Click here for Microsoft Word Version
******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).

*****************************************************************




                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                 )
                                )
                                )
Citicasters Co.                  )    File No. 00-IH-0283 
                                )    NAL/Acct.                No. 
                                )    200132080019/MG


           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted:  February 12, 2001          Released:  February   13, 

2001

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.  INTRODUCTION
In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we 
find that Citicasters Co. (Citicasters) apparently willfully and 
repeatedly violated Section 310(d) of the Communications Act, as 
amended (the Act)1, and Section 73.3540 of the Commission's 
rules2 by assuming control of WBTJ(FM), Hubbard, Ohio, without 
prior Commission consent.  Based upon the facts and circumstances 
surrounding these apparent violations, we find that Citicasters 
is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $25,000.

                         II.  BACKGROUND


Citicasters  is   an  indirect   subsidiary  of   Clear   Channel 
Communications, Inc., which  controls radio  station licenses  in 
and around the Youngstown,  Ohio area.3  Stop 26-Riverbend,  Inc. 
(Stop 26), is the  licensee of WBTJ(FM),  also in the  Youngstown 
area.  Citicasters and  Stop 26  entered into  an asset  purchase 
agreement and  a  related  time  brokerage  agreement  (TBA)4  in 
connection  with  an  application  proposing  the  assignment  of 
WBTJ(FM)'s license  from Stop  26 to  Citicasters. See  File  No. 
BALH-19990816GE. The TBA referenced the asset purchase  agreement 
for the proposed sale of the  station, and provided that Stop  26 
would  accept  programming  from  Citicasters  for  broadcast  on 
WBTJ(FM).   While the assignment application was pending, Stop 26 
and Citicasters became involved in  a dispute after Stop 26  gave 
Citicasters notice that it  would terminate the  TBA in order  to 
provide programming on WBTJ(FM) of its own choosing.  Citicasters 
rejected this  notice  of termination  because  Stop 26  had  not 
repaid advances made  to it under  the asset purchase  agreement.  
Stop 26 and  Citicasters attempted to  resolve issues related  to 
the TBA  and  financial  arrangements under  the  asset  purchase 
agreement, but could  not reach a  settlement.  Citicasters  then 
filed  a  complaint  in  state   court  based  on  the   dispute.  
Citicasters also requested a restraining order and injunction  to 
prevent Stop 26  from ``interfering,  obstructing, or  disrupting 
programming broadcast by Citicasters on the station.''  Complaint 
filed by Citicasters  on June  20, 2000, Court  of Common  Pleas, 
Mahoning County, OH.  

The state  court in  Mahoning County,  Ohio, issued  a  temporary 
restraining order that  required Stop 26  to seek court  approval 
before  placing  programming  on  WBTJ(FM).   Specifically,   the 
restraining order provided that Stop 26 may preempt  Citicasters' 
programming on WBTJ(FM)  ``only after issuance  of an order  from 
[the state court] that such preemption is necessary and permitted 
under the TBA.''  Citicasters Co. v. Stop 26-Riverbend, Inc., No. 
00-CV-1582 (Mahoning  County  Court  of Common  Pleas,  July  21, 
2000)(Order  Reaffirming  and  Continuing  Temporary  Restraining 
Order entered June 20, 2000).  The court's order restrained  Stop 
26  ``from  in  any   manner,  either  directly  or   indirectly, 
interfering, obstructing,  or disrupting  Plaintiff  [Citicasters 
Co.] in broadcasting programming on WBTJ, 101.9 FM or taking  any 
actions  in  violation  of  Plaintiff's  rights  under  its  Time 
Brokerage Agreement....''  Id. Stop  26 had  resumed  programming 
WBTJ(FM) on July 1, 2000 while it pursued appeals of the Mahoning 
County court's orders.   However, those  appeals were  ultimately 
unsuccessful.5  On August 22, 2000, Stop 26 permitted Citicasters 
to resume programming  WBTJ(FM), in compliance  with the  court's 
July 21,  2000 temporary  restraining order.6   However, Stop  26 
requested  and  obtained  the   Commission's  dismissal  of   the 
assignment application, over Citicasters' objection.7

Stop 26 also filed a  formal complaint with the Commission  based 
on Citicasters' actions with respect to WBTJ(FM).  The  complaint 
referenced the court orders that required Stop 26 to obtain court 
approval before preempting programming that Citicasters  provides 
to WBTJ(FM) under the TBA.  The staff of the Enforcement  Bureau, 
Investigations and  Hearings Division,  reviewed this  complaint, 
and determined that  Citicasters may  have effectively  exercised 
control over the programming of WBTJ(FM), in violation of Section 
310(d) of the Act, which prohibits  the transfer of control of  a 
broadcast station  license,  or any  rights  thereunder,  without 
prior  Commission  consent.   The  Investigations  and   Hearings 
Division issued  a letter  of  inquiry directing  Citicasters  to 
explain its actions in light of Section 310(d) of the Act and the 
Commission's rules and policies concerning control of a broadcast 
station license. See  Letter to  Mr. Jerome  L. Kersting,  Senior 
Vice President,  Citicasters  Co.,  Ref.  EB-00-IH-0283/MG,  from 
Charles W. Kelley, Chief,  Investigations and Hearings  Division, 
Enforcement Bureau (Oct.18, 2000).  

Citicasters filed its response to the Enforcement Bureau's letter 
of inquiry, and asserted that  its actions did not effectuate  an 
unauthorized transfer of control of WBTJ(FM). Citicasters  argues 
that  the  terms  of  the  TBA  are  consistent  with  Commission 
precedent, ensuring that Stop 26 remained in control of  WBTJ(FM) 
but requiring Stop  26 to make  decisions concerning  programming 
and station  operations  in  a  reasonable,  good  faith  manner. 
Citicasters claims that Stop  26 failed to  act reasonably or  in 
good faith with respect to its attempts to terminate the TBA  and 
to preempt  programming,  thereby  breaching  the  terms  of  its 
contractual agreements.   Citicasters  argues  that  under  these 
circumstances, it was  entitled to seek  judicial enforcement  of 
the terms of the TBA.  In addition, Citicasters asserts that  the 
temporary restraining order preserved the status quo pending  the 
outcome of  litigation  of  the  parties'  contractual  disputes, 
especially  given:   (1)  Stop  26's  unjustifiable  attempt   to 
terminate the TBA in  the context of its  breach of the  purchase 
agreement;  (2)  Stop   26's  attempts  to   use  preemption   of 
Citicasters' programming as  a pretext to  avoid its  contractual 
obligations under the  asset purchase agreement  and TBA and  (3) 
the irreparable harm to  Citicasters, to WBTJ(FM)'s  advertisers, 
and to  WBTJ(FM)'s  listeners  caused  by  Stop  26's  unilateral 
termination of Citicasters' programming.  Futhermore, Citicasters 
asserts  that  the  Commission  does  not  have  jurisdiction  to 
adjudicate this contractual dispute.  Citicasters claims that the 
Ohio court was required to enforce the TBA and determine  whether 
Stop 26 abided  by its  obligations to preempt  programming in  a 
reasonable, good  faith  manner.   Citicasters  argues  that  the 
temporary  restraining  order  was  merely  a  safeguard  and   a 
screening device to ensure that  Stop 26 complied with the  terms 
of the TBA  and did  not interfere  with its  bona fide  contract 
rights during  the pendency  of litigation  within the  exclusive 
jurisdiction of the state court.

The letter of inquiry issued  by the Investigations and  Hearings 
Division also  afforded Stop  26 the  opportunity to  respond  to 
Citicasters'  submission.   Stop  26  asserts  that   Citicasters 
usurped its authority by precipitating and vigorously prosecuting 
injunctive relief  that  has  barred  Stop  26  from  programming 
WBTJ(FM).  In  this  regard,  Stop  26  claims  that  Citicasters 
deliberately thwarted its repeated attempts to resume programming 
the station by pursuing the  temporary restraining order as  well 
as criminal contempt citations against Stop 26 and its principals 
which were imposed  after Stop  26 failed  to immediately  comply 
with the court's orders.  Stop  26 also filed a supplement  which 
indicates that Stop 26  resumed programming WBTJ(FM) on  November 
12, 2000.8  In addition,  Stop 26 reported  that on November  17, 
2000, it received written notification of Citicasters'  intention 
to  terminate  the  TBA.   Citicasters  responded  to  Stop  26's 
supplement, and reiterated its argument  that it was entitled  to 
seek injunctive relief in state court and that there has been  no 
unauthorized transfer of control of WBTJ(FM) as a consequence  of 
its conduct.   Citicasters also  affirms that  the TBA  has  been 
terminated.9

                           III.  DISCUSSION

Section 310(d) of the  Communications Act, as amended,  prohibits 
the transfer of control  of a broadcast  station license, or  any 
rights thereunder, without prior Commission consent.  47  U.S.C. 
310(d).  See also 47 C.F.R.  73.3540.  The Commission has  ruled 
that a  licensee's participation  in a  local marketing  or  time 
brokerage  agreement  is   not  per   se  a   violation  of   the 
Communications Act or any Commission rule or policy. WGPR,  Inc., 
10 FCC Rcd 8140, 8141  (1995)(subsequent history with respect  to 
unrelated issues is omitted). 

However, the Commission has repeatedly emphasized that a licensee 
involved in  a  time  brokerage agreement  must  retain  ultimate 
control  of  the   station.  See,   e.g.,  Choctaw   Broadcasting 
Corporation, 12 FCC  Rcd 8534  (1997); WGPR,  Inc., supra;  WHDH, 
Inc., 17  FCC  2d  856  (1969), aff'd  sub  nom.  Greater  Boston 
Television Corp. v.  FCC, 444  F.2d 841 (D.C.  Cir. 1970),  cert. 
denied, 403  U.S. 923  (1971).    ``The focus  of any  Commission 
inquiry with  respect to  the  locus of  control of  a  station's 
operation is tripartite: the  programming, the personnel and  the 
finances.'' WGPR,  Inc.,  10 FCC  Rcd  at 8141.    Licensees  are 
permitted under Section 310(d) of the Act to delegate  day-to-day 
operations, but  such  delegation  may  not  be  wholesale.   The 
licensee, and not  the broker,  must mandate  the basic  policies 
pertaining to  fundamental  station  operations  in  these  three 
areas.  See Southwest Texas  Public Broadcasting Council, 85  FCC 
2d  713,   715  (1981);   The  Alabama   Educational   Television 
Commission, 33 FCC 2d 495, 508 (1972).  The Commission  evaluates 
issues of license control  by ascertaining  whether the  licensee 
establishes policies  governing these  three essential  areas  of 
station operation.  See WGPR, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd at 8142. 

Citicasters claims that terms of the  TBA are in accord with  the 
terms of  other similar  agreements approved  by the  Commission. 
Specifically, with regard to preemption rights, Citicasters cites 
similar  agreements   that  contain   provisions  requiring   the 
licensee's programming  substitution decisions  to be  made  ``in 
good faith.''  WGPR, Inc.,  10 FCC Rcd at  8141; Roy R. Russo,  5 
FCC Rcd 7586 (MMB  1990). Citicasters states  that each of  these 
agreements require  the  licensee's control  to  be  ``reasonably 
exercised'' with  respect  to decisions  concerning  programming, 
station policies and  operations.  Citicasters  also argues  that 
provisions for termination  of the  TBA are  comparable to  those 
approved in WGPR, Inc.10  Moreover,  Citicasters claims that  the 
terms of the TBA and  asset purchase agreement were reviewed  and 
approved by the Commission in connection with an earlier sale  of 
WBTJ(FM) from Stop 26 to Citicasters that ultimately could not be 
consummated.11

However, the Commission looks beyond  the terms of the  agreement 
to the  facts  of a  specific  case  in order  to  determine  the 
exercise of  actual  control.   Thus,  Citicasters  cannot  avoid 
scrutiny by claiming that the terms of its TBA with Stop 26  were 
modeled on other agreements, including the agreement at issue  in 
WGPR, Inc.  The Commission's decision  in WGPR, Inc. recites  the 
terms of a  local marketing agreement,  including the  licensee's 
obligation to make ``good faith'' determinations as to whether to 
preempt programming. In addition, the Commission ruled that ``the 
licensee should be ready and  able to operate independently  from 
the broker  at any  time  it believes  the arrangement  does  not 
fulfill its  public interest  responsibilities.'' 10  FCC Rcd  at 
8145.  In WGPR,  Inc., Commission concluded  the local  marketing 
agreement, including the ``good faith'' provisions: 

     assures that [the  licensee] has the  unqualified right  to:  
     substitute a  program it  believes is  of greater  local  or 
     national importance or which it believes will better address 
     the problems, needs and interests of [WGPR-TV's community of 
     license]; reject or  refuse a  program that  it believes  is 
     unsuitable or  contrary to  the public  interest; refuse  to 
     broadcast  any  program  that   does  not  meet   Commission 
     requirements; preempt any program in  the event of a  local, 
     state or  national  emergency;  and  delete  any  commercial 
     announcement  that   does   not   comply   with   Commission 
     requirements or any other laws.

8 FCC Rcd at 8142.

Moreover, the  Commission  determined  that  the  licensee  ``has 
maintained control of WGPR-TV  programming as provided under  the 
terms of its local marketing  agreement and in practice.'' Id  at 
8143 (emphasis added). 

In determining  whether  or not  the  licensee has  control  over 
station programming, the  Commission has looked  at, among  other 
things, the licensee's involvement in any format changes and  the 
ability of the licensee to reject or preempt programming. Choctaw 
Broadcasting Corporation, 12 FCC Rcd 8534, 8538-39 (1997);  WGPR, 
Inc., 10 FCC Rcd at 8142.  During the period from August 22, 2000 
to  November  12,   2000,  the  injunctive   relief  awarded   to 
Citicasters at  its  request  required  Stop  26  to  seek  court 
approval before exercising involvement in WBTJ(FM)'s programming. 
Whether or  not this  was  consistent with  the contract,  it  is 
inconsistent with the licensee's primary obligations with respect 
to an  essential aspect  of station  operation. The  Commission's 
policies and  decisions  regarding  the  permissibility  of  time 
brokerage  agreements  have  emphasized  that  the  licensee   is 
responsible for the programming aired on its station,  regardless 
of the source, and  that licensees of  brokered stations are  not 
exempt from their  responsibility to assess  community needs  and 
problems and to provide issue responsive programming.12  

While we do  not disagree  with Citicasters'  assertion that  its 
agreements with Stop 26 encompass certain contractual rights  and 
obligations  that   are  outside   the  Commission's   regulatory 
jurisdiction, we are not adjudicating such rights and obligations 
here.  Rather, we are assessing whether Citicasters violated  the 
Communications  Act  and  the  Commission's  rules  by  obtaining 
interim equitable relief  from a  state court  - in  the form  of 
temporary restraining orders that effectively substituted a  non-
licensee's programming policies and  decisions for those of  Stop 
26 - without prior approval  of the Commission.  We believe  that 
Citicasters' actions precluded Stop 26 from exercising its rights 
to substitute programming which "it believes is of greater  local 
or national importance or which  it believes will better  address 
the problems, needs and interests'' of the community of  license.  
See WGPR, Inc., 8  FCC Rcd at 8142.   It was not sufficient  that 
Stop  26  had  the  right  to  seek  court  approval  to  preempt 
programming under the TBA.  Where a contractual dispute is before 
a court, the  licensee must  retain actual  control of  essential 
station functions unless  the Commission gives  prior consent  to 
the assignment or transfer of  control of the station.  Thus,  it 
is a violation of the  Communications Act to invoke remedies  for 
breach, including  injunctive  or other  equitable  relief,  that 
impinge on  such  control,  without  obtaining  prior  Commission 
consent.  Under these circumstances, Citicasters' actions  appear 
to have resulted  in a  violation of Section  310(d) and  Section 
73.3540 of the rules.   In this regard, control  over any one  of 
the three areas essential to station operation is sufficient  for 
a  finding  of  an  unauthorized  transfer  or  an   unauthorized 
assumption of control.  See, e.g., Hicks Broadcasting of Indiana, 
LLC, 13 FCC Rcd  10662, 10677 (1998)(Hearing Designation  Order).  
Until Stop 26's  ability to preempt  programming on WBTJ(FM)  was 
restored, it could not exercise control over its license. 

             IV.    CONCLUSION AND FORFEITURE AMOUNT

We conclude that Citicasters  apparently violated Section  310(d) 
the Act and Section 73.3540 of the Commission's rules by assuming 
control of  WBTJ(FM),  Hubbard, Ohio,  without  prior  Commission 
consent.  The violation continued from August 22, 2000, when Stop 
26 came  into compliance  with  the temporary  restraining  order 
issued by the state court, until November 12, 2000, when Stop  26 
resumed programming of  WBTJ(FM).  Based upon  our review of  the 
entire record,  we  find that  the  violations were  willful  and 
repeated.  The Commission  has held  that an act  or omission  is 
``willful'' if it is a conscious and deliberate act or  omission, 
whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule.  Southern 
California Broadcasting Company, 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991)(definition 
of willfulness contained in 47 U.S.C.  312(f) applies equally to 
47  U.S.C.    503).  Furthermore,  a  continuing  violation   is 
``repeated'' if it  lasts more than  one day.  Id,  6 FCC Rcd  at 
4388.  Under these circumstances, we conclude that the violations 
warrant the imposition of a monetary forfeiture.  

Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act13  and Section 1.80(b)(4) of  the 
Commission's rules14  require  us  to  take  into  account  ``the 
nature, circumstances, extent and  gravity of the violation  and, 
with respect  to the  violator, the  degree of  culpability,  any 
history of prior offenses, ability to pay and such other  matters 
as  justice   my   require.''15   The   Commission's   Forfeiture 
Guidelines establish a base amount of  $8,000 for an unauthorized 
substantial transfer  of  control.  The  Commission's  Forfeiture 
Policy Statement and Amendment  of Section 1.80  of the Rules  to 
Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,  12 FCC Rcd 17087  (1997), 
recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999)(Policy Statement).  We  find 
that imposition  of a  forfeiture that  is higher  than the  base 
amount is warranted based on our  review of the record.  In  this 
regard, Citicasters' actions were  particularly serious in  light 
of  Stop  26's  repeated   and  consistent  attempts  to   resume 
programming WBTJ(FM).   Further, the  record supports  a  finding 
that Citicasters is an experienced broadcaster which should  have 
been aware that  its actions  with respect  to WBTJ(FM)  required 
prior Commission  approval.   Thus, based  upon  the  information 
before us and taking into consideration the factors expressed  in 
Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we find that a forfeiture in the 
amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) is appropriate.

                      V.   ORDERING CLAUSES

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS  ORDERED THAT, pursuant  to Section 503(b)  of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,16 and Section 1.80 of 
the Commission's rules,17 Citicasters  Co. is hereby NOTIFIED  of 
its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of  twenty-
five thousand  dollars  ($25,000) for  willfully  and  repeatedly 
violating Section 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934,18  as 
amended, and Section 73.3540 of the Commission's rules.19

IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED,  pursuant   to  Section  1.80  of   the 
Commission's rules,20 that within thirty  days of the release  of 
this Notice, Citicasters Co.,  SHALL PAY the  full amount of  the 
proposed forfeiture  or SHALL  FILE a  written statement  seeking 
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. Payment  of 
the forfeiture  may  be  made  by  mailing  a  check  or  similar 
instrument, payable to  the order of  the Federal  Communications 
Commission,  and   addressed   to  the   Federal   Communications 
Commission, P.O. Box  73482, Chicago,  Illinois 60673-7482.   The 
payment should note the  NAL number of  this proceeding (NAL  No. 
200132080019).  Requests for  full payment  under an  installment 
plan should be sent to: Chief, Credit and Debt Management Center, 
445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.21

IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED, that a  copy of this  Notice of  Apparent 
Liability for forfeiture SHALL BE SENT by Certified Mail - Return 
Receipt Requested, to Citicasters' counsel of record:  Marissa G. 
Repp, Esq.,  Hogan  & Hartson,  L.L.P.,  555 13th  Street,  N.W., 
Washington, DC 20004-1109



                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION





                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau
                         




_________________________

1   47 U.S.C.  310(d).

2   47 C.F.R.  73.3540.

3   Radio   station  licenses   controlled  by   Clear   Channel 
Communications, Inc. include WKBN(AM) and WMXY(FM),  Youngstown, 
Ohio.   Citicasters  Co.  is  the  licensee  of  both  of  these 
stations.

4  Time brokerage is defined as  ``a type of joint venture  that 
generally involves the sale by a licensee of `discrete blocks of 
time to a ``broker'' who  then supplies the programming to  fill 
that time and sells the commercial spot announcements to support 
it.'''   Revision of Radio Rules  and Policies in MM Docket  91-
140, Report  and Order,  7  FCC Rcd  2755, 2784  (1992),  citing 
Policy Statement in  BC Docket  No. 78-355,  82 FCC  2d 107  n.2 
(1980).  Time brokerage  agreements also may  be referred to  as 
``local  marketing   agreements''  in   practice  and   in   the 
Commission's precedents.

5   Orders  of the  Mahoning County  court were  stayed  pending 
procedural  appeals.   The   temporary  restraining  order   was 
reinstated  following   the   conclusion  of   those   appellate 
proceedings and the  case was  remanded to  the Mahoning  County 
court.

66   Stop  26's  initial  refusal to  comply  with  the  court's 
temporary restraining  orders resulted  in a  contempt  citation 
being issued  to  Stop  26  and Percy  Squire,  an  officer  and 
shareholder, and  its  counsel.  Citicasters  Co.  v.  Stop  26-
Riverbend, Inc., No. 00-CV-1582 (Mahoning County Court of Common 
Pleas, Sept. 21, 2000)(Judgment Entry). 

7 Stop  26  filed  a  request  for  voluntary  dismissal  of  the 
assignment application on  July 11, 2000.   Citicasters filed  an 
opposition, requesting that  the Commission  maintain the  status 
quo pending the outcome of  the ongoing litigation. However,  the 
staff  of  the  Mass  Media  Bureau  subsequently  dismissed  the 
assignment application.  Letter to Percy Squire, Esq.,  Reference 
No. 1800B3-AB  (Chief, Audio  Services  Division, MMB,  Sept.  7, 
2000).  Citicasters has filed  a petition for reconsideration  of 
the staff's action dismissing the assignment application.  

8   Stop 26's supplemental pleading indicates that, in its view, 
the temporary restraining order had  expired due to the  passage 
of time. 

9   We note that on October 10, 2000, Stop 26 filed a third party 
complaint in the state court proceeding, naming the  Commission's 
Chairman and the individual Commissioners in this complaint.  The 
case was  removed  to  federal  court pursuant  to  28  U.S.C.   
1442(a)(1), which  provides for  the removal  of cases  involving 
claims against federal officers.  However, the federal court  has 
dismissed the third party complaint, has terminated the temporary 
restraining order,  and has  remanded the  case to  the  Mahoning 
County  Court   of   Common  Pleas   for   further   proceedings.  
Citicasters Co. v. Stop 26-Riverbend, Inc., Case No.  4:00CV02808 
(N.D. O.H. Feb. 5, 2001). Stop 26 has appealed the dismissal  and 
remand.  

10 Under the TBA, the termination  was to occur upon closing  of 
the purchase agreement or within  10 days of termination of  the 
purchase agreement.   In addition,  the TBA could be  terminated 
by the non-defaulting  party in the  event of a  default by  the 
other party.

11  The approval  of the  application to assign  the license  of 
WBTJ(FM) from  Stop 26  to Citicasters  predated the  merger  of 
Citicasters' parent  company,  Jacor Communications,  Inc.,  and 
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. See File No. BALH-19980528GE.  
Control of Jacor, and its indirect subsidiary, Citicasters,  was 
transferred to Clear  Channel upon consummation  of the  merger, 
but Clear Channel was not the assignee approved in the May  1998 
assignment application.   Accordingly, following  the merger,  a 
new application was filed for  consent to assign the license  of 
WBTJ(FM) from  Stop  26 to  Citicasters.    See File  No.  BALH-
19998016GE.   As  discussed infra,  this application  was  later 
dismissed at Stop 26's request.

12  See, e.g., Revision of Radio Rules and Policies in MM Docket 
91-140, Memorandum Opinion  and Order, 7  FCC Rcd 6387,  6401-02 
(1992)(subsequent history  omitted)(imposing restrictions  under 
the local  radio  ownership  rules  on  certain  time  brokerage 
agreements and  requiring  licensee's/permittee's  certification 
that  it  maintains  control  over  the  station's   facilities, 
including  finances,  personnel  and  programming).   See   also 
Reexamination of the Commission's  Cross-Interest Policy, 4  FCC 
Rcd 2208, 2214  (1989)(Under Commission's former  cross-interest 
policy, time  brokerage agreements  were permitted,  subject  to 
requirement   that   licensee   maintain   control   over    its 
programming);  Part-time Programming, 82 FCC 2d 107 (1980).     

13   47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

14   47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4).

15   47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

16   47 U.S.C.  503(b).

17   47 C.F.R.  1.80.

18   47 U.S.C.  310(d).

19   47 C.F.R.  73.3540.

20   47 C.F.R.  1.80.

21  See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.