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 Ace of Hearts Disc Jockey Service, Inc. Licensee of
   Station W277AN Cape Canaveral, Florida ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No.:
   EB-09-TP-0185 NAL/Acct. No.: 201132700003 FRN: 0008590853 Facility ID No.:
   143943




                          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted: February 8, 2013 Released: February 8, 2013

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, issued pursuant to Section 405
       of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),^ and Section
       1.106 of the Commission's rules (Rules),^ we deny the petition for
       reconsideration (Petition) ^ filed by Ace of Hearts Disc Jockey
       Service, Inc. (Ace), licensee of translator station W277AN (Station)
       in Cape Canaveral, Florida.^ Ace seeks reconsideration of the
       Forfeiture Order issued by the Enforcement Bureau's South Central
       Region in this proceeding.^ The Forfeiture Order imposed a monetary
       forfeiture in the amount of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) against
       Ace for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 73.1350 and
       74.1235(e) of the Rules.^ The noted violations involved Ace operating
       its Station with unauthorized antenna equipment and with more than
       authorized power. As discussed below, we uphold the Bureau's prior
       ruling and affirm the $11,000 forfeiture.

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. On March 8, 2011, the Enforcement Bureau's Tampa Office (Tampa Office)
       issued Ace a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order
       (NAL) for its overpower operation and use of an unauthorized
       transmitting antenna system, in violation of Sections 74.1235(e) and
       73.1350 of the Rules, respectively.^ As discussed in detail in the
       NAL, on October 28, 2009, and on February 7, September 22, and
       September 24, 2010, agents from the Tampa Office measured the field
       strength of Station W277AN's signal and determined that the Station
       was operating with more than its authorized transmitter power output
       (TPO).^ On February 26 and September 22, 2010, during an on site
       investigation, agents from the Tampa Office observed that the meter on
       the Station's amplifier showed the Station operating with more than
       its authorized TPO.^ In addition, on February 7, February 26, and
       September 22, 2010, agents from the Tampa Office confirmed that a
       photograph taken on October 28, 2009 was accurate and that the Station
       was using a two-antenna array, although its authorization specified
       use of only one antenna.^ In view of the record evidence, the NAL
       proposed a $13,000 forfeiture against Ace for violating Sections
       74.1235(e) and 73.1350 of the Rules.^  Ace responded to the NAL,
       disputed some of the findings, and requested cancellation or reduction
       of the proposed forfeiture.^

    3. On April 23, 2012, the Bureau's South Central Region issued a
       Forfeiture Order, which affirmed the NAL's findings, but reduced the
       $13,000 proposed forfeiture to $11,000 after further consideration of
       the factual circumstances surrounding the antenna equipment
       violation.^ The Bureau, however, rejected Ace's claim that it had a
       history of overall compliance with the Rules, given contrary record
       evidence.^ Further, the Bureau rejected Ace's inability to pay claim
       because Ace failed to provide sufficient evidence to support and
       justify its request.^

    4. On May 11, 2012, Ace filed the instant Petition, urging the Bureau to
       reconsider its decisions in the Forfeiture Order. Specifically, Ace
       asks the Bureau to reduce the forfeiture, and states that it "agrees
       to enter into an installment payment plan."^ In support of its request
       for reconsideration, Ace asserts: "Since February 2010[,] multiple
       applications have been on file with the [C]ommission towards W277AN's
       operational status and/or intent. Any alleged discrepancies and/or
       confusion towards the antennas or operations after that date is not
       the fault of Ace."^ Ace also asserts that its request for reduction
       based on history of compliance with the rules should be granted
       because, contrary to what was stated in the Forfeiture Order, it was
       not provided multiple warnings of the overpower violation.^ Finally,
       Ace asks the Bureau to reduce the $11,000 forfeiture based on
       inability to pay; in this regard, Ace asserts that it has been in
       bankruptcy preparations and that its principal owner, Randy Bennett,
       is in foreclosure proceedings.^

   III. DISCUSSION

    5. Petitions for reconsideration are granted only in limited
       circumstances. Reconsideration is appropriate only where the
       petitioner either demonstrates a material error or omission in the
       underlying order, or raises additional facts not known or not existing
       until after the petitioner's last opportunity to present such
       matters.^ A petition for reconsideration that reiterates arguments
       that were previously considered and rejected will be denied.^ As
       discussed below, we find that Ace has not provided any basis to
       warrant reconsideration.

    A. Operation with Unauthorized Antenna Equipment

    6. In the Forfeiture Order, the Bureau affirmed the NAL's finding that
       Ace violated Section 73.1350 of the Rules by operating its Station
       with an unauthorized antenna system--i.e., by operating a two-antenna
       array transmission system when its license authorized operation using
       only one antenna. Agents from the Bureau's Tampa Office confirmed this
       violation based on photographs taken on October 28, 2009, and based on
       direct observations on February 7, 2010, February 26, 2010, and
       September 22, 2010.^ As discussed in the Forfeiture Order, Ace
       asserted that it had always intended to use a two-antenna array, but
       mistakenly submitted, as a result of a typographical error, a license
       application with an antenna code of MP-1 (reflecting a request for one
       antenna), rather than MP-2 (reflecting a request for a two-antenna
       array).^ The Bureau did not find the asserted typographical error a
       sufficient basis to excuse the violation, and reminded Ace that it
       remained responsible for reviewing and ensuring the accuracy of the
       information contained in the authorization, and for operating in
       conformity with its authorization.^ The Bureau, however, reduced the
       forfeiture amount for the antenna violation from $5,000 to $3,000,
       given other factors that served to mitigate the violation.^

    7. In its Petition, Ace contends that the Bureau erred in finding that
       Ace violated Section 73.1350, arguing that any discrepancies about its
       antenna authorization was not its fault, but instead due to Commission
       delay in granting the various applications that it filed as of
       February 2010.^ We deny Ace's request for reconsideration of the
       Bureau's finding on this issue. A licensee cannot operate in
       conformity with its license modification application based on the
       assumption that the application will later be granted. Until such
       modification application has been granted, licensees are expected to
       operate in strict conformity with its current license authorization,
       unless it has been granted special temporary authority in the
       interim.^ In this case, Ace's license, during the dates of the
       violation in 2009 and 2010, authorized use of only one antenna (not
       two). Therefore, the Bureau properly determined that anytime Ace
       operated its Station using a two-antenna array, it was in violation of
       Section 73.1350 notwithstanding the pendency of any corrective
       application.

    8. Furthermore, even if we were to disregard (which we do not) any
       antenna violations after Ace filed its modification application in
       February 2010, the record is still replete with prior violations of
       Section 73.1350. Agents from the Tampa Office confirmed that Ace used
       an unauthorized antenna system on October 28, 2009, and Ace admitted
       that its violation had been continuous since its operations began.^
       Thus, Ace cannot dispute that it repeatedly operated its station with
       an unauthorized antenna system even before it filed its modification
       application. For these reasons, we find no basis for reconsideration
       of this issue and, therefore, affirm the conclusion in the Forfeiture
       Order that Ace willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350 of
       the Rules.

   B. Denial of Prior History of Compliance Claim

    9. We also deny Ace's request that we reconsider its history of
       compliance claim so as to justify a reduction in the forfeiture
       amount. It is undisputed that Ace was warned by agents from the Tampa
       Office about its overpower operations on February 6, 2010, and that
       this warning preceded the NAL. The record also shows that Ace was
       observed by agents from the Tampa Office operating its station
       overpower on February 7, February 26, September 22, and September 24,
       2010.^ Therefore, we agree with the Forfeiture Order's finding that,
       "given the multiple times in which it was found in violation of
       Section 74.1235(e) after it had received [a] warning of the violation,
       it is factually incorrect for Ace to assert that it has a history of
       compliance."^

   10. Furthermore, as discussed in the Forfeiture Order, it was appropriate
       to reject Ace's history of compliance claim because of case precedent
       indicating that Mr. Bennett, Ace's principal owner, was involved in an
       unauthorized transfer of a station even before the agents investigated
       Ace for possible violations of Sections 73.1350 and 74.1235(e) of the
       Rules.^ We note that Ace did not dispute this finding in its Petition;
       and this fact, alone, serves as a sufficient basis for rejecting Ace's
       claim that it has a history of overall compliance with FCC
       requirements. We therefore affirm the Forfeiture Order's denial of any
       forfeiture reduction based on Ace's assertion that it has a history of
       overall compliance.

    C. Denial of Inability to Pay Claim

   11. Finally, we deny Ace's renewed request for reduction of the forfeiture
       based on its inability to pay claim. Ace implies in its Petition that
       changed financial circumstances are forcing it and its principal owner
       into bankruptcy preparations, but Ace did not submit any supporting
       documentation.^ After the Petition was filed, the Bureau provided Ace
       an opportunity to supplement its Petition with documentation to
       support its claim that it "has been in bankruptcy preparations,"^ yet
       Ace simply resubmitted copies of tax returns that were already
       considered in the Forfeiture Order.^ Ace explains that it is unable to
       provide documentation of any bankruptcy preparations by asserting that
       it  "cannot even afford the retainer to pay the attorney to start any
       type of proceedings, so until further notice everything just sits."^
       Similarly, Ace's principal owner further asserts that he has hired a
       law group to represent him, but provides no specific information or
       documentation of this fact or of the purported "current house
       foreclosure filed in Brevard County Court, plus several collections
       from credit cards, and various financial judgments from others."^  In
       the absence of financial and/or other reliable documentation necessary
       to support or corroborate Ace's asserted changed financial
       circumstances, we have insufficient basis by which to fully evaluate
       Ace's request for reconsideration of its inability to pay claim and,
       therefore, must deny its request.^

   D. Conclusion

   12. Because Ace's Petition does not demonstrate a material error or
       omission in the underlying order or raise any additional facts that
       justify reconsideration, we see no reason to disturb the
       determinations reached in the Forfeiture Order. Accordingly, we affirm
       the Forfeiture Order and find Ace liable for a monetary forfeiture in
       the amount of $11,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections
       73.1350 and 74.1235(e) of the Rules. In its Petition, Ace requests the
       opportunity to make payment under an installment plan arrangement.^ If
       Ace wishes to make payment under such an arrangement, Ace is directed
       to follow the instructions provided in paragraph 17, below.^

   IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

   13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 405 of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended,^ and Section 1.106 of the
       Commission's rules,^ that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by
       Ace of Hearts Disc Jockey Service, Inc. IS DENIED.

   14. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and
       Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules,^ Ace
       of Hearts Disc Jockey Service, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY
       FORFEITURE in the amount of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) for
       violation of Sections 73.1350 and 74.1235(e) of the Rules.^

   15. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
       Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days after the
       release date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.^  If the forfeiture
       is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to
       the U.S. Department of Justice for enforcement of the forfeiture
       pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.^  Ace of Hearts Disc Jockey
       Service, Inc. shall send electronic notification of payment to
       [1]SCR-Response@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made.

   16. The payment must be made by check or similar instrument, wire
       transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number and
       FRN referenced above. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed
       FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.^ When completing
       the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call
       sign/other ID) and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A
       (payment type code).  Below are additional instructions you should
       follow based on the form of payment you select:

     * Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of
       the Federal Communications Commission.  Such payments (along with the
       completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications
       Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent
       via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088,
       SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.

     * Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004,
       receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001.  To complete
       the wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds,
       a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on
       the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.

     * Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit
       card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159
       to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then
       be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
       Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank -
       Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
       Louis, MO 63101.

   17. Any request for full payment under an installment plan should be sent
       to:  Chief Financial Officer--Financial Operations, Federal
       Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
       Washington, D.C.  20554.^  If you have questions regarding payment
       procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by
       phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.

   18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be
       sent by both First Class Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt
       Requested, to Ace of Hearts Disc Jockey Service, Inc. at P.O. Box
       100095, Palm Bay, FL 32910.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   P. Michele Ellison

   Chief, Enforcement Bureau

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 405.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.106.

   ^ See Letter from Randy Bennett, Owner Ace of Hearts Disc Jockey Service,
   Inc., to Dennis Carlton, Regional Director, South Central Region,
   Enforcement Bureau (May 11, 2012) (Petition) (on file in EB-09-TP-0185).

   ^ See Ace of Hearts Disc Jockey Service, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 27 FCC
   Rcd 4167 (Enf. Bur. 2012) (Forfeiture Order).

   ^ See id. See also 47 C.F.R. SS 73.1350, 74.1235(e).

   ^ Ace of Hearts Disc Jockey Service, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability
   for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 3481 (Enf. Bur. 2011) (NAL). A more
   comprehensive recitation of the facts and history of this case can be
   found in the NAL and is incorporated herein by reference.

   ^ Forfeiture Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 4167, para. 2. When operating with its
   authorized transmitter output power of 61 watts, the expected field
   strength for Station W277AN's signal is 47 mV/m. On October 28, 2009, and
   on February 7, September 22, and September 24, 2010, agents from the Tampa
   Office measured the field strength for Station W277AN's signal at 82 mV/m,
   92 mV/m, 74 mV/m, and 82 mV/m, respectively.

   ^ Id. On February 26 and September 22, 2010, agents from the Tampa Office
   observed that the meter on the amplifier for Station W277AN registered a
   power output of 172 watts and 140 watts, respectively, which is 280% and
   229% over the station's authorized power.

   ^ Id. at 4167-68, para. 2. License File Number BLFT-20070220AA0. The
   license specifically describes the antenna type as "Non-Directional, OMB
   MP-1." Based on manufacturer specifications, the OMB MP-1 consists of only
   one antenna section.

   ^ See NAL, 26 FCC Rcd at 3483-84, paras. 9, 11.

   ^ See Forfeiture Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 4168, para. 2 (citing Letter from
   Randy Bennett, Principal Owner, Ace of Hearts Disc Jockey Services, Inc.,
   to District Director, Tampa Office (Mar. 8, 2011) (on file in
   EB-09-TOP-0185) (Response to NAL)).

   ^ See Forfeiture Order, supra note 4.

   ^ Id., 27 FCC Rcd at 4171, para. 8.

   ^ Id. at 4171-72, para. 9.

   ^ Petition at 2.

   ^ Id.

   ^ Id.

   ^ Id. Ace also alleges that the Forfeiture Order "totally ignored the
   facts surrounding the demonstrated bias and verbal profanity of one of the
   Tampa Field Inspectors." Id. We simply did not find any need to address
   such unsubstantiated charges in the Forfeiture Order, especially because
   they do not affect our decision on the merits of the case. In any event,
   we address them now. Ace asserted in its response to the NAL that "one of
   the agents engaged in a highly improper, unprofessional, yelling and
   screaming episode toward the Licensee." Response to NAL at 3. However,
   neither of the two agents present during the inspection recall such an
   episode, and none of the individuals who submitted affidavits in support
   of Ace's response mentioned verbal profanity or yelling. Accordingly, we
   do not find this unsubstantiated allegation credible; and, in any event,
   the Bureau's findings with respect to the violations would still stand.
   Ace also states in its Petition (at 1) that the Tampa Office mailed the
   Forfeiture Order to an old address. The Tampa Office did not mail the
   Forfeiture Order to the P.O. Box that Ace identified in its Petition
   because a previous letter mailed to that P.O. Box in January 2012 was
   returned unclaimed. The Forfeiture Order was mailed to the last previously
   delivered address. In any event, we find no harm to Ace on this issue,
   since Ace ultimately received a copy of the Forfeiture Order and submitted
   a timely petition for reconsideration.

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 1.106(c); EZ Sacramento, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
   Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18257, 18257, para. 2 (Enf. Bur. 2000) (citing WWIZ,
   Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), aff'd sub.
   nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert.
   denied, 383 U.S. 967 (1966)). See, e.g., Ely Radio, LLC, Memorandum
   Opinion and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 7608, 7610, para. 6 (Enf. Bur. 2012)
   (providing standard of review for petitions for reconsideration).

   ^ EZ Sacramento, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd at 18257, para. 2.

   ^ See Forfeiture Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 4167-68, para. 2.

   ^ Id. at 4169-70, para. 6.

   ^ Id.

   ^ Id. at 4170, para. 6. The Bureau determined, after further review of the
   facts, that the error in the application did not have a significant impact
   on the station's transmitting output power and did not otherwise preclude
   compliance with the other technical requirements specified on Ace's
   license. The Bureau also recognized that Ace had since filed a license
   modification application to authorize use of a two-antenna array.

   ^ See Petition at 2. Contrary to Ace's assertion, we were unable to locate
   any applications filed in February 2010 that would have corrected Ace's
   antenna violation. Based on Commission records, it appears that Ace
   submitted a corrective application on June 6, 2011 (and not in February
   2010). See License File No. BLFT-20070220AAA. See also Forfeiture Order,
   27 FCC Rcd at 4170.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 73.1350(a), 73.1635(a).

   ^ See Response to NAL, supra note 11.

   ^ NAL, 26 FCC Rcd at 3481-83, paras. 3, 8. In its Petition (at 2), Ace
   avers that the Station is currently operating within its authorized power
   level, but insists that any prior overpower violation was unintentional.
   Ace also implies that the Commission's failure to inform Ace of its
   overpower operations prior to the February 6, 2010 inspection mitigates
   its culpability for those earlier violations. In the context of a
   forfeiture action, however, a "willful" violation does not require a
   finding that the rule violation was intentional. Rather, the term
   "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking or not taking
   the action in question, irrespective of any intent to the violate the
   Rules. See, e.g., Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion
   and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991), recons. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992).
   Thus, it was not necessary for agents to inform Ace of its violations
   prior to February 6, 2010.

   ^ Forfeiture Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 4171, para. 8. Ace is correct that
   paragraph 8 of the Forfeiture Order contained a typographical error, in
   that there was only one warning, not "warnings." However, this error does
   not alter the findings in the Forfeiture Order.

   ^ Id. As noted in the Forfeiture Order, licensee David Carus & Associates
   admitted that, in 2004, it transferred full ownership of certain FM
   translator stations and an Aural STL to Community Radio Foundation of
   Florida, Inc., without prior Commission approval, and that Mr. Bennett was
   a party to the unauthorized transfer based on his control of Community
   Radio Foundation of Florida. See David Carus & Associates, Order, 26 FCC
   Rcd 7521 (Enf. Bur. 2011).

   ^ See Petition at 2. See Neal Davis, File No. EB-11-MA-0009, Memorandum
   Opinion and Order, DA 12-1534, 2012 WL 4470558, at *1, para. 3 (Enf. Bur.
   Sept. 28, 2012) (reminding requesting party of the need to provide
   financial or other documentation to support or corroborate asserted
   financial status).

   ^ Letter from Diane Law-Hsu, Regional Counsel, South Central Region,
   Enforcement Bureau, to Randy Bennett, Principal of Ace of Hearts Disc
   Jockey Services, Inc. (May 22, 2012) (on file in EB-09-TP-0185) (May 22,
   2012 Letter to Ace).

   ^ See Marshall D. Martin, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1076
   (Enf. Bur. 2007) (rejecting consideration of regulatee's purported
   bankruptcy status because it failed "to demonstrate that there is any
   pending bankruptcy proceeding"). See also Adelphi Communications,
   Forfeiture Order, 18 FCC Rcd 7652, 7654, para. 8 (Enf. Bur. 2003) (finding
   that a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing--alone, without submission of
   financial documentation--does not support an inability to pay claim and,
   therefore, does not provide a basis to adjust or cancel an assessed
   forfeiture).

   ^ Letter from Randy Bennett, Principal of Ace of Hearts Disc Jockey
   Service, Inc., to Diane Law-Hsu, Regional Counsel, South Central Region,
   Enforcement Bureau (June 10, 2012) (on file in EB-09-TP-0185).

   ^ Id.

   ^ Moreover, we continue to have questions regarding the extent of the
   financial sources available to Ace, given evidence in the record that
   suggests that third party sources have been contributing to Ace's
   operations, which impacts consideration of Ace's inability to pay claim.
   In response to the Petition, the Bureau requested additional documentation
   regarding all of Ace's financial resources, and specifically requested
   information about three entities believed to have provided financial
   resources to Ace. See May 22, 2012 Letter to Ace, supra note 32. Ace,
   however, failed to provide the requested information or to address, in any
   way, the evidence amassed by the Bureau that these third parties have paid
   for Ace's operational expenses. See Letter from Ralph Barlow, District
   Director, Tampa Office, to Randy Bennett, Ace of Hearts Disc Jockey
   Services, Inc. (Oct. 25, 2011) (on file in EB-09-TP-0185); Forfeiture
   Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 4172 n.32.

   ^ Petition at 2 ("Ace would like and request financial reconsideration
   review of this ruling to reduce this amount and Ace agrees to enter into
   an installment payment plan.").

   ^ In its Petition (at 3), Ace asks for "expedited processing and approval"
   of pending applications, which Ace identified as BPFT-20110603AAA and
   BRFT-20110913AAD. The Enforcement Bureau does not have final authority to
   grant these pending applications. Any request for status information
   concerning pending broadcast applications should be directed to the Media
   Bureau.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 405.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.106.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b); 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 73.1350, 74.1235(e).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.80.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 504(a).

   ^ An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be
   obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.

   Federal Communications Commission DA 13-177

   1

                                       7

   Federal Communications Commission DA 13-177

References

   Visible links
   1. mailto:SCR-Response@fcc.gov