This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect 5.1. If the original document contained footnotes or special formatting, such as boldface or italics, that information is missing from the on-line ASCII version. The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) may be changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
      
                               May 21, 1996

                IN REPLY REFER TO:
                           1800B2-AJS
Dallas M. Tarkenton
c/o Jerrold Miller, Esq.
Miller and Miller
P. O. Box 33003
Washington, D.C. 20033

SFR Group, Inc.
c/o Cary S. Tepper, Esq.
Booth, Freret, & Imlay, 
1233 20th Street, N. W.
Suite 204
Washington, D.C. 20036
          In re:     Station KIXK (FM)
          Canton, South Dakota
          
          Reinstatement of
          Construction Permit
          File No. BPH-930929JE

          Modification of 
          Construction Permit
          File No. BMPH-930514IH

          Petition for Reconsideration
Gentlemen:

     This concerns the referenced applications filed by Dallas Tarkenton ("Tarkenton") to
reinstate and modify the construction permit for Station KIXK(FM), Canton, South Dakota.  By
letter dated September 22, 1995, the Chief of the Audio Services Division granted the subject
applications and denied the informal objection of XMT Group, Inc.  On October 18, 1995, SFR
Group, Inc. ("SFR"), the successor of XMT Group, Inc., filed a petition for reconsideration of
the grants.   Tarkenton opposes the request for reconsideration.  

     A petition for reconsideration must be based upon newly discovered evidence or upon
errors of fact or law in the action for which reconsideration is sought.  See 47 C.F.R. 
1.106((c) and (d).  It is firmly established that reconsideration need not be granted merely to
permit a party to reargue matters previously considered and resolved.  See WWIZ, Inc., 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).  

     SFR argues that under existing policy the Commission must take a hard look at all
requests for extensions of time to construct or to replace expired construction permits.   SFR
contends that the staff did not do so in the instant case and that as a result, the staff's action was
arbitrary and capricious, not supported by the facts in the record, and inconsistent with established
policy.  SFR further contends that Tarkenton misled the Commission concerning whether he had
acted diligently in his efforts to construct KIXK, that Tarkenton failed to act diligently in finding
a new transmitter site, and that Tarkenton's failure to act diligently in constructing KIXK
suggests that Tarkenton's real objective was to warehouse spectrum and not initiate new service. 
However, SFR has offered no facts or evidence of any intent by Tarkenton to mislead the
Commission, that Tarkenton failed to act diligently, or that Tarkenton had an intent to warehouse
spectrum instead of initiating new service.  Based on SFR's unsubstantiated, conclusory
arguments, and on our analysis of the overall record in this case, we determine that
reconsideration is not warranted.

     Background.  On September 5, 1991 Tarkenton filed an application to upgrade KIXK
from a Class A to a Class C2 facility (BMPH-910905IN).  During the time that application was
pending, Tarkenton filed two amendments and an application for extension of time to construct. 
The second amendment, filed August 10, 1992, sought authority to construct the KIXK radio
tower on property owned by Dwayne Pederson.  On March 1, 1993, the Commission granted the
upgrade application, as amended, and the extension request, with construction to be completed
by September 22, 1993.  On May 14, 1993, during the period of authorized construction,
Tarkenton filed the referenced application to specify yet another transmitter site and on September
29, 1993, filed an application to reinstate the expired permit.  Because of questions raised by
Tarkenton's proposed move to a different site, the Division Chief sought additional information
from Tarkenton (Letter from Larry D. Eads, Chief Audio Services Division, to Jerrold Miller,
Esq., dated May 25, 1995).  Tarkenton responded by letter dated June 16, 1995, wherein he
explained that although he had an option to lease the Pederson property, Pederson had withdrawn
his offer in February, 1993, in the face of local opposition to use of the site for a radio tower. 
 At that point, Tarkenton elected to find a new site instead of engaging in a lengthy legal battle
to enforce his right to lease the Pederson property.  Tarkenton immediately had an engineering
study done to find a new site.  By May, 1993, a new site had been secured and the referenced
application seeking approval to use this site had been filed with the Commission.  Based on
Tarkenton's explanation of the circumstances surrounding the need for a new site, the Chief of
the Audio Services Division granted the requested modification and reinstated the permit on
September 22, 1995.  SFR's petition for reconsideration followed.


     Discussion.  The above facts demonstrate that the staff's decision was supported by the
facts in the record and was consistent with established policy.  After close scrutiny, it was
determined that Tarkenton had made the showing required by Section 73.3534(e) of the
Commission's rules, i.e., that he had not completed construction because the landowner's
(Pederson) decision to withdraw his offer to lease was beyond Tarkenton's control and that
Tarkenton took immediate steps to resolve his problems as soon as the offer to sell was
withdrawn - by seeking and obtaining a new site, by filing the requisite modification with the
Commission, and by obtaining Commission approval to construct his transmitter tower at this new
site.  The one case cited by SFR in support of its contention, Michael C. Gelfand, M.D., 64 RR
2d 403 (MMB 1987), is inapposite.  In that case the assignee took no steps to verify the
availability of the site until one month before the permit was to expire.  In contrast, Tarkenton
had personally contacted the landowner (Pederson) before filing his August 10, 1992 amendment,
obtained a signed option to lease from Pederson prior to filing the amendment and, upon learning
that Pederson would not allow use of his land for the KIXK tower, subsequently completed all
steps necessary to obtain a new site expeditiously and prior to the expiration of his construction
permit.  SFR has not demonstrated that our action in granting Tarkenton's applications for a
replacement construction permit and to specify a new transmitter site was inconsistent with
established policy, or otherwise warrants reconsideration.     

     In sum, Tarkenton has failed to demonstrate any errors of law or fact in our decision
denying its informal objection, and has not otherwise demonstrated under 47 C.F.R. 1.106 that
reconsideration is warranted.  Accordingly, the petition for reconsideration filed by SFR Group,
Inc. on October 18, 1995, IS DENIED.

     Sincerely,


     Linda Blair, Chief
     Audio Services Division
     Mass Media Bureau

Return to the Audio Services Division screen

Return to the Mass Media Bureau screen

FCC Home Page