WPC8 2BJZ Courier3|j2x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si LPT2:l)RM 700HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\z$^X@266 ZFKK3|jHP LaserJet 5Si LPT2:l)RM 700HPLAS5SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\z$^XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""\4  pG;\ 5hC:,%rXh*f9 xr G;XX W!@(#,h@\  P6G;hP H5!,),5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%BZW*f9 xr G;X X- X  X-w  Federal Communications Commission`(# FCC 98200 ă  yxdddy   v3#X\  P6G;ɒP# Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO} Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  Xy-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#  XK-In re Applications ofTh)  X4-Th)  X- ROY M. SPEER Th)  X-(Transferor)Th) x` `  hh@h)  X-andTh)  X -Th)  X - SILVER MANAGEMENT COMPANY @h)  X -(Transferee)Th)  X| -Th)  Xe -For Transfer of Control ofTh)  XN-Th)  X7-SKIL Broadcasting Partnership,Th)pp X(#  X -Licensee of WEHSTV, Aurora, ILTh) File Nos.BTCCT950913KG(#  X -Th)  X-SKDA Broadcasting Partnership,Th)pp(#p  X-Licensee of KHSXTV, Irving, TXTh)ppXBTCCT950913KE(#  X-Th)  X-SKHO Broadcasting Partnership,Th)ppXX  Xxx(#x  X-Licensee of KHSHTV, Alvin, TXTh)ppXBTCCT950913KF(#  X-Th)  Xh-SKMD Broadcasting Partnership,Th)ppXX  (#   XQ-Licensee of WHSWTV, Baltimore, MDTh)ppXBTCCT950913KH(#  X:-Th)  X#-SKNJ Broadcasting Partnership,Th)ppX(#  X -Licensee of WHSETV, Newark, NJ,Th)ppXBTCCT950913KJ(#  X-WHSITV, Smithtown, NY, andTh)ppXBTCCT950913KK(#  X-W60AI, New York, NYTh)ppBTCTTL950913KQ(#p  X-Th)  X-SKOH Broadcasting Partnership,Th)  X-Licensee of WQHSTV, Cleveland, OHTh)ppXBTCCT950913KL(#  X -Th)  Xk!-SKLA Broadcasting Partnership, Th)  XT"-Licensee of KHSCTV, Ontario, CATh)ppXBTCCT950913KM(#  X=#-Th)  X&$-SKVI Broadcasting Partnership,Th)  X%-Licensee of WHSPTV, Vineland, NJTh)ppXBTCCT950913KN(#  X%-Th)  X&-SKFL Broadcasting Partnership,Th)  X'-Licensee of WYHSTV, Hollywood, FLTh)ppXBTCCT950913KO(#  X(-Th)"(,))ZZQ'"Ԍ X-SKTA Broadcasting Partnership, Th)  X-Licensee of WBHSTV, Tampa, FLTh)ppXBTCCT950913KP(#  X-Th)  X-SKMA Broadcasting PartnershipTh)ppXX  (#   X-Licensee of WHSHTV, Marlborough, MATh)ppXBTCCT950913KI(#  X-Th)  Xv-North Central LPTV, Inc.,Th)  X_-Licensee of W13BN, Columbus, OH,Th)ppXBTCTTL950913KR(#  XH-K21OD, St. Louis, MOTh)ppXBTCTTL950913KS(#  X1-K26CR, Kansas City, MOTh)ppXBTCTTL950913KT(#  X -W33AY, Springfield, ILTh)ppXBTCTTL950913KU(#  X -W39BH, Champaign, ILTh)ppXBTCTTL950913KV(#  X -W64BM, Toledo, OHTh)ppXBTCTTL950913KW(#  X -K35CY, Minneapolis, MNTh)ppXBTCTTL950913KX(#  X -K41DD, Des Moines, IATh)ppXBTCTTL950913KY(#  X -Th)  X-South Central LPTV, Inc., Th)  Xy-Licensee of K15DD, Wichita, KSTh)ppXBTCTTL950913KZ(#  Xb-K14IE, New Orleans, LATh)ppXBTCTTL950913LA(#  XK-K67FD, Shreveport, LATh)ppXBTCTTL950913LB(#  X4-K39CW, Tulsa, OKTh)ppXBTCTTL950913LC(#  X-Th)  X-Southeast LPTV, Inc.,Th)  X-Licensee of W24BF, St. Petersburg, FLTh)ppXBTCTTL950913LD(#  X-W24AL, Atlanta, GATh)ppXBTCTTL950913LE(#  X-W56CM, Knoxville, TNTh)ppXBTCTTL950913LF(#  X-W36AJ, Jacksonville, FLTh)ppXBTCTTL950913LG(#  X-W58CD, Raleigh, NCTh)ppXBTCTTL950913LH(#  X|-W52BF, Mobile, ALTh)ppXBTCTTL950913LI(#  Xe-W34BI, Birmingham, ALTh)ppXBTCTTL950913LJ(#  XN-W31BB, Pensacola, FLTh)ppXBTCTTL950913LK(#  X7-Th)  X -Northeast LPTV, Inc.,Th)  X -Licensee of W17BH, Huntington, WVTh)ppXBTCTTL950913LL(#  X-W56CP, Roanoke, VATh)ppXBTCTTL950913LM(#  X-W56CS, Portsmouth, VATh)ppXBTCTTL950913LN(#  X -Th)  X!-West LPTV, Inc.,Th)  X"-Licensee of K21CX, Tucson, AZTh)ppXBTCTTL950913LO(#  X#-K14IF, Spokane, WATh)ppXBTCTTL950913LP(#  Xh$-Th)  XQ%- URBAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS @h)  X:&- CORP. ` `  hh@h)  X#'-(Assignor)` `  hh@h)"#',-(-(ZZ%"Ԍ X-andx` `  hh@h) x` `  hh@h)  X- URBAN BROADCASTING hh@h)  X- CORPORATION  hh@h)  X-(Assignee)` `  hh@h) x` `  hh@h)  Xv-For Pro Forma Assignment of thehh@h) File No. BAPCT890418KF  Xa-Construction Permit for hh@h)  XJ-Television Station WTMW(TV),hh@h)  X3-Channel 14, Arlington, Virginiahh@h) x` `  hh@h) x` `  hh@h)  X - JOVON BROADCASTING hh@h)  X - CORPORATION  hh@h) x` `  hh@h)  X -For Petition for Declaratory Rulinghh@h)  X-Relating to Television Station WJYSTV,@h)  X{-Channel 62, Hammond, Indianahh@h)  X6-   MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TP  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:- WACCIVCR Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Staff Directive   #x3. In 1989, Urban Telecommunications Corp. (UTC), whose sole stockholder was  X- xTheodore White, filed a pro forma Form 316 application to assign the WTMW(TV) construction  X- xpermit from UTC to Urban. See File No. BAPCT890418KF. According to the application,  x<Urban was to be a new corporation with two stockholders, White and a subsidiary of Silver King.  xWSCTTV, Inc., a competing applicant for Channel 14, filed an informal objection against UTC's  xapplication, alleging that loans from Silver King to Urban, provided to fund completion of the  X- xconstruction of WTMW(TV), gave rise to a question of de facto control. The staff denied  Xu- xzWSCTTV Inc.'s objection, see Letter to Michael H. Rosenbloom, Esquire, from Chief, Video  x.Services Division (February 2, 1990), and the Commission subsequently denied its application  XI- xfor review in June 1992. Urban Telecommunications, 7 FCC Rcd 3867 (1992).TZI? yO-  ЍxOn April 6, 1993, Urban filed an application for license to cover its construction permit for WTMW(TV),  {O- xagainst which WACCIVCR filed a "petition to deny" a year later. That proceeding remains pending. See File No. BLCT930406KF.T While the  xapplication for review remained pending, Urban submitted for placement in its ownership files  xexecuted copies of the loan agreement and other related agreements between it and Silver King,  x\and supplemented its files in October 1992 and in July 1993 to reflect modifications to these  X- xlagreements. On July 16, 1992, WACCIVCR filed a petition for reconsideration of Urban  X - xTelecommunications, and on April 29 and July 5, 1994, WACCIVCR supplemented the petition  X!- xjfor reconsideration. In the April 29 supplement, WACCIVCR claimed, inter alia, that Urban's  xfailure to serve WACCIVCR with copies of the agreements between it and Silver King violated"",-(-(ZZ!"  X- x=the Commission's ex parte rules which prohibit presentation of information to the Commission  X- xwithout providing notice to other parties in a restricted proceeding.  See 47 C.F.R.  1.1202(b)(1) and 1.1204(b)(1).  X-  x4. Procedurally, in Speer III, we dismissed WACCIVCR's petition for reconsideration  X- xKof Urban Telecommunications after determining that the material upon which WACCIVCR relied  X~- xhad been publicly available for more than two years prior to the Commission's decision in Urban  Xi- xTelecommunications, and that WACCIVCR had failed to meet the 47 C.F.R. Section 1.106(b)(1)  xrequirement that it show good reason why it was not possible to have participated earlier in that  xproceeding. Nevertheless, we addressed WACCIVCR's allegations as part of our independent  X& - xpublic interest analysis. Speer III, 11 FCC Rcd at 18413. Substantively, we rejected WACCI xKVCR's contentions that WTMW(TV)'s agreements with Silver King effectively transferred control  xover WTMW(TV)'s programming, but did conclude that Silver King had assumed unauthorized  xcontrol of WTMW(TV) during the three and onehalf year construction of that station and that  xsuch assumption of control placed Silver King in violation of our television duopoly rule during  X - xthat period. Id. at 18418, 18419, 18426.&" ? yO.-  ЍxWhile an argument had been raised by Urban that the attribution to Silver King of an interest in  xKWTMW(TV) during that period also placed Silver King in violation of the former 12 television station national  xZownership limitation, we found that no violation had existed since one of Silver King's stations was, as a satellite  {O-station, exempt from consideration under the national numerical cap. Id. at 18419.& Finally, we determined that, contrary to the  xcontentions raised by WACCIVCR in its March 25, 1996 Comments, Urban's submission of  xthe agreements between it and Silver King in October 1992 and July 1993, and the filing of its  Xr- x>March 6, 1996 informal objection without service upon WACCIVCR, did not violate our ex  X]-parte rules. Id. at 1842718428.   Nx5. In its petition for reconsideration and request for staff directive, WACCIVCR argues  X- x.that in Speer III the Commission erred in: (1) denying WACCIVCR formal standing; (2) failing  xto act upon WACCIVCR's April 21, 1994 Petition to Deny Urban's license application and  X- xrequest for program test authority; (3) failing to find a violation of the ex parte rules; and  X- x(4) failing to make grant of Speer III subject to the outcome of the national broadcast ownership  X- xrule making proceeding, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket 878,  X- x/6 FCC Rcd 5010 (1991).$? yO-  0ЍxThis proceeding was subsequently incorporated into our television ownership proceeding and remains  {O- xpending, see Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket Nos. 91221 and 878, 10 FCC Rcd 3542, 3569  {O - x,(1995). We later released another notice in this proceeding. See Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 21655 (1996).  Lastly, WACCIVCR requests that, "[b]ecause of the Commission  X- xLstaff's . . . complicity in ex parte violations by failing to inform [WACCIVCR] of presentations  xjreceived which went to the merits of [its] Petition for Reconsideration," the Commission "issue  xa directive to staff declaring that citizenpetitioners are to be afforded a fair opportunity to be"l,-(-(ZZ"  X-heard in matters pertaining to broadcast license renewal and transfer."? yOy-  >ЍxBecause we believe that the staff has acted in a manner consistent with the Communications Act and the Commission's Rules, we do not find it necessary to issue any directive to the staff.   X-  ^x6. Regarding the issue of standing, WACCIVCR claims that the Commission should  X- xhave granted it formal standing in Speer III. In support, WACCIVCR contends that it  X- xdemonstrated good reason for not participating in the WTMW(TV) pro forma assignment  X- xproceeding until after the Commission acted on the application for review in Urban  X~- xMTelecommunications. Specifically, WACCIVCR asserts that the Commission's procedures  Xi- xregarding pro forma applications did not give it adequate notice to participate at an earlier stage  xin the proceeding. WACCIVCR further claims that the Commission erred by not affording it  X=- xnformal standing by virtue of its July 16, 1992 petition for reconsideration of Urban  X( - xTelecommunications, and the supplements to that petition which it filed on April 29, 1994 and  xlJuly 5, 1994. Second, WACCIVCR argues that the Commission acted improperly by not  X - xNconsolidating into Speer III its April 21, 1994 Petition to Deny, which it had filed against  x.Urban's application for a license to cover the constructed WTMW(TV) facility and its request for program test authority.   |x7. Third, WACCIVCR argues that the Commission erred in deciding that none of the  xacts discussed by WACCIVCR in its April 29, 1994 supplement and March 25, 1996 Comments  Xt- x=demonstrated that Urban violated the ex parte rules. WACCIVCR asserts, moreover, that the  xCommission erred by not addressing the matters raised in its July 5, 1994 supplement, entitled  x=Supplement to Petition for Reconsideration and Petition to Deny. In these pleadings WACCI X1- xVCR raised three ex parte allegations. In the April 29 supplement to its petition for  X- xreconsideration of Urban Telecommunications, WACCIVCR claimed that Urban's failure to  xserve WACCIVCR with copies of the agreements between it and Silver King violated the  X- x\Commission's ex parte rules. See supra  3. In its March 25, 1996 Comments, WACCIVCR  xasserted that Urban's filing of its March 6, 1996 informal objection to the Silver King transfer,  X- xMwithout service on WACCIVCR, violated the ex parte rules. Id. at  4. Finally, in its July 5  X- xsupplement to its petition for reconsideration of Urban Telecommunications and its April 21,  x1994 petition to deny Urban's application for license to cover, WACCIVCR alleged that because  X- x\it had filed a petition to deny Urban's application for license to cover, Urban violated the ex  Xn- xparte rules by failing to serve on WACCIVCR communications with the Commission regarding  xjUrban's request for program test authority, including a copy of a letter dated June 6, 1994, from  xUrban's counsel to the Commission's Managing Director. That June 6 letter responded to a letter  xfrom the Managing Director to the Assistant Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia  x=(D.C. Counsel) concerning Urban's license application. WACCIVCR received copies of these  x=communications on June 27, 1994 from the D.C. Counsel. According to WACCIVCR, in these  xjcommunications, Urban mentioned that delay in grant of its application for license to cover left  xit in violation of its affiliation agreement with Silver King. WACCIVCR concludes that because  x these communications had bearing on the merits of the argument it raised in its petition for  X#- xreconsideration of Urban Telecommunications, Urban had an obligation to notify WACCIVCR"# ,-(-(ZZe""  X- x of them. Additionally, WACCIVCR claims that this "pattern of ex parte violations" raises questions regarding Urban's character.   x8. Fourth, WACCIVCR argues that the Commission must reconsider its holding as to  xwhether Silver King violated the national ownership limitation. That decision warrants  xreconsideration, WACCIVCR maintains, because it failed to acknowledge a pending rule making  xwhich addresses the ownership limitation, and failed to take into account a pleading filed in that  xproceeding by WACCIVCR and others on August 12, 1991, asking the Commission to count  XJ-satellite stations in calculating compliance with the national ownership cap.    x9. In response to WACCIVCR's arguments, Urban asserts that, because WACCIVCR  x.lacked standing to file its original petition for reconsideration on July 16, 1992, it therefore had  xno standing to file either supplement two years later. Further, Urban maintains that the  x\Commission did not err by failing to address WACCIVCR's April 1994 Petition to Deny the  xWTMW(TV) license application, since the Commission did not consolidate that proceeding with  X - xthe instant proceeding.  See Speer II at 14687. Additionally, Urban maintains that it did not  X- xviolate the ex parte rules by not serving its March 6, 1996 informal objection on WACCIVCR  x@since WACCIVCR was not a party to the Silver King transfer of control proceeding.  Xh- xConcerning the ex parte allegations raised in WACCIVCR's July 5, 1994 supplement, Urban  xargues that because the communications at issue involved its program test authority request, non X<- xservice of the letter on WACCIVCR also did not contravene the ex parte rules. In its Reply,  xWACCIVCR claims that the communications described in the July 5, 1994 supplement were not  xLrequired by the Commission and, as elective communications, WACCIVCR asserts, they were  X-ex parte presentations.  X-  x10. Discussion: We do not believe that any of the four issues raised by WACCIVCR  X- x=warrant reconsideration of our decision in Speer III. First, regarding standing, WACCIVCR's  X- xargument that it could not have learned about the nature of the pro forma transaction prior to  X- xrelease of Urban Telecommunications does not justify its failure to participate in the earlier stages  Xy- xof the pro forma proceeding under the "good reason" requirement of Section 1.106 of the  Xd- x Commission's Rules. We note, as we did in Speer III, that the filings at issue were publicly  XO- xavailable well before our action in Urban Telecommunications. To the extent that WACCIVCR  X:- xasserts that, until publication of the grant of the pro forma application, the Commission had not  X%- xprovided adequate notice of the proceeding to parties wishing to participate,%? {O -  ЍxThe Commission had, according to standard procedure, released a notice of the filing of the pro forma application and a notice of grant of that application. the fact that WSCT X-TV, Inc. timely participated in that proceeding belies that argument."? {O#-  ЍxParties regularly participate in pro forma proceedings. See, e.g., Letter from Barbara A. Kreisman, Chief,  xVideo Services Division, to Richard A. Lederer, President, Fisher & Lederer Investment Counsel, Inc. (July 16, 1993)  {Os%- xY(objection to pro forma transfer filed by competitor in market); LIN Broadcasting Corp., DA 89726 (released June  {O=&- x28, 1989) (objection to pro forma transfer); Metromedia, Inc., 98 FCC 2d 300 (1984) (objection filed against pro  {O'- xforma transfer by citizens group); A.H. Belo Corp., 43 FCC 2d 336 (1973) (petition for reconsideration of pro forma"',-(-(8'" assignment filed by party that had filed objection against assignment).  "X,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ  ԙx11. Additionally, we do not believe that the fact that WACCIVCR's April 29 and July  x 5, 1994 supplements dealt with matters occurring subsequent to the filing of its petition for  xreconsideration gave it standing retroactively to have filed its original 1992 petition for  xZreconsideration, especially since it did not have standing at the time it filed that petition. We also  X- xemphasize that, despite not granting it formal standing in Speer III, we addressed the issues raised  xby WACCIVCR as part of our independent public interest analysis and, notably, WACCIVCR has not alleged that treating its petition in this manner prejudiced it.   mx12. Second, we disagree with WACCIVCR's argument that all of the matters it raised  xiin its Petition to Deny the WTMW(TV) license application should have been addressed and dealt  X - xwith in Speer III. As earlier indicated, we made WACCIVCR a party to the Silver King  X - xproceeding and consolidated the pro forma WTMW(TV) assignment proceeding herein because  xof the similarity of the issues WACCIVCR had raised there relating to Silver King and its  x<qualifications. Unlike the proceedings that we consolidated, the WTMW(TV) license application  x{proceeding does not directly involve Silver King. Accordingly, we reject WACCIVCR's  xassertion that we acted in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner. The WTMW(TV) license  x>application and related requests for program test authority remain pending and will be fully addressed at a later date.  XQ-  1x13. Third, for the reasons stated in Speer III, we uphold our decision with respect to  X<- xthose alleged ex parte violations raised by WACCIVCR in its April 29, 1994 supplement and  X'- xMits March 25, 1996 Comments. See Speer III at 1842718428. As for the ex parte allegations  X- xLraised in WACCIVCR's July 5, 1994 supplement that related to the pending proceeding on the  xlicense application for WTMW(TV), we believe that those matters, as well as other similar  xallegations subsequently advanced in the context of that license proceeding, should be addressed there because they relate to the qualifications of Urban, not the applicant before us here.  X-  x14. Finally, the Commission did not err in not conditioning grant of Speer III on the  xLoutcome of the national television broadcast ownership rule making proceeding. As we noted  Xs- x\earlier, see supra n.2, in Speer III we specifically concluded that no violation of the national  x=ownership cap had occurred because during the period, beginning in 1990 and ending in 1993,  XG- xin which Silver King assumed de facto control of Urban, the rule in effect at the time of the  xjviolation excluded satellites from the national cap calculation. Accordingly, we had no need in  xthe instant transfer proceeding to comment on the fact that WACCIVCR and others had filed a  x pleading in the national ownership rule making proceeding dealing with whether television  xsatellite stations should no longer be exempted from consideration under our multiple ownership  x rules, or to condition grant of the transfer on resolution of the pending national ownership proceeding. "z$X,-(-(ZZ(#"Ԍ X- Jovon Petition for Clarification and Reconsideration  X-  @ x15. In August 1990, Silver King entered into an agreement to lend Jovon, licensee of  xkWJYS(TV), Channel 62, Hammond, Indiana, funds to construct and operate the station, and  xJovon granted to Silver King an option to acquire a 45% nonvoting convertible stock interest in  xJovon. In October 1994, Silver King notified Jovon of its election to exercise the option, but  xJovon refused to consummate the option. On November 7, 1995, Jovon submitted a petition for  xdeclaratory ruling, requesting that the Commission declare that this option violates the  xCommission's crossinterest policy because Silver King controls WEHSTV, Channel 60, Aurora,  X1- xLIllinois, a station in the same market as WJYS(TV). In Speer III, we noted that the Commission  xhas not, in the context of the crossinterest policy, permitted a nonattributable equity interest in  X - xexcess of 33%, citing Cleveland Television Corp., 91 FCC 2d 1129, 1133 (Rev. Bd. 1972), rev.  X - xdenied, FCC 83235 (May 18, 1983), aff'd 732 F.2d 962 (D.C. Cir. 1984). We also determined  xthat through a put/call agreement between Jovon and Silver King, Silver King already held a 45%  xLfinancial interest in Jovon. We thus required that the put/call agreement be amended to delete  xreferences to full redemption of the option and to align it with the onethird equity interest limit.  X- xSpeer III, 11 FCC Rcd at 1844318444. Regarding the Option Agreement, we stated that Silver  xKing may not exercise its option in full, but that it may "exercise the option so that it acquires  Xj- xno more than onethird of the equity of Jovon." Id. at 18443. We also noted that, should our  xpending review of the Commission's attribution rules and policies in MM Dockets 94150, 9251  xand 87154, 11 FCC Rcd 19895 (1996), eliminate the limits placed on common ownership of  xattributable and nonattributable equity interests in separate facilities serving the same markets,  X-Silver King would be free to exercise its option in full. Speer III, at 18443 n.26.  X-  ?x16. In its Petition for Clarification and Reconsideration of Speer III, Jovon requests that  xthe Commission clarify that it did not intend to reform the Option Agreement to create a 33%  xloption or to require Jovon to sell a 33% interest to Silver King. Jovon maintains that the  xOCommission lacks the authority to do so, and that doing so would run counter to the  x"Commission's policy of not embroiling itself in private disputes. With respect to the  xCommission's statement that if it modifies the crossinterest policy Silver King may be able to  xiexercise its option, Jovon contends that if the agreement was illegal when it was created, it cannot  x0be revived by a subsequent change in the law. In response, Silver King argues that the  xjCommission did not declare the Option Agreement illegal and, therefore, should the attribution policies change, Silver King may be able to hold a 45% interest in Jovon.  X-  mx17. Discussion: In Speer III we did not determine that, after the parties amended the  xKput/call agreement, the mere existence of the unexercised Option Agreement violated our policies.  xNor did we intend to rewrite the agreement to provide for a 33% option, or to require Jovon to  xsell a 33% interest to Silver King. Rather, we simply intended to indicate that our precedent only  xallows Silver King to take up to a 33% interest in Jovon, so long as the Option Agreement, as  xwritten, allows it to do so. As Jovon notes, the Commission generally does not adjudicate  Xa%- xdisputes related to private contractual matters. See Christian Radio Communications, Inc., 8 FCC  xRcd 3205, 3205 n.3 (1993). In reaching our decision, we assumed the validity of the Option  x=Agreement, and ruled only on whether it comported with our regulations and policies. It is for"5' ,-(-(ZZ%"  xanother forum, such as the courts, to determine the effect, if any, of our decision on the validity  X- xof the Option Agreement given the various provisions contained therein.[* ? yOb-  \ЍxBy letter to the Chief, Mass Media Bureau, dated June 27, 1997, Silver King advises the Commission that  x;it has attempted to tender payment and exercise its rights under the Option Agreement in a manner consistent with  {O- xSpeer III and the Commission's rules and policies. Because that attempt was rebuffed by Jovon, Silver King states  xthat it has filed a complaint in a Florida state court seeking declaratory relief and specific performance in connection  xwith the Option Agreement. According to Silver King, Jovon has likewise filed a complaint in the same Florida  x<court, seeking declaratory relief and specific performance to require prepayment of a loan related to the Option  xAgreement. In Silver King's view, the Florida litigation should not dissuade the Commission from acting to resolve the instant proceeding.   MxOn July 18, 1997, Jovon responded to HSN's June 27 letter, providing its recitation of the facts involved  xYin Silver King's attempt to exercise the option, and reiterating the requests made in its Petition for Clarification and  x<Reconsideration. In subsequently filed letters to the Chairman and other Commissioners dated March and April  x1998, Silver King and Jovon largely repeated the same information as contained in their respective letters of June 27 and July 18, 1997, to the Chief, Mass Media Bureau. [ Lastly, regarding the  x>attribution rule making, because we did not declare that the unexercised Option Agreement  xviolated our policy, the outcome of that rule making will dictate whether Silver King will be  xpermitted to exercise its option in full under Commission regulations, again assuming the validity of the Option Agreement.  Xv- Urban Response to Notice of Apparent Liability  XH-  X1-  x18. In Urban's response to Speer III, it requests that the fine against it not be imposed  x!or, in the alternative, that it be substantially reduced. Specifically, Urban notes that the  xCommunications Act states that no forfeiture penalty may be imposed on a "nonlicensee" if the  xviolations charged occurred more than one year from the date of the notice of apparent liability.  X - x?See 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(6)(B).  ? yOB-ЍxThis section provides that: (b)(6) No forfeiture penalty shall be determined or imposed against any person under this subsection if  yO- (A) such person holds a broadcast station license issued under title III of this Act and if the violation (#(#X charged occurred x(i) more than 1 year prior to the date of issuance of the required notice or notice of apparent liability; or Xx(ii) prior to the date of commencement of the current term of such license, whichever is earlier; or(#  x (B) such person does not hold a broadcast station license issued under title III of this Act and if the violation  xK charged occurred more than 1 year prior to the date of issuance of the required notice or notice of apparent liability. 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(6)(A)(B). Urban then maintains that as a permittee it falls within the  X - xcategory of "nonlicensee" category and is therefore subject to a oneyear limitation period.  ? {O!-  @ЍxUrban points out that in Speer III the Commission refers to Urban as "the permittee of record of  {O"-WTMW(TV). See Speer III, 11 FCC Rcd at 18401 and n.4.  x=Because the Commission found that Silver King's unauthorized control of WTMW(TV) ended  X- x\in August 1993, almost three years prior to our issuance of Speer III, Urban asserts that the  xproposed forfeiture is timebarred. Even if the Commission finds that a forfeiture could be  ximposed, Urban argues, the fact that it voluntarily disclosed the alleged misconduct, despite the  xrisks it faced in making such claims against Silver King, a much more powerful company to"Q  ,-(-(ZZ " whom it is contractually bound, supports either reducing, or eliminating the proposed forfeiture.  X-  x19. Discussion:  Under Section 503(b)(1)(A), the Commission may assess a forfeiture  xLagainst a person who has "failed to comply substantially with the terms and conditions of any  X- x{license [or] permit . . . ." See 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(1)(A). Section 503(b)(6)(A) disallows the  xassessment of forfeitures against a person "hold[ing] a broadcast license issued under title III of  x[[the Communications] Act . . . if the violation charged occurred (i) more than 1 year prior to the  xdate of issuance of the required notice or notice of apparent liability; or (ii) prior to the date of  XL- x]commencement of the current term of such license, which ever is earlier."  Id. at  x 503(b)(6)(A)(i)(ii). Although the scope provision of Section 503(b)(1)(A) specifically  x\mentions permits as well as licenses, the limitations provisions of Section 503(b)(6)(A) only  xspecifically mentions licenses. In the absence of a clear reference to permit holders in the  xstatutory language of that section, we conclude that it does not apply to a permittee. Rather,  x{Section 503(b)(6)(B) applies to permit holders. Under that Section, a forfeiture cannot be  xyimposed on a person not holding a broadcast station license "if the violation charged occurred  xmore than 1 year prior to the date of issuance of the required notice." Since the violation  xkcommitted by Urban, a permittee, ended in 1993, more than one year prior to the issuance of  X- xjSpeer III, we will grant Urban's petition for reconsideration and rescind the Notice of Apparent  Xj-Liability. j? yO-  MЍxBecause we grant Urban's request to eliminate the forfeiture, we need not address its alternative argument concerning reduction of the forfeiture amount.  X<-H% CONCLUSION ă   x20. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that no new facts have been presented that  xywould cause us to reconsider our grant of the applications for transfer of control of Silver King  x-Communications, Inc. from Roy M. Speer to Silver Management, and that no other public interest  xreasons exist to cause us to set aside that earlier action. Additionally, for the reasons stated  xabove, the Notice of Apparent Liability for forfeiture issued to Urban Broadcasting Corporation will be rescinded.   x21. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED That the Petition for Partial Reconsideration and Request for Staff Directive filed by WACCIVCR IS DENIED.   x22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the request for recision or mitigation of forfeiture  xfiled by Urban Broadcasting Corporation IS GRANTED, and the Notice of Apparent Liability  X-for forfeiture issued to Urban in Roy M. Speer, 11 FCC Rcd 18393 (1996) IS RESCINDED. "  ,-(-(ZZ"   x23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the Petition for Clarification and Reconsideration  xfiled by Jovon Broadcasting Corporation IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein, and IS DENIED in all other respects. R" TFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION X(#P x` `  hh@ Magalie Roman Salas x` `  hh@ Secretary