Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

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



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


In the matter of                 )
                                )
                                )
CITICASTERS LICENSES, INC.       )    File No.  00-IH-0283
                                )    NAL/Acct. No. 
                                )    200132080019/MG
                                )    FRN 0003-0174-23
                                )
                                )


                     MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted:   January 18, 2002          Released:  January 28, 
2002

By the Commission:

                          INTRODUCTION

     1.   In  this   Memorandum  Opinion   and  Order   we   deny 
Citicasters  Licenses,  Inc.'s1  (``Citicasters'')  petition  for 
reconsideration of our dismissal of its application for review of 
a Forfeiture  Order issued  by  the Chief,  Enforcement  Bureau.2  
Citicasters' application for review challenged for the first time 
the Bureau's  imposition  of  a  $25,000  forfeiture  based  upon 
Citicasters' unauthorized  assumption  of  control  of  WBTJ(FM), 
Hubbard,  Ohio,   in  violation   of   section  310(d)   of   the 
Communications Act  of 1934,  as amended,  (``Act'') and  section 
73.3540 of  the  Commission's rules  (``rules'').3  We  dismissed 
Citicasters' application for review pursuant to section  1.115(a) 
of the rules because Citicasters  did not demonstrate good  cause 
for its failure to participate in the forfeiture proceeding prior 
to  the  filing  of  its  application  for  review.   Citicasters 
contends, on reconsideration, that it was not required to make  a 
good  cause  showing,  and  thus   that  our  dismissal  of   its 
application for review on procedural grounds was erroneous.   For 
the reasons set  forth below,  we deny  Citicasters' request  for 
reconsideration.

     2.     Citicasters  argues  that,  as  the  target  of   the 
forfeiture  proceeding,  it   is  a  party   to  the   forfeiture 
proceeding, and  thus  is  exempt from  the  good  cause  showing 
required  by  section  1.115(a).  Citicasters  claims  that   the 
Commission has specifically limited the good cause requirement of 
section 1.115(a) to non-parties that participate in a  proceeding 
for the  first time  by filing  an application  for review  of  a 
decision made under delegated authority.   We disagree. 

                           DISCUSSION

     3.   As a preliminary  matter, we note  that the good  cause 
requirement of  section  1.115(a)  applies on  its  face  to  all 
``persons,'' not just non-parties.  The precedent cited4 does not 
support Citicasters' assertion  that a party  is exempt from  the 
good cause requirements  of section 1.115(a),  despite the  plain 
language of the rule.   The cited cases  all involve a  non-party 
that sought review of an action taken by the delegated  authority 
without participating  earlier.  Thus, this  precedent  does  not 
specifically address the applicability  of 1.115(a) when a  party 
fails to  contest the  delegated  authority's decision  prior  to 
filing an application for review.   Nor do these cases rule  that 
parties are not subject to the good cause requirements of section 
1.115(a).

     4.   Citicasters also cites the language of the Commission's 
rule for  dealing  with petitions  for  reconsideration,  section 
1.106(b)(1), which requires a non-party to show good cause if  it 
fails to participate prior  to requesting reconsideration of  the 
delegated authority's  action.   Section 1.106(b)(1)  imposes  no 
similar requirement  on a  party.   Citicasters argues  that  the 
Commission has  found  the  good  cause  requirement  of  section 
1.115(a) to  be  ``similar'' to  the  good cause  requirement  of 
section 1.106, and thus that  the good cause requirement of  both 
rules is  applicable only  to non-parties.5   However, the  plain 
language of  the two  rule sections  differs -  section  1.115(a) 
applies to all ``persons'' while section 1.106(b)(1) applies only 
to non-parties.  The  cases cited by  Citicasters do not  address 
this, or specifically  rule on the  issue of whether  a party  is 
exempt from  the  good  cause  requirement  of  section  1.115(a) 
despite the language of the rule.6  

     5.   Alternatively,   Citicasters   argues   that   it   did 
previously  participate  in  the  proceeding.   In  this  regard, 
Citicasters states that  it responded to  the Bureau's letter  of 
inquiry and that the Bureau addressed this response in the Notice 
of Apparent Liability (``NAL'')  proposing a forfeiture based  on 
its apparent violation of the statute and the Commission's rules.  
However, a  forfeiture  proceeding  commences when  a  notice  of 
apparent liability is issued, giving the person against whom  the 
notice has been issued the  opportunity to show, in writing,  why 
no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.7   Citicasters  did 
not  respond  to  the  Bureau's  NAL.   Thus,  we  disagree  with 
Citicasters' argument.  

                           CONCLUSION

     6.   For reasons  that  are  unclear,  Citicasters  did  not 
respond to the Bureau's NAL.  Instead, it responded in the  first 
instance to the Commission  in an application  for review of  the 
Bureau's default  forfeiture  order.  This  is  not the  way  the 
Commission's rules work. The target  of a Bureau NAL is  supposed 
to give  the  Bureau the  opportunity  to address  its  arguments 
before raising them with the Commission.8  Citicasters did not do 
so.   Accordingly,  we   affirm  our  prior   dismissal  of   the 
application for review.

                        ORDERING CLAUSES

     7.   ACCORDINGLY, IT  IS ORDERED  That, Citicasters'  Motion 
for Leave to File a supplement  to its application for review  IS 
HEREBY DENIED and the Supplement to Application for Review  filed 
October 29, 2001 IS HEREBY DISMISSED.

     8.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED  That, pursuant to section  1.106 
of the rules,  47 C.F.R.   1.106,  Citicasters Licenses,  Inc.'s 
Petition for Reconsideration of the dismissal of its  application 
for review of the Forfeiture Order for NAL No. 200132080019/MG IS 
HEREBY DENIED.  

     9.   IT  IS   FURTHER  ORDERED   That  the   Opposition   to 
Citicasters' petition  for  reconsideration, filed  September  6, 
2001  by  Stop  26-Riverbend,  Inc.,  IS  HEREBY  DISMISSED,  and 
Citicasters' reply to this opposition IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. 

     10.  Payment of the forfeiture shall  be made in the  manner 
provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules9 within 30 
days of the date  of the release of  this Memorandum Opinion  and 
Order.   If  the  forfeiture  is  not  paid  within  the   period 
specified, the case may be referred to the Department of  Justice 
for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act.10   Payment 
may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable  to 
the order  of  the  Federal  Communications  Commission,  to  the 
Forfeiture   Collection   Section,   Finance   Branch,    Federal 
Communications Commission,  P.O.  Box  73482,  Chicago,  Illinois 
60673-7482.  The payment must include  the FRN and the  NAL/Acct. 
No.  referenced  above.   Requests  for  full  payment  under  an 
installment  plan  should   be  sent  to:   Chief,  Revenue   and 
Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W.,  Washington, 
D.C. 20554.11    

     11.  IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED That a  copy of this  Memorandum 
Opinion and Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return  Receipt 
Requested to Citicasters Licenses, Inc., 50 E. RiverCenter Blvd., 
12th Floor,  Covington, KY   41011 and  to Citicasters'  counsel, 
Marissa G. Repp, Esq., Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., 555 13th  Street, 
N.W., Washington, DC  20004-1109.



                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



       

                              Magalie Roman Salas
                              Secretary
_________________________

1  Formerly named Citicasters Co. 
2  Citicasters  Co.,  16  FCC   Rcd  14137  (2001).   See   also, 
Citicasters Co., 16 FCC Rcd 7582 (EB 2001)(Forfeiture Order);  16 
FCC Rcd 3415 (EB 2001)(Notice of Apparent Liability). On  October 
29, 2001,  Citicasters  filed  a  motion  for  leave  to  file  a 
supplement  to   its   application  for   review.    Citicasters' 
supplement is  untimely because  it was  filed outside  the  time 
period established in section 1.115  of the rules and well  after 
our decision dismissing its application for review.  47 C.F.R.   
1.115(c).  Citicasters argues that  acceptance of the  supplement 
will not result in administrative inconvenience or delay  because 
its application for review  was dismissed rather than  considered 
on the  merits.   However, Citicasters'  supplement  also  raises 
arguments that  the  Bureau  did  not  have  the  opportunity  to 
consider  and  address,   in  violation   of  section   1.115(c).  
Citicasters addresses this procedural deficiency by arguing  that 
the Commission can return this matter to the Bureau to be treated 
as a petition for reconsideration.  We decline to do so and  will 
deny Citicasters' motion and  dismiss the supplement. See,  e.g., 
BDPCS, Inc.,  15 FCC  Rcd 17590,  17596-97 (2000)(supplements  to 
application for  review that  are  not filed  within 30  days  of 
public notice of the  Commission's action on delegated  authority 
and which raise matters on which the delegated authority has  not 
had an  opportunity to  consider are  procedurally deficient  and 
warrant dismissal on  their face); Greater  Media Radio  Company, 
Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 7090, 7102 (1999)(dismissing a supplement to  an 
application for review that advances new legal arguments on which 
the Mass Media  Bureau did not  have an opportunity  to pass,  in 
violation of section 1.115(c)).  
3   47 U.S.C.   310(d); 47  C.F.R.  73.3540.   In addition,  we 
note that the call sign of WBTJ(FM) has been changed to WRBP(FM).  
The licensee of  the station,  Stop 26-Riverbend,  Inc. filed  an 
opposition to  Citicasters' petition  for reconsideration.   Stop 
26-Riverbend, Inc. was not a party to the forfeiture  proceeding, 
and its opposition will be dismissed.   
4   Family  Stations,  Inc.,  12  FCC  Rcd  11779  (1997);  Local 
Exchange Carrier  Line  Information  Database,  8  FCC  Rcd  2957 
(1993); Indianapolis Telephone  Company, 2 FCC  Rcd 2893  (1987); 
Pan American Satellite  Corporation, 60 RR  2d 398 (1986);  Wayne 
State University, 53 FCC Rcd 697 (1975).  
5    Citicasters  cites  Wayne  State  University,  supra,  which 
addresses a pleading filed with the Commission styled as both  an 
application for review  or a petition  for reconsideration.   The 
pleading was  filed by  a non-party  that had  not presented  its 
arguments to the delegated  authority.  The decision states  that 
both 1.115  and 1.106  require  non-parties to  demonstrate  good 
cause if the non-party did not participate earlier.   Citicasters 
also cites Heritage Cablevision Associates of Dallas, L.P., 7 FCC 
Rcd 4192 (1992), which notes  that both 1.115(a) and  1.106(b)(1) 
have similar good cause requirements for non-parties.
6  Section 1.106(b)(1) provides:
 (b)(1) Subject to the limitations set forth in paragraph  (b)(2) 
of this section [applicable  to petitions for reconsideration  of 
the Commission's denial of an application for review], any  party 
to the  proceeding,  or  any other  person  whose  interests  are 
adversely affected by any  action taken by  the Commission or  by 
the  designated  authority,  may   file  a  petition   requesting 
reconsideration of the action taken.  If the petition is filed by 
a person who  is not a  party to the  proceeding, it shall  state 
with particularity the manner in which the person's interests are 
adversely affected by the action taken and shall show good reason 
why it was  not possible for  him to participate  in the  earlier 
stages of the proceeding.  
Section 1.115(a) provides:
 (a)  Any person  aggrieved  by  any  action  taken  pursuant  to 
delegated authority may file an application requesting review  of 
that action by the Commission.  Any person filing an  application 
for review who has not previously participated in the  proceeding 
shall include with  his application a  statement describing  with 
particularity the manner in which  he is aggrieved by the  action 
taken and showing good reason why it was not possible for him  to 
participate  in  the  earlier  stages  of  the  proceeding.   Any 
application for review which fails to make an adequate showing in 
this respect will be dismissed.   
7   47  U.S.C.  503(b); 47  C.F.R.   1.80(e)(providing  that  a 
forfeiture proceeding may be initiated either by issuing a notice 
of apparent liability  or a notice  of opportunity for  hearing).  
See generally WXTV  License Partnership, G.P.,  15 FCC Rcd  3308, 
3317 25 (2000) and Cable Vision Systems Corporation, 15 FCC  Rcd 
3269(2000)(Notice of Apparent Liability)  (Commission issues  (1) 
a decision in a complaint proceeding and (2) a Notice of Apparent 
Liability growing out of the complaint as separate matters on the 
same day). Additionally, Citicasters argues that it  participated 
in the forfeiture proceeding by  responding to a letter filed  by 
Stop 26-Riverbend, Inc., the licensee  of WBTJ(FM), prior to  the 
expiration of the 30  day period following  issuance of the  NAL.  
That letter opposed Stop 26-Riverbend, Inc.'s request for a cease 
and desist order as an additional enforcement step.  It did  not, 
however, respond to the NAL.  
8   In  this  regard,  as  noted in  our  prior  order,  some  of 
Citicasters'  arguments  in  the  Application  for  Review   were 
different than those  contained in  its response  to the  inquiry 
letter arising  from  the  complaint,  in  violation  of  section 
1.115(c) of the rules.  See also note 1, supra.  
9  47 C.F.R.  1.80.
10  47 U.S. C.  504(a).
11  See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.