=jS.=79\Qzpppp====gf\QQQQQQzQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\\\"5@^.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_.====IK=\f\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\\QQQzQzQzQ\\\\ffIfGfG=Gf\fz3zKff\QQfGfGN@.c\=\\\\\\7<\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7t=eeeeioo.Iji2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=.=\\\\(\=7\i=\Ie77=jc.=7<\\zzzzGGGGipf\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\e\ffff\f2@w @{>@k~"5@^.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic.====IK=\\p\p\p\p\p\zzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQp\\\\fQ\p\p\p\p\zQzQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\\I\=\===\QzQf3fKz\z\\zpGpK\G\GN@.`\G\\\\\\39\7\7==ff\==\\=f=7t=eeee|oo.Ij|2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic=\f\\=\===ff@\=G=zf.G\\\\2\=3\|=\Ie77=j`.=79\\ppppppzpppp====z|fp\\\\\\\zQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\Q\"5@^&&209<!!&>>400000000009>9+@04242079$4+<744440-909020!!!4002-2--42O4020(($4+90-+!!94)0400000000000G2-2-2-2-2-744040404094949494-004240402-40220044002-2-2-2-442-7-7077-7-94944444$42++)7474444(4)0(N$2+00020000-00000000t0>77+0c<<&&209<!!&>>400000000009>9+@04242079$4+<744440-909020!!!4002-2--42O4020(($4+90-+!!9-002240000000>00-$000000+0000000222224744444049999224000000G-----0400000+04444-2"5@^.Gf\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzzzzG\zppzfpzzpp=3=i\=\\Q\Q=\f33\3f\\\GG3fQz\QG@(@i.====IK=\\z\z\z\z\z\zQzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffffpQz\\\\pQ\p\z\z\z\zQzQzQzQzQzQ\\\\ffI\G\G=G\\z\p3pKff\zGzKfGfGN@.\\G\\\\\\17\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7t=eeeeooo.Iji2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.Gf\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzzzzG\zppzfpzzpp=3=i\=\\Q\Q=\f33\3f\\\GG3fQz\QG@(@i=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=p.G\\\\(\=1\o=\Ie77=j\.=77\\zzzzzzzzzzzGGGGipp\\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\e\ffffQ\2 @݁ @^]O~"5@^%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,-%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7OO7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7CC-O7O7O7bOI%I-=+=+N&27%177777"SS7!TT7S!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!t%<<<<>mBBs,?>[N6Wms[77UUUH_%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5@^?(?SO_c(88?g(g(WOOOOOOOOOO((_g_GkOWSWSO[_,;WGc[WWWWOK_O_OSO888WO(OSKSK3KW,,S,WOSOCC;WG_OKG8 8_((((W,E(OWOOOOOOOOOOOwSKSKSKSKSK,,,,,,,,[WWOWOWOWO_W_W_W_W(KOOWSWOWOSKWOSSOOWWOOSKSKSKSKWWSK[K[O[[K[K_W_W,WWW,,,W;WSG,GE[W[WWW((WCWEOC((N((;S(GOOOS(OOOOKOOOOOO(((((((((((((((OOtOg[[GOee*,KO.wROOn[CfxKxWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((?(?SO_c(88?g(g(WOOOOOOOOOO((_g_GkOWSWSO[_,;WGc[WWWWOK_O_OSO888WO(OSKSK3KW,,S,WOSOCC;WG_OKG8 8_(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((KOOS,SWOOOOOOO,gOO(K;((OOOOOOGOOOOOOOSSSSS,,,,W[WWWWWOW____SSWOOOOOOwKKKKK,,,,OWOOOOOGOWWWWKSy.C8*XC\  P6QP7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP .7UC2XxXU4  pQXx2S=FX3RY&S\  P@Q&P5PC2X9EXP*f9 xQXX2J=.X &J\  P6Q&P .2N=.X7&N4  pQ&0J=.X9&J*f9 xQ&Xl2K=.XX &K9 xyQ&P,%X)J,\  P6QJPxy.K8?X3qK\  P@QP xI-!&X3,-\  P@Q,PW!0(X h0\  P6QhP2 @Z-"5@^(1<informal objection filed by Moss and granted both AFI/California's second extension application and  xkmodification application. Moss filed a petition for reconsideration of the staff's denial of its informal  SP- xjobjection on February 22, 1996, which was denied on August 27, 1996. As noted in paragraph 1, supra, Moss now seeks Commission review of this action.   x4. On July 11, 1996, AFI/California filed with the Commission an application for a third  xyextension of the KPVW permit, citing zoning and land use problems with the Williams Hill site that were  xLbeyond its control (File No. BMPH960711JB). Specifically, AFI/California avers that after submitting  xits application for a Williams Hill right of way, the BLM informed AFI/California that it would not act  xon AFI/California's application until all Pitkin County land use requirements are satisfied. AFI/California  xjhas retained an Aspen law firm to secure the necessary county approvals. The staff granted the July 11,  x[1996, extension application on August 22, 1996, extending the permit to February 22, 1997. On August  x=23, 1996, Moss filed with the Commission an informal objection to the extension application, which the  S"- xstaff dismissed as untimely on October 16, 1996. As noted in paragraph 1, supra, Moss now seeks reconsideration of this action.   nx5. On August 5, 1996, shortly after the filing of its third extension request, AFI/California  S%- xsubmitted an application for consent to the pro forma assignment of the KPVW permit from  S&- xyAFI/California to AFI (File No. BAPH960805GF). The Commission granted the pro forma assignment  S'- xapplication on August 20, 1996. As noted in paragraph 1, supra, Moss now seeks reconsideration of this action. "b).**+"Ԍ S-  1x6. On February 14, 1997, AFI filed an application for a fourth extension of time to construct  xStation KPVW based on continuing difficulties in obtaining a Williams Hill right of way from the BLM  x(File No. BMPH970214JB). This application discloses that AFI submitted an application seeking Pitkin  xjCounty zoning approval. AFI reports that, on October 1, 1996, it received a Special Use Permit, as well  xlas a Growth Management Quota System Exemption from the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning  xCommission. AFI explains, however, that it is now waiting for the Board of County Commissioners of  xPitkin County to affirm the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval and that action by the County  xCommissioners has been delayed pending the BLM's response to a county inquiry. As noted in paragraph  S-1, supra, Moss has filed an informal objection to this application.  Sr-I  September 23, 1996, Petition for Reconsideration  SJ - of Grant of Pro Forma Assignment Application ă  S -  x7.  Moss asserts that the staff erred in granting the application for the pro forma assignment of  xthe KPVW construction permit from AFI/California to AFI. Moss alleges that AFI/California was unable  xto assign its construction permit to AFI because AFI/California's corporate privileges were suspended  xunder California law on December 1, 1988, for failure to pay state franchise taxes. Moss contends that  xAFI/California's suspension bars it from carrying on any business before the Commission, including the  S4- xprosecution of the assignment application. Moss further contends that the staff grant of the pro forma  xassignment application was in violation of  73.3535(d) of the Commission's rules and that the assignment  xxapplication was improperly filed on FCC Form 316. Moss maintains that intercorporate assignments must  xbe submitted on FCC Form 314. Finally, Moss asserts that AFI/California violated 1.65 of the  xCommission's rules by withholding from the Commission the fact that the California Secretary of State had suspended its corporate privileges.   ?x8. AFI acknowledges that the California Secretary of State suspended AFI/California's corporate  x[charter in 1988. AFI asserts that this suspension was an oversight by the officers of AFI/California that  xdid not impact its ability to file the KPVW assignment application. AFI contends that AFI/California was  x\suspended, not terminated, under California law and that the corporation could have revived itself by  xpaying the back taxes which it owed. AFI argues that AFI/California's ability to prosecute an FCC  x>application was resolved by the Commission's consent to the assignment of the KPVW construction  x-permit. AFI states that following the assignment of the KPVW construction permit to AFI, AFI/California  xno longer has any assets and that the AFI/California stockholders have no plans to revive the corporation.  xAFI contends that the suspension of AFI/California under state law cannot form the basis for a  x>determination that either AFI or its predecessor, AFI/California, lacks the basic qualifications to be a  xCommission licensee. Finally, AFI asserts that  73.3540(f)(4) of the Commission's rules permits a "short  x form" assignment application in the case of a corporate reorganization which involves no substantial change in the beneficial ownership of the corporation.  S -  S -  x9. Although it did not oppose AFI/California's pro forma assignment application, Moss has  x=standing, pursuant to 1.106 of the Commission's rules, to file the instant petition for reconsideration of  x/the staff's action granting that application. Moss and AFI would compete for listeners in the Aspen  Sx#- x=market, and thus, Moss meets the "aggrieved/adversely affected" test for standing. See FCC v. Sanders  SR$- xBros., 309 U.S. 470 (1940). Consent to the KPVW permit assignment was granted only five days after  xthe issuance of the Public Notice of the acceptance of the assignment application. In similar  xcircumstances, the Commission has found that such a short filing opportunity effectively precludes  S&- xparticipation during the initial consideration of an application. See Ted and Jana Tucker, 4 FCC Rcd 2816  xj(1989) (concluding that a petitioner that had not participated previously had standing when modification  xapplication granted four days after Public Notice of its acceptance). Thus, as required by 1.106(b)(1),  Sf)-Moss has shown good cause why it was unable to participate in earlier stages of this proceeding. "f).**+"Ԍ  ԙx10. However, we find that Moss's allegations of error are without merit. In order to prevail on  xreconsideration, a petitioner must demonstrate that the underlying action was based on errors of fact or  S- xlaw. See 47 C.F.R.  1.106(d)(2). Moss has not met this burden. To the extent that Moss argues that  S- x.AFI/California's prosecution of the assignment application is barred or somehow without effect, it must  xseek relief from the appropriate local court. AFI/California's suspension and its effect on corporate actions  xtaken during the period of the suspension are state law matters. The Commission has traditionally  S- xdeclined to consider such issues where no challenge has been made in state court and the determination  S- xis one that is more appropriately resolved by a local court of competent jurisdiction. See North American  S-Broadcasting Co., Inc., 15 FCC 2d 979 (1969).iX@ yO, -  z#]\  PC qP#эxMoss repeats this argument in each of the three other contested matters now before us. For the reasons  xstated herein, this contention is equally unavailing in those contexts. Accordingly, this argument will not be addressed further. i   ]x11. Moreover, Moss's argument that the assignment of the KPVW permit is barred by 47 C.F.R.  x 73.3535(d) is without merit. This rule, which prohibits the assignment of broadcast authorizations after  xthe expiration of the initial construction period, does not apply to AFI/California's "short form" permit  S - x?assignment application. See Amendment of Section 73.3598 and Associated Rules Concerning the  S - xConstruction of Broadcast Stations, 102 FCC 2d 1054, n.6 (1985). In addition, AFI/California was not  x\required to file a "long form" assignment application on FCC Form 314. Section 73.3540(f)(5) of the  xZCommission's rules specifically permits a "short form" application for an assignment to another corporation  xowned or controlled by the assignor stockholders without substantial change in their interests. 47 C.F.R.  x 73.3540(f)(5). Here, the officers, directors and shareholders of AFI/California and AFI are the same  xthe only change is the domicile of the corporation. Therefore, the staff's consideration of the proposed  xpermit assignment under its short form procedures was proper. Moreover, to the extent that it has alleged  x.that AFI/California intentionally misrepresented to the Commission its loss of good standing, Moss has  xyfailed to supply any substantiation for this claim. Finally, Moss has failed to identify the information in  Sr- xAFI/California's assignment application that is no longer "substantially accurate and complete in all  SJ- xsignificant respects . . ." 47 C.F.R.  1.65(a) (emphasis added). Accordingly, Moss's September 23, 1996, petition for reconsideration is denied.  S-  September 30, 1996, Application for Review  S-] of Grant of the Second Extension Request ă  S\-  Bx12.   The August 27, 1996, Letter Order denied Moss's February 22, 1996, petition for  xreconsideration of the staff's January 18, 1996, decision denying Moss's informal objection and granting  x[AFI/California's application for a second extension of the KPVW construction permit. In its application  S- xfor review, Moss contends that the August 27 Letter Order should be reversed because: (a) AFI and its  xjpredecessor, AFI/California, have not put forth a "good faith" effort to construct Station KPVW; and (b)  x.AFI/California did not meet the requirements for the extension of a construction permit, as set forth in  73.3534(b) of the Commission's rules.   x13. In opposition, AFI asserts that the Chief, Audio Services Division, Mass Media Bureau  xcorrectly applied  73.3534(b) of the Commission's rules which sets forth the requirements for the  xextension of construction permits. AFI contends that by demonstrating reasonable assurance of a new site  S"- xunder Alden Communications Corp., 3 FCC Rcd 3937 (1988), affirmed by judgment, 917 F.2d 62 (D.C.  S~#- xMCir. 1990), it satisfied the  73.3534(b)(3) requirement that it take all possible steps to expeditiously  xresolve the problem preventing construction of Station KPVW. AFI also argues that there is no rule or  xpolicy which prohibits permit extensions unless the Commission specifically finds that a permittee has".%.**&" engaged in "good faith" construction efforts.  S-    x14. We affirm the August 27 Letter Order's determination that the second extension of the KPVW  xconstruction permit represented a proper application of the Commission's rules and precedent. The record  x!fully supports the staff conclusion that AFI/California's site acquisition difficulties constituted a  xcircumstance beyond its control preventing construction and that AFI/California took all possible steps  xduring the relevant construction period to expeditiously resolve this problem and proceed with the  xconstruction of Station KPVW at the new Williams Hill site. These included the identification of a new  xsite, the filing of a modification application, and the initiation of the Pitkin County zoning approval  S- xprocess. See 47 C.F.R.  73.3534(b)(3). Finally, neither the Commission's rules nor precedent support  xLMoss's contention that an applicant satisfy a distinct "good faith" construction standard when it seeks a  xNconstruction permit extension. The Commission's rules set forth specific, objective standards for  S" - xdetermining whether a permittee has diligently attempted to construct the authorized facilities. Plainly,  x=an applicant's good faith is squarely in issue when the Commission considers the subsection (b)(3) issue  xwhether "all possible steps" have been taken to resolve construction problems. In these circumstances,  xthe addition of a new, generalized "good faith" criterion is neither necessary nor appropriate. Accordingly, Moss's September 30, 1996, application for review is denied.  S2-X  November 22, 1996, Petition for Reconsideration  S - of Grant of the Third Extension Request ă T  S-  x15.  In the October 16 Letter Order, the Chief, Audio Services Division, Mass Media Bureau  x[dismissed as untimely an informal objection, styled as a "Petition to Dismiss," filed by Moss against the  xjJuly 11, 1996, AFI/California application for a third extension of the KPVW construction permit. Moss  xnow seeks reconsideration of the October 16 Letter Order. Moss contends that its informal objection was  x!filed subsequent to the Commission's grant of AFI/California's extension application because: (a)  xAFI/California did not give notice of the extension application to Moss; and (b) the Commission was tardy  S- xyin issuing a Public Notice of the extension application's acceptance. Moss, citing Roy M. Speer, FCC 96 S- x100 (released March 11, 1996) ("Speer"), also argues that its untimely informal objection should have been treated as a petition for reconsideration.   x16. AFI contends that Moss's petition for reconsideration should be dismissed pursuant to  1.106  x\of the rules because Moss has not demonstrated a material error or omission in the October 16 Letter  xOrder, nor has it raised any new facts. AFI avers that the October 16 Letter Order correctly dismissed Moss's informal objection on the grounds that the informal objection was untimely.   x17. We find that Moss's allegations of error are without merit and affirm the October 16 Letter  S>- xOrder. The Chief, Audio Services Division, Mass Media Bureau correctly dismissed Moss's untimely  S - xinformal objection, which was filed on August 23, 1996, one day after the staff grant of the third extension  xof the KPVW construction permit. Section 73.3587 of the Commission's rules provides, in pertinent part,  S!- x\that "[b]efore FCC action on any application for an instrument of authorization, any person may file  xinformal objections to the grant." 47 C.F.R.  73.3587 (emphasis added). AFI/California was under no  xobligation to serve Moss with a copy of the KPVW extension application. Furthermore, the Commission  SP$- xLissued a Public Notice of its acceptance of the extension application on July 29, 1996.P$@ X&-ԍx#]\  PC qP#See Broadcast Applications, Report No. 23790, released July 29, 1996. However, Moss  xdid not file an informal objection until August 23, 1996, more than three weeks later. Thus, Moss had  x!ample opportunity to file a timely informal objection. In any event, it is well settled that zoning  xdifficulties which have not been resolved despite a permittee's diligent efforts constitute a circumstance"&y.**}("  S- xbeyond such permittee's control that warrant an extension of the underlying authorization. See, e.g., Letter  S-to Tanja L. Kozicky, Esq., 11 FCC Rcd 4163, 4165 (Audio Serv. Div. 1996).   x18. Moss's argument that its untimely informal objection should have been treated as a petition  Sd- x0for reconsideration is also unavailing. We recognize that in Speer, the Commission treated Urban  S>- xBroadcasting Corporation's ("Urban") latefiled informal objection to an application for consent to the  xtransfer of control of Silver King Communications, Inc. ("Silver King") as a petition for reconsideration.  S- xHowever, Speer is plainly distinguishable on its facts. Urban's latefiled informal objection raised serious  xzand very credible allegations of misrepresentation, lack of candor and unauthorized transfer of control  x|against Silver King, a large Urban shareholder. Absent such compelling circumstances, it is the  xCommission's practice not to treat an untimely informal objection as a petition for reconsideration. Moss's  xcontentions are not of the same gravity as those raised by Urban, and therefore the dismissal of its  xLinformal objection was proper. Accordingly, Moss's November 22, 1996, petition for reconsideration is denied.  S -7  February 14, 1997, Application for Fourth Extension of Time  S -to Construct Station KPVW ă   x19. Predictably, Moss opposes AFI's fourth extension request. Moss contends that AFI has made  xno progress toward the construction of Station KPVW during the most recent construction period.  xTherefore, Moss requests that either AFI's extension request be denied or a hearing be conducted to  xjexplore both the reasons for AFI's failure to make progress in the construction of Station KPVW, as well  xas AFI's fitness to remain a permittee. AFI opposes Moss's informal objection and asserts that  x>circumstances beyond its control have prevented further progress toward the construction of Station KPVW.   @x20. AFI asserts that its inability to obtain the necessary federal and local zoning and land use  xapprovals from the BLM and Pitkin County continues to constitute a circumstance beyond its control  xiwhich has prevented further progress. Moreover, AFI contends that during the relevant construction period  xyԩ August 22, 1996, to February 22, 1997 it has diligently taken "all actions that it can to secure land use  xapprovals." Specifically, AFI submitted an application for Pitkin County zoning approval, which was  xapproved by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission on October 1, 1996. While the next step  xin the approval process is for the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners to act on AFI's zoning request,  xa hearing before this board has been delayed pending the receipt of information from the BLM.  x[Furthermore, per the BLM's request, AFI has engaged an archaeological consultant to determine whether  S-the proposed construction will cause any adverse archaeological impact.   x21. We find that despite its continuing diligent efforts, AFI has been stymied in its attempt to  S - xconstruct Station KPVW by circumstances clearly beyond its control, i.e., its difficulty in obtaining the  S - x/requisite federal and local zoning and land use approvals. As noted in paragraph 17, supra, it is well  xsettled that zoning difficulties which have not been resolved despite a permittee's diligent efforts constitute  S"- xa circumstance beyond such permittee's control that warrant an extension of the underlying authorization.  xAccordingly, Moss's informal objection is denied and AFI's February 14, 1997, application for a fourth  x[extension of time to construct Station KPVW is granted. We are constrained to note, however, that with  xeach subsequent KPVW extension application, AFI will face increased scrutiny as to both the sufficiency  xof its efforts to expeditiously resolve the Williams Hill zoning and land use problems and the likelihood that it will be successful in its attempt to construct the authorized facilities.  S(-"(.**0*"  S-3 Ordering Clauses ă  S- `  x22.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That, pursuant to Section 1.106(j) of the Commission's  xrules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106(j), the September 23, 1996, Petition for Reconsideration filed by Moss Entertainment Corp. IS DENIED.  S- ` ox23.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the Commission's  xrules, 47 C.F.R.  1.115(g), the September 30, 1996, Application for Review filed by Moss Entertainment Corp. IS DENIED.  Sp- ` Qx24.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That, pursuant to Section 1.106(j) of the Commission's  xrules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106(j), the November 22, 1996, Petition for Reconsideration filed by Moss Entertainment Corp. IS DENIED.  S - ` `x25.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That, pursuant to Section 73.3534 of the Commission's  xrules, 47 C.F.R.  73.3534, the April 7, 1997, informal objection filed by Moss Entertainment Corp. is  xDENIED and the February 14, 1997, Application for Extension of Broadcast Construction Permit filed  xby Aspen FM, Inc., a Colorado corporation, IS GRANTED. The KPVW construction permit (BPH850712PH) is hereby extended for a period of six months from the date of release of this order. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton x` `  hhActing Secretary