WPC>g 2i BS-D Courier Antiqua#|dw Roman Bold#XSi  PQ/>/>/>/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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNx` `  hh@hpp  #G\  P6G;X,P#IN REPLY REFER TO:  aEx` `  hh@hpp   1800B2#I4  pG;#ѩ#X\  P6G;H;P##G\  P6G;X,P#DEB#Xj\  P6G;XP#  X-#Xj\  P6G;XP# Bruce N. Quinn RR 5 Box 12 Monticello, IN 47960  X -William M Deibel  @h c/o Amelia L. Brown, Esq. Haley Bader & Potts, P.L.C. Suite 900 4350 North Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 222031633 x` ` hh@In re: WNJY(FM), Delphi, IN  X_-x` ` hh@h BMPH950712IH    XH-x` ` hh@ h Petition for Reconsideration Dear Petitioner and Applicant: This concerns the petition for reconsideration filed January 11, 1996, by Bruce N. Quinn ("Quinn") and an opposition to the petition filed January 23, 1996, by William M. Deibel ("Deibel"). Quinn seeks reconsideration of the staff's December 8, 1995 action granting Deibel's request for waiver of the Commission's main studio rule, 47 C.F.R.  73.1125. (Letter from the Acting Chief, Audio Services Division, to Amelia L. Brown, Esq., dated December 8, 1995). For the reasons stated below, we will dismiss Quinn's petition for reconsideration. Standing to file a petition for reconsideration is conferred by Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106(b) of the Commission's rules. Specifically, a petition for reconsideration may only be filed by: (1) a party to the proceeding, or (2) any other person aggrieved or whose interests are adversely affected by the action taken and who, in addition, shows good reason why it was not possible to participate in the earlier stages of the proceeding.   To qualify as a party, a petitioner requesting reconsideration must have filed a valid petition  X|&-to deny against the application. See University of North Carolina,  4 FCC Rcd 2780 (1989)  Xg'-and Gulfcoast Broadcasting, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 483 (1993). Here, Quinn was precluded from filing a petition to deny against Deibel's minor change application because petitions to deny "R(0*0*0*3'"Ԍ X-may not be filed against such applications.w Xy- x#Xj\  P6G;XP##Xj\  P6G;XP##Xj\  P6G;XP#э#Xj\  P6G;XP# Since petitions to deny cannot be filed against minor change applications, we treated  Xb- xQuinn's original pleading as an informal objection.  See 47 C.F.R.  73.3587 of the Commission's rules.  47 U.S.C.  309(c)(2)(A)and 309(d)(1). Since Quinn does not qualify as a party, he must show that he is a person aggrieved or whose  X-interests are adversely affected by the action taken below. Cloud Nine Broadcasting, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 11555 (1995). In this regard, Quinn must state with particularity the manner in  X-which his interests are adversely affected.  See In the Matter of License Renewal Application  X-of Dick Broadcasting Company, Inc., 8 FCC 2d 3897 (1993). When considering the standing of petitioners seeking reconsideration, and the substance of their contentions, nonspecific, conclusory allegations are insufficient, as are allegations of fact regarding matters which we cannot officially notice or that are not supported by affidavits from persons with firsthand  X7-knowledge of the facts alleged. Univision Holdings, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 3931 (1993). Quinn does not state with particularity the manner in which his interests are adversely affected and does not otherwise establish that he is aggrieved by waiver of the Commission's main studio rules. Additionally, he has not supported his allegations by affidavits from persons with firsthand knowledge of the facts alleged. As a result, he has failed to meet either of the two standards for filing a petition for reconsideration. In light of the above, and since Quinn raises no new matters not previously considered, reconsideration on the merits of our  X-action granting the main studio waiver is not warranted.Mw X- x#Xj\  P6G;XP##Xj\  P6G;XP# Quinn continues to rely on matters that are not only irrelevant to whether a waiver of our  xmain studio rules is warranted, but that also lack specificity and supporting affidavits from  xpersons with firsthand knowledge of the facts alleged. Briefly, these allegations either go to  xrepresentations allegedly made by the former licensee of WNJY, concern matters that pertain to  x|the original grant of the WNJY construction permit, and thus are no longer subject to  xreconsideration at this late date, pertain to private disputes between the licensee and other parties,  xkor pertain to matters that are not within the scope of the Commission's regulatory concerns.  xAdditionally, Quinn's asserted "new facts" are contained in an attachment to his petition for  xreconsideration. This attachment is captioned "Response to Deibel's Reply dated November 29,  x1995, in his Request for Waiver of Main Studio Rule" and should have been filed during the  xearly phases of this proceeding. The "facts" contained therein were obviously known to petitioner  xprior to the last opportunity he had to present such matters for consideration. Yet, Quinn has  xkmade no showing why he could not have presented this material in a timely fashion. In any  xievent, given the general lack of specificity and supporting affidavits contained in Quinn's petition  xfor reconsideration, we determine that the public interest would not be served by consideration  X&#-of Quinn's conclusory allegations. 47 C.F.R. 1.106(c)(2). ă Cf. In the Matter of Amendment of  Xl-Section 73.202(b) Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations, (Mount Pleasant, Iowa), Chief, Policy and Rules Division, 10 FCC Rcd 12069, n.1 (1995). ")0*(("ԌAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, and pursuant to Section 1.106(b) of the Commission's rules, the petition for reconsideration filed by Bruce N. Quinn on January 11, 1996, IS DISMISSED. x` ` hh@Sincerely, x` ` hh@Linda Blair, Chief x` ` hh@Audio Services Division x` ` hh@Mass Media Bureau  E%=  X|-  XN-  X -  X-  X -  X"-  Xh$-  X:&-  X#'-"#'0*((%"Ԍx` `  hh@h5/16/96  X-Stu, as a result of your questions about aggrieved parties and public interest considerations, I have further modified the attached item. I stand by my conclusion that Quinn lacks standing  X-because he has not articulated how his interests are adversely affected.  Xv-Even assuming that the petition for reconsideration could be accepted for filing, Quinn has not presented any new facts. Nor has he been specific in articulating any basis for further  XH-consideration and has not supported his allegations by personal affidavits. As a result, there is no demonstration that the public interest would be served by consideration of Deibel's  X -conclusory allegations.  X -In passing, it is also noted that Deibel failed to correctly verify to the truthfulness of his pleadings. In particular, although Quinn declares that all statements made in his pleading are  X -true and correct, he qualifies this by saying "or at least I have good cause to believe them to be true and that I have documents and witnesses to back my claims." This qualified  X-declaration fails to satisfy the requirements of Section 1.16 of the Commission's rules which sets out the explicit language to be used by declarants, i.e., "I declare (or certify, verify or  Xb-state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct." 47 C.F.R. 1.16. See  XM-also, Harrea Broadcasters, Inc., 52 FCC 2d 998, 1002 (1975) where the Commission  X8-discussed the problem of dealing with pleadings that lack specificity, lack supporting affidavits, and fail to conform to required subscription and verification standards. I did not  X -add this to the item since it would be overkill to the disposition of an already procedurally defective pleading.  X-  X-Cf. Midland Broadcasters, Inc., 51 FCC 2d 1018, 1022, 1025 (1975), where the Commission,  X-in denying a petition for reconsideration, indicated that conclusory facts, or mere allegations based on information and belief, were insufficient to require administrative action under the public interest standard of Section 1.106 of its rules.