. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .In reply refer to:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1800B1-AJS

Barry D. Wood, Esq.
Mark A. Brinton, Esq
Jones, Waldo, Holbrook &
. .McDonough, P.C.
Suite 900
2300 M Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20037

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .In re: KOOZ(FM), Great Falls, Montana
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . File No. BPH-920527JR
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application for Extension of Time to
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Construct

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . File No. BPH-940606IA
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application for Modification of
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Construction Permit

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petition for Reconsideration

Dear Messrs. Wood and Brinton:

Before us is a Petition for Reconsideration filed on behalf of Contemporary Communications ("Contemporary") on May 30, 1996. Contemporary seeks reconsideration of the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order, released April, 30, 1996, which denied its application for review of a September 15, 1995 decision letter ("Bureau Letter") by the Chief, Audio Services Division, Mass Media Bureau. Contemporary Communications, 11 FCC Rcd 5230 (1996). The Bureau Letter had earlier denied reconsideration of the staff's denial of Contemporary's third request for extension of time to construct. For the reasons stated below, we deny Contemporary's petition for reconsideration.

Where the Commission has denied an application for review, a petition for reconsideration will be entertained only if one or more of the following circumstances is present: (1) the petition relies on facts which related to events which have occurred or circumstances which have changed since the last opportunity to present such matters; or (2) the petitioner relies on facts unknown to the petitioner until after his last opportunity to present such matters, which could not, through the exercise of ordinary diligence, have been learned prior to such opportunity. 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(2). A petition for reconsideration of an order denying an application for review which fails to rely on new facts or changed circumstances may be dismissed by the staff as repetitious. 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(3).

Community seeks reconsideration on two bases. First, it contends that the Commission made errors in its underlying findings of fact and conclusions of law. Second, Contemporary contends that the Commission's recent decision in Woods Communications Group, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd. 5776 (1996) constitutes a changed circumstance which warrants reconsideration of the Commission's previous action.

To the extent that Contemporary argues that the Commission erred in its findings and conclusions, we note that the underlying facts have not changed and that Contemporary is essentially raising matters previously considered and rejected. Contemporary is not relying on any new facts but is simply recasting the circumstances surrounding its construction efforts in a different light. It has not presented any new probative matters which could not have been presented earlier and which would otherwise be of material significance to the Commission's ultimate conclusions in this case.

Contemporary's reliance on Woods as a changed circumstance is equally unavailing. In denying Contemporary's application for review the Commission already determined that Bechtel v. FCC, 10 F.3rd 875 (D.C. Cir. 1993) did not warrant a departure from Commission policy that delay in implementation of new service resulting from cancellation of a construction permit does not afford a basis for extension. Contemporary Communications, 11 FCC Rcd 5230, 5232. Woods involved approval of a settlement agreement designed to resolve a long-standing comparative proceeding between competing applicants for a new radio station. The facts and policy concerns involved in Woods are clearly distinguishable from those involved here and nothing in Woods Suggests that the Commission is inclined to depart from its established policy regarding construction permit cancellations.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That pursuant to Section 1.106(b)(3) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §1.106(b)(3), the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Larry G. Fuss d/b/a Contemporary Communications on May 30, 1996, IS HEREBY DISMISSED.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sincerely,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (signed Stuart B. Bedell for)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linda Blair, Chief
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Audio Services Division
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mass Media Bureau

HTML Document created February 26, 1997.