Commission Document

• Print
• Email

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

September 25, 2012

DA 12-1529

In Reply Refer To:

1800B3-ATS
Released: September 25, 2012
Michael Couzens, Esq.
Michael Couzens Law Office
6536 Telegraph Avenue, Suite B201
Oakland, CA 94609
David A. O’Connor, Esq.
Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP
2300 N Street, N.W., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20037
Donald E. Martin, Esq.

P.O. Box 8433
Falls Church, VA 22041
Ms. Nora Coryell
Sonora Sierra Heritage Foundation
P.O. Box 181
Jackson, CA 95642

In re: NCE Reserved Allotment Group 7

New NCE(FM), Sutter Creek, CA
Facility ID No. 184543
Farms of Amador
File No. BNPED-20100224ACJ
New NCE(FM), Sutter Creek, CA
Facility ID No. 184691
Calvary Chapel of Amador County, Inc.
File No. BNPED-20100225AAO
New NCE(FM), Sutter Creek, CA
Facility ID No. 184897
Sutter Hill Seventh-Day Adventist Church
File No. BNPED-20100225ADX
New NCE(FM), Sutter Creek, CA
Facility ID No. 185149
Sonora Sierra Heritage Foundation
File No. BNPED-20100226AJU

Petitions to Deny

---

Dear Counsel and Ms. Coryell:
We have before us (1) the applications of Farms of Amador (“Farms”), Calvary Chapel of
Amador County, Inc. (“CCAC”), Sutter Hill Seventh-Day Adventist Church (“SHSDA”), and Sonora
Sierra Heritage Foundation (“SSHF”), for new noncommercial educational (“NCE”) FM stations at Sutter
Creek, California; (2) Farms’ Petition to Deny the application of CCAC (“Farms-CCAC Petition”);1 (3)
Farms’ Petition to Deny the application of SHSDA (“Farms-SHSDA Petition”);2 (4) CCAC’s Petition to
Deny the application of Farms (“CCAC-Farms Petition”);3 (5) CCAC’s Petition to Deny the application
of SHSDA (“CCAC-SHSDA Petition”);4 and (6) CCAC’s Petition to Deny the application of SSHF
(“CCAC-SSHF Petition”).5 For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Farms-CCAC Petition, deny the
Farms-SHSDA Petition, deny the CCAC-Farms Petition, deny the CCAC-SHSDA Petition, and deny the
CCAC-SSHF Petition.

Background

. NCE Reserved Allotment Group 7 consisted of nine mutually exclusive
applications proposing service on vacant Channel 298A at Sutter Creek, California, an allotment reserved
for an NCE station by means of the third channel reservation showing. 6 Pursuant to established
procedures,7 the Commission engaged in a point system selection process in which it awarded Farms,
CCAC, SHSDA, and SSHF three points each as established local applicants, and two points each for
diversity of ownership.8 Farms, CCAC, SHSDA, and SSHF proceeded to a tie-breaker and, because tie-
breakers did not result in a winner, the Commission identified these applicants as the tentative selectees of
Group 7 on a time-sharing basis.9 The Commission then accepted their applications for filing and
announced a 30-day period for filing petitions to deny.10 Farms and CCAC timely filed their multiple
petitions to deny.


1 The Farms-CCAC Petition was filed on June 2, 2011. CCAC filed an Opposition on June 23, 2011. Farms filed a
Reply on July 13, 2011 (“Farms-CCAC Reply”). CCAC filed a Statement for the Record on September 30, 2011.
Farms filed a Motion to Strike on October 7, 2011.
2 The Farms-SHSDA Petition was filed on filed on June 2, 2011. SHSDA’s filed an Opposition on July 8, 2011
(“Farms-SHSDA Opposition”). SHSDA filed a Further Opposition to Petition to Deny on July 18, 2011 (“Further
Opposition”). Farms filed a Reply to Further Opposition to Petition to Deny on July 28, 2011 (“Farms-SHSDA
Reply”).
3 The CCAC-Farms Petition was filed on June 2, 2011. Farms filed an Opposition on June 15, 2011 (“CCAC-Farms
Opposition”).
4 The CCAC-SHSDA Petition was filed on June 2, 2011. SHSDA filed an Opposition on June 15, 2011 (“CCAC-
Farms Opposition”). CCAC concurrently filed an amendment to its application (“CCAC Amended Application”).
5 The CCAC-SSHF Petition was filed on June 2, 2011. SSHF did not file an Opposition to CCAC’s Petition to
Deny.
6 Comparative Consideration of 37 Groups of Mutually Exclusive Applications for Permits to Construct New or
Modified Noncommercial Educational FM Stations Filed in the February 2010 and October 2007 Filing Windows,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 7008, 7018 (2011) (“Tentative Selectee Order”).
7 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.7003 (point system selection procedures); see also Reexamination of the Comparative
Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7386 (2000); Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 5074, 5105 (2001) (“NCE Comparative MO&O”), reversed in part on other
grounds, NPR v. FCC, 254 F.3d 226 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
8 See Tentative Selectee Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 7018-19.
9 Id. at 7019.
10 Id. at 7051-52.
- 2 -

---

Discussion.

Pursuant to Section 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(“Act”),11 a petition to deny must provide properly supported allegations of fact that, if true, establish a
substantial and material question of fact that granting the application would be prima facie inconsistent
with the public interest, convenience and necessity.12
Farms’ Petition to Deny the CCAC Application. Farms argues that the CCAC Application should
be denied because: 1) CCAC is allegedly not eligible to be an NCE licensee, and 2) CCAC allegedly did
not have reasonable assurance of site availability for its proposed transmitter site. We discuss each
argument in turn below.
CCAC’s NCE Eligibility. Farms argues that CCAC is not eligible to hold an NCE license
because CCAC’s objective is religious and not educational.13 In applying Section 73.503 of the Rules, the
Commission has required that NCE applicants must be: (a) a government or public educational agency,
board or institution; (b) a private, nonprofit educational organization; or (c) a nonprofit entity with a
demonstrated educational purpose.14 An applicant applying as (c) above must specifically show: (i) that it
is, in fact, a nonprofit educational organization, (ii) that it has an educational objective, and (iii) how its
programming will further that objective. 15 The requirement that NCE licensees provide programming
that advances an educational objective may be satisfied by a variety of programs, including, but not
limited to, “instructional programs, programming selected by students, bible study, cultural programming,
in-depth news coverage, and children's programs such as Sesame Street that entertain as they teach.” 16
We have also stated that “in order to qualify as an educational station, it is not necessary that the proposed
programming be exclusively educational.”17
An applicant organization such as a church or ministry is eligible to apply and hold an NCE
license.18 In Way of the Cross, the Commission stated that “noncommercial, educational organizations,
even though religiously oriented, can qualify upon an appropriate showing for licenses on reserved
channels.”19 We thus find Farms’ argument meritless. CCAC’s Articles of Incorporation state that it is a
nonprofit corporation.20 Regarding CCAC’s educational purpose, CCAC’s Bylaws specify that its
objectives include “[a]ssisting and furthering the task of providing Biblical Scripture to the community
and other groups through the Holy Scriptures and other printed material by speaking at bible studies,


11 47 U.S.C. § 309(d) (2006).
12 See, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 193, 197 n.10 (1990), aff'd sub nom.
Garden State Broadcasting L.P. v. FCC, 996 F 2d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rehearing denied (Sept. 10, 1993); Area
Christian Television, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 RR 2d 862, 864 (1986) (petitions to deny must
contain adequate and specific factual allegations sufficient to warrant the relief requested).
13 Farms-CCAC Petition at 2. Farms also argued that SHSDA was not qualified to be an NCE licensee. See Farms-
SHSDA Petition at 1-2. However, Farms withdrew that argument. See Farms-CCAC Reply at 3-4.
14 47 C.F.R. § 73.503(a).
15 See, e.g., Denny and Marge Hazen Industries, Inc., Letter, 23 FCC Rcd 11579, 11581 (MB 2008); Music
Ministries, Inc., Hearing Designation Order, 9 FCC Rcd 3628 (MMB 1994).
16 In the Matter of Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants,
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 21167, 21169 (1998).
17 Lower Cape Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 80-453, 47 RR 2d 1577, 1579 (1980).
See also Florence Bridges, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 78-719, 44 RR 2d 667, 668 (1978).
18 Way of the Cross of Utah, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 101 FCC 2d 1368 (1985) (“Way of the Cross”).
19 Id. at 1374.
20 CCAC Application at Attachment 2, Articles of Incorporation.
- 3 -

---

church services, or any other public gatherings by providing speakers and other instructional and
educational programs which may be deemed necessary in effecting the above purposes.”21 This satisfies
the Commission’s NCE requirements and CCAC has thus established its NCE qualifications.
Site Availability. Farms also argues that CCAC lacked reasonable assurance of site availability.
An applicant seeking a new broadcast facility must, in good faith, possess “reasonable assurance” of a
transmitter site at the time it files its application.22 It is well established that the specification of a
transmitter site in an application is an implied representation that the applicant has obtained reasonable
assurance that the site will be available.23 While some latitude is afforded such “reasonable assurance,”
there must be, at a minimum, a “meeting of the minds resulting in some firm understanding as to the site’s
availability.”24 A mere possibility that the site will be available is not sufficient.25 The Commission
assumes that applicants will be able to obtain local zoning and generally has not required applicants to
obtain, or apply for, advance zoning approval to certify reasonable assurance of site availability.26
Petitioners can rebut this assumption by showing that zoning approval already has been, or likely would
be, denied by local land use authorities.27 However, an appraisal from local land use official is not
sufficient to establish that a proposed site is unavailable due to zoning restrictions28.


21 CCAC Application at Attachment 14, Bylaws.
22 Les Seraphim and Mana’o Radio, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 2785, 2787 (MB 2010).
23 See, e.g., William F. Wallace and Anne K. Wallace, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 49 FCC 2d 1424, 1427
(1974) (“Wallace”) (“Some indication by the property owner that he is favorably disposed toward making an
arrangement is necessary.”).
24 Genesee Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 3595 (1988). The applicant need
not own the proposed site and may even work out the final details for a lease sometime in the future. The
“reasonable assurance” standard is satisfied by “[s]ome clear indication from the landowner that he is amenable to
entering into a future arrangement with the applicant for use of the property as its transmitter site, on terms to be
negotiated . . . ”. Elijah Broadcasting Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 5350, 5351 (1990).
25 See Wallace, 49 FCC 2d at 1425. The Commission does not require (and has never required) NCE broadcast
applicants to certify the availability of the transmitter site in its application procedures. See, e.g., Carnegie-Mellon
Student Government Corp., Hearing Designation Order, 7 FCC Rcd 3914, 3914 (MB 1992). Nonetheless, when an
NCE applicant proposes a site, it must do so with reasonable assurance in good faith that the site will be available.
See, e.g., Midland Educational Broadcasting Foundation, Hearing Designation Order, 4 FCC Rcd 5207 (MB 1989)
(holding that applicant for an NCE FM station had reasonable assurance of site availability because it paid for a
lease option on transmitter site). Cf. Alabama Citizens for Responsive Public Television, Inc., Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 62 FCC 2d 755 (Rev. Bd. 1977) (NCE television broadcast application designated for hearing
on issue of whether applicant had reasonable assurance of the site proposed in its application).
26 See, e.g., Artichoke Broadcasting Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 12631, 12633
(1995) (noting that the Commission believes zoning matters are within the province of, and best resolved by, local
land use authorities).
27 Id., citing, inter alia, Teton Broadcasting Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 1 FCC Rcd 518
(1986) (site availability issue designated where petitioner demonstrated local zoning board had previously refused to
approve proposed site for a transmitter, board’s composition had not changed, and board’s chairman had provided
affidavit stating that board would not reverse its decision); El Camino Broadcasting Corporation, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 15 FCC 2d 361 (1968) (site availability issue designated where petitioner demonstrated it had
filed with local land use authority a proposal similar to that specified by other applicant, and authority had rejected
proposal). See also WCAR, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 FCC 2d 825, 827-28 (1976) (“WCAR”)
(“What is required to rebut the assumption of an applicant’s reasonable expectancy of obtaining the necessary
zoning approval is evidence that such attempts to secure approval have been unsuccessful.”).
28 See WCAR, 60 FCC 2d 827-28.
- 4 -

---

CCAC’s original application states that the “facility is proposed for a 25 meter tower”29 and that
“[b]ecause this proposal is for an existing tower, no excavation is anticipated.”30 Farms presents a
declaration of Sean Kriletich, who states that he visited the CCAC site and did not see the tower identified
in the application.31 CCAC argues in opposition that Farms incorrectly visited 19061 Circle View Drive,
when the coordinate in fact refer to the property located at 19021 Circle View Drive.32 CCAC also
provides a letter from the property owner, Dutch Green (“Green”), dated February 18, 2010, in which he
provided CCAC permission to use his property for CCAC’s proposed antenna,33 and a sworn declaration
from Green, dated June 21, 2011, attesting to the same.34 In his declaration, Green states, in part:
By letter dated February 18, 2010, I gave [CCAC] reasonable assurance that I would
enter into good faith negotiations with CCAC for a lease of tower space on my property .
. . There currently is no tower on the property. In my February 18, 2010, letter, I made a
generic reference to “tower space,” which I intended to encompass the antenna structure
and space necessary for the installation of CCAC’s antenna on my property. My
understanding is that CCAC’s antenna could reside on a building-mounted antenna
structure appurtenance attached to the eaves of my residence . . .35
Additionally, CCAC amended its application on June 15, 2011, to “clarify the nature of the
antenna structure”36 and states that “[b]ecause this proposal is for an antenna structure which will be an
appurtenance to an existing building, no new excavation is anticipated.”37
In reply, Farms takes issue with the fact that CCAC’s original application indicated that there was
an existing tower, and argues that CCAC lacked site assurance because the tower did not in fact exist at
the time CCAC obtained Green’s permission to use the site.38 Moreover, Farms argues that Green’s
declaration demonstrates that he was not aware that the antenna would be attached to his home at the time
he gave CCAC permission to use his home, and that only now is he acquiescing to the idea of attaching
CCAC’s antenna to the residential structure.39 Farms also argues that CCAC was prohibited from
amending its application to clarify that the antenna would be constructed on top of an existing home.40
Finally, Farms argues that the proposed tower cannot be built because of height restrictions in the


29 CCAC Application at Exhibit 1. See also CCAC Application at Section VII, Item 6 (stating that overall tower
height above ground level is 25 meters).
30 Id. at Exhibit 24.
31 Farms-CCAC Petition at 1-2.
32 Farms-CCAC Opposition at 2. The staff has determined that the coordinates listed in CCAC’s application do in
fact correspond to the property located at 19021 Circle View Drive.
33 Farms-CCAC Opposition at Exhibit 1.
34 Farms-CCAC Opposition at Exhibit 2.
35 Id.
36 CCAC Amended Application at Exhibit 1.
37 CCAC Amended Application at Exhibit 24.
38 Farms-CCAC Reply at 1-2.
39 Farms-CCAC Reply at 3-4.
40 Farms-CCAC Reply at 1-3.
- 5 -

---

subdivision where it is located.41 Attached to the Reply is the another declaration by Sean Kriletich,
where he states that a planner at the County of Amador Planning Department informed him that the
construction of the proposed antenna would not be permitted at the identified site because of local height
restrictions.42
We find Farms’ arguments unpersuasive. We disagree with Farm’s strained reading of Green’s
declaration, and find that it establishes that that CCAC had reasonable assurance that it could use Green’s
property as a transmitter site at the time of application filing.43 We further disagree with Farms’ assertion
that CCAC should be prohibited from amending its application. While it is true that applicants may not
amend their applications where they had no reasonable site assurance to begin with, 44 CCAC did in fact
have reasonable site assurance before it amended its application. CCAC’s amended application merely
clarifies that the antenna will be attached to an existing building.45 Finally, we find Farm’s zoning
argument meritless because Farms does not present any evidence of past unsuccessful attempts by CCAC
at securing zoning approval.46 Therefore, Farms has not adequately demonstrated that CCAC lacks
reasonable assurance that the proposed site may be used for constructing the tower.
CCAC’s Petitions to Deny the Farms, SHSDA, and SSHF Applications. Site Assurance Issues.
CCAC argues that Farms, SHSDA, and SSHF all lacked reasonable assurance of site availability. Farms,
SHSDA, and SSHF all proposed a transmitter site on the same tower located at Cedar Hills ECO Farm in
Pioneer, California. CCAC states that its private investigator, Tim Murphy (“Murphy”), travelled to that
property and met with John Van Diepen (“Van Diepen”), the property owner. CCAC further states that
Van Diepen informed Murphy that he did not want to rent out the tower and that he had never signed a
letter stating that he would do so.47


41 Farms-CCAC Reply at 4-5. Specifically, Farms argues that Green’s statement that “my understanding is” as
opposed to “was” indicates that CCAC and Green did not originally propose to build the antenna attached to Green’s
residence.
42 Farms-CCAC Reply at 4-5, Attachment 1.
43 See, e.g., National Innovative Programming Network, Inc. of the East Coast, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2
FCC Rcd 5641, 5642 (1987) (all that is ordinarily necessary for reasonable assurance is some clear indication from
the landowner that he is amenable to entering into a future arrangement with the applicant for use of the property as
its transmitter site, on terms to be negotiated, and that he would give notice of any change of intention; reasonable
assurance may be acquired by informal telephone contacts by the applicant’s agent); Texas Prophecy Media Group,
LLC, Letter, 24 FCC Rcd 13607 (MB 2009) (finding applicant had reasonable assurance of site availability on which
to construct a new tower).
44 Edward A. Schober, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 14263, 14265 (2008) (“The Commission,
however, has repeatedly held that ‘an applicant will not be permitted to amend where it did not have the requisite
reasonable assurance to begin with . . .’”). See also Indiana Community Radio Corp., Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 23 FCC Rcd 10963 (MB 2008) (same).
45 CCAC Amended Application at Exhibit 24.
46 See WCAR, 60 FCC 2d at 827-28.
47 CCAC-Farms Petition at 2; CCAC-SHSDA Petition at 2; CCAC-SSHF Petition at 2. A Declaration of Tim
Murphy is attached to each petition.
- 6 -

---

We are unpersuaded by CCAC’s arguments. Murphy’s declaration contains hearsay, 48 and its
veracity is questionable since Murphy is an agent of the petitioner, CCAC. 49 Moreover, both SHSDA
and Farms have produced letters from Van Diepen, signed in February 2010, in which he states that he
owns the tower in question and is willing to discuss renting tower space to them.50 This directly
contradicts Murphy’s declaration and is sufficient to establish that Farms and SHSDA had reasonable
assurance of site availability.51 Moreover, although SSHF has not filed an opposition refuting CCAC’s
claim that it lacked reasonable assurance of site availability, we find Murphy’s declaration cannot be
accorded any weight. We therefore deny CCAC’s petitions against the SHSDA Application, the Farms
Application, and the SSHF Application.
Point System Claims. Farms argues that SHSDA is not entitled to points for diversity of
ownership because it failed to provide a copy of its governing documents, and maintains that the
statement provided in SHSDA’s exhibit, without context, fails to adequately support its claim of diversity
points.52 SHSDA’s exhibit explains that the church has no governing documents, such as articles of
incorporation or bylaws, and that the actions of the church board serve as its governing documents.53 The
church board adopted a policy in support of its claim for comparative points for diversity of ownership,
which states:
[T]he local Seventh-Day Adventist Church has no governing documents similar to
articles of incorporation, a constitution or bylaws. Consequently, local policy and
governance are implemented by the church board. Actions of the church board serve as
governing documents for the church. In support of the church’s claim to comparative
points, the church board has adopted the following policies . . . . 2) At no times shall the
church hold an attributable interest in another radio station, or construction permit for a
radio station, if the principal community contour of such station would overlap, in whole
or in part, the principal community contour of the radio station that will result from the
application. These policies are adopted for the purpose of complying with the FCC’s
comparative selection procedures for noncommercial broadcast applications as set forth
in Sections 73.7000 and 73.7003 of the FCC’s Rules (47 CFR 73.7000 and 73.7003).54
SHSDA argues that the Commission has accepted similar statements in the past, and credited
applicants even if they failed to provide a complete set of bylaws or other governing documents.55 Farms


48 The Commission has found accounts of conversations with third parties to be inadmissible hearsay. See, e.g.,
Living Proof, Inc. Big Pine, California, Letter, 24 FCC Rcd 2382, 2385, n.29 (MB 2009) (declining to credit hearsay
statements of third party). The weight to be accorded to a hearsay statement depends on its truthfulness,
reasonableness, and credibility (Johnson v. United States, 628 F.2d 187, 190-191 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).
49 See, e.g., Iglesia Jesucristo Es Mi Refugio, Inc., Memorandum Opinion Order and Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 16310, 16319 (MB 2010) (petitioner’s engineering consultant’s hearsay statement,
uncorroborated by independent documentation, should be given little weight because he was not a disinterested
witness); Second Samoan Congregation Church, Letter, 23 FCC Rcd 16630, 16636 (MB 2008) (applicant’s
counsel’s statements should be given little weight because he is not a disinterested witness).
50 CCAC-Farms Opposition at Letter of John Van Diepen; CCAC-SHSDA Opposition at Exhibit A.
51 See supra note 46.
52 Farms-SHSDA Petition at 3.
53 SHSDA Application at Exhibit 1.
54 Id.
55 SHSDA Opposition at 6-7, citing Alaska Federation for Community Self Reliance (File No. BNPED-
20071018AVG); Crested Butte Mountain Education Radio, Inc. (File No. BNPED-20071019AHW); Southwest
- 7 -

---

replies that in the instances cited by SHSDA, the applicant had provided some physical documentation to
support its claim for diversity of ownership points, such as a copy of the board resolution, and not merely
entered a statement as an exhibit to the application.56
In order to be awarded two points for local diversity of ownership, an NCE applicant must certify
that it has no attributable interests in any other broadcast station or authorized construction permit whose
principal community contour overlaps that of the proposed station. The applicant must demonstrate that
its governing documents require that such diversity be maintained.57

During the rulemaking proceeding leading to the adoption of Section 73.7003 of the Rules, the
Commission considered how an organization without traditional governing documents, such as SHSDA,
would be able to meet the governing documents requirement.58 The Commission determined that in the
limited case of state entities whose governing documents cannot be amended without legislative action, it
would permit such applicants to certify their commitment to maintain the board characteristics on which it
bases its diversity claim.59 Although the Commission did not make a similar accommodation for
applicant entities that do not use traditional corporate governance documents, we are concerned that an
unreasonably strict approach would have the effect of penalizing applicant entities, such as SHSDA here,
which do not maintain formal corporate governance documents but clearly are attempting to satisfy our
concerns for maintaining board characteristics for which an applicant receives comparative credits.60




Project for Community Education (File No. BNPED-20071015ABU); Common Ground Athens, Inc. (File No.
BNPED-20071022AQA); Inter Mirificia, Inc. (File No. BNPED-20071022BHU); Horizon Christian Fellowship of
Indianapolis (File No. BNPED-20071017ABZ); Summit Seekers, Inc. (File No. BNPED-20071022AXE); Harvest
Chapel, Inc. (File No. BNPED-20071022BJS); Crisis Pregnancy Help Center of Slidell (File No. BNPED-
20071016ABC).
56 Farms-SHSDA Reply at 4-7.
57 Section 73.7003 (b)(2) states, in relevant part:
Local diversity of ownership. Two points for applicants with no attributable interests as defined in
§ 73.7000, in any other broadcast station or authorized construction permit (comparing radio to
radio and television to television) whose principal community (city grade) contour overlaps that of
the proposed station, if the applicant's own governing documents (e.g. by-laws, constitution, or
their equivalent) require that such diversity be maintained.
Section 73.7000 defines “attributable interest” as:
An interest of an applicant, its parent, subsidiaries, their officers, and members of their governing
boards that would be cognizable under the standards in the notes to § 73.3555. Also an interest of
an entity providing more than 33 percent of an applicant's equity and/or debt that also either (1)
supplies more than 15% of the station's weekly programming, or (2) has an attributable interest
pursuant to § 73.3555 in media in the same market.
58 See Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 5074, 5094 (2001), reversed in part on other grounds, NPR v. FCC, 254 F.3d 226
(D.C. Cir. 2001).
59 Id. at 5095 (“We specifically limit the availability of this option to entities whose governing documents cannot be
amended without legislative action.”).
60 In an unpublished decision, the Bureau found that a similar policy statement was not sufficient to satisfy the
requirements for diversity of ownership documentation. See Northwest Communities Education Center, Letter, Ref
1800B3-ATS (MB rel. Aug. 26, 2011), rev’d on other grounds, Letter, 27 FCC Rcd 6081 (MB 2012). However,
unpublished decisions are neither binding nor precedent. See 47 C.F.R. § 0.445(e).
- 8 -

---

Accordingly, we will consider alternate safeguards from such organizations. We find that a statement
from the applicant’s governing board is sufficient to satisfy our documentation standard.61
Moreover, although each instance cited by SHSDA refers to case where applicants in fact
provided a physical documentation with their application, we nonetheless find that there is no relevant
distinction between electronically “cutting and pasting” the relevant documentation as an exhibit and
providing a physical copy as an attachment. Farms’ failure to present any question about the validity of
SHSDA’s certification of its application as “true, complete, and correct” requires that we deny the
Petition for failure to present a prima facie question about SHSDA’s diversity of ownership
certification.62
Time Share Agreement. By this letter, we announce the opening of the 90-day period for the
tentatively selected applicants in Reserved Allotment Group 7 to negotiate a voluntary time-sharing
agreement. Upon negotiation and submission of such an agreement, the referenced applications will be
granted, conditioned upon each selectee's compliance with Section 73.7005 of the Commission's Rules.63
Should the four applicants fail to file with the Commission an acceptable voluntary time-sharing
agreement by December 24, 2012, we will designate the applications for evidentiary hearing on the sole
issue of an appropriate time-sharing arrangement, as directed by the Commission.

Conclusion

. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the June 2, 2011, Petition to Deny the
application of Calvary Chapel of Amador County, Inc., filed by Farms of Amador, IS DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the June 2, 2011, Petition to Deny the application of Sutter
Hill Seventh-Day Adventist Church (File No. BNPED-20100225ADX) filed by Farms of Amador IS
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the June 2, 2011, Petition to Deny the application of Farms
of Amador (File No. BNPED-20100224ACJ) filed by Calvary Chapel of Amador County, Inc, IS
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the June 2, 2011, Petition to Deny the application of Sutter
Hill Seventh-Day Adventist Church (File No. BNPED-20100225ADX) filed by Calvary Chapel of
Amador County, Inc, IS DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the June 2, 2011, Petition to Deny the application of Sonora
Sierra Heritage Foundation (File No. BNPED-20100226AJU) filed by Calvary Chapel of Amador
County, Inc, IS DENIED.
Sincerely,
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau


61 See, e.g., Southwest Georgia Project for Community Education, Letter, 26 FCC Rcd 6020, 6026 (MB 2011)
(board resolution sufficient to support claim for localism and diversity of ownership points).
62 See Application, Section VI.
63 47 C.F.R. § 73.7005.
- 9 -

---

cc:
Farms of Amador
Calvary Chapel of Amador County, Inc.
Sutter Hill Seventh-Day Adventist Church
- 10 -

---