*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 10695.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  1730 
 Before  the 
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 Establishment  of  a  Class  A 
 Television  Service 


 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 


 MM  Docket  No.  00-  10 


 ORDER 
 Adopted:  August  2,  2001  Released:  August  6,  2001 


 By  the  Chief,  Mass  Media  Bureau: 


 1.  On  April  13,  2001,  the  Commission  released  a  Reconsideration  Order  in  the  above-  captioned 
 proceeding.  1  That  Order  generally  affirmed  revisions  made  to  the  Commission’s  Rules  in  a  Report  and 
 Order  released  in  April  2000,  in  which  the  Commission  accorded  Class  A  status  to  certain  low  power 
 television  stations,  as  directed  by  Congress  in  the  Community  Broadcasters  Protection  Act  of  1999 
 (CBPA).  Pursuant  to  the  CBPA  and  the  Commission’s  rules,  a  low  power  television  licensee  may  convert 
 the  secondary  status  of  its  station  to  the  new  Class  A  status,  provided  it  can  satisfy  certain  statutorily-established 
 criteria. 


 2.  On  December  5,  2000,  the  Commission  released  a  Public  Notice  extending  the  filing  deadline  for 
 Class  A  applications  until  90  days  after  release  of  the  Reconsideration  Order  “in  order  to  give  eligible 
 LPTV  licensees  adequate  time  to  prepare  and  file  their  Class  A  applications  consistent  with  any 
 clarifications  or  rule  changes  that  may  be  adopted  on  reconsideration.”  2  Because  the  Reconsideration 
 Order  was  released  on  April  13,  2001,  qualified  LPTV  stations  had  until  July  12,  2001  to  file  their  Class  A 
 applications. 


 1  In  the  Matter  of  Establishment  of  a  Class  A  Television  Service,  MM  Docket  No.  00-  10,  Report  and  Order,  15 
 FCC  Rcd  6355  (2000)(  Report  and  Order),  recon.,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  on  Reconsideration,  FCC 
 01-  123  (rel.  April  13,  2001)(  Reconsideration  Order). 


 2  Public  Notice,  “Commission  Extends  Filing  Deadline  for  Class  A  License  Applications,”  DA  00-  2743  (rel. 


 December  5,  2000). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  1730 
 2 
 3.  Three  letters  requesting  that  the  July  12,  2001  filing  deadline  be  extended  were  received.  3  We  deny 
 these  requests.  The  petitioners  claim,  in  general  terms,  that  Class  A-  eligible  applicants  are  confused  by  the 
 Commission’s  rules  and  filing  procedures,  which,  they  contend,  could  lead  to  the  filing  of  erroneous 
 applications.  4  IBN  specifically  asserts  that  the  Community  Broadcasters  Association  (CBA)  has  received 
 no  written  response  from  the  Commission  to  its  request  for  clarification  of  certain  issues,  made  “on  or 
 about”  July  3,  2001.  5  CBA’s  concerns,  however,  were  addressed  in  a  teleconference  between  Commission 
 staff  and  CBA’s  attorney  on  July  6.  6  Commission  staff  members  are  available  to  answer  questions  from 
 applicants,  and  an  appeals  process  exists  should  an  applicant  err  in  filing. 


 4.  IBN  also  contends  that  a  petition  for  review  of  the  Reconsideration  Order  has  been  filed,  and  asks 
 that  the  filing  deadline  be  extended  until  “judicial  review  has  been  completed  and  is  final  and  non-appealable.”  7 
 IBN,  essentially,  requests  a  stay  of  the  Commission’s  orders  in  the  Class  A  proceeding.  The 
 Commission  determines  whether  to  grant  the  extraordinary  remedy  of  stay  of  an  order  under  well  settled 
 principles.  To  be  granted  a  stay,  IBN  must  demonstrate  that:  (1)  it  will  suffer  irreparable  harm  if  a  stay  is 
 not  granted;  (2)  it  is  likely  to  prevail  on  the  merits  of  an  appeal;  (3)  other  interested  parties  will  not  be 
 harmed  if  the  stay  is  granted;  and  (4)  a  stay  will  not  harm  the  public  interest.  8  IBN  has  not  met  its  burden, 
 nor  has  it  attempted  to  address  these  criteria. 


 5.  Accordingly,  for  the  reasons  set  forth  above,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that  the  requests  to  extend  time, 
 filed  by  International  Broadcasting  Network  on  July  9,  2001,  Robert  E.  Kelly  on  July  10,  2001,  and  Third 
 Coast  Broadcasting  on  July  9,  2001,  ARE  DENIED. 


 6.  This  action  is  taken  pursuant  to  authority  delegated  by  Section  0.283  of  the  Commission’s  Rules, 
 47  C.  F.  R.  §  0.283. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Roy  J.  Stewart 
 Chief,  Mass  Media  Bureau 


 3  International  Broadcasting  Network  (IBN),  filed  July  9,  2001;  Robert  E.  Kelly  (Kelly),  filed  July  10,  2001; 
 Third  Coast  Broadcasting  (Third  Coast),  filed  July  9,  2001.  Third  Coast’s  request  concerns  only  out-  of-  core 
 applicants. 


 4  IBN  Petition  at  1-  2;  Kelly  Petition  at  1-  2;  Third  Coast  at  1-  2. 


 5  IBN  Petition  at  1. 
 6  The  teleconference  took  place  on  July  6,  2001.  Participants  included  Peter  Tannenwald,  Counsel  for  CBA, 
 and  Barbara  Kreisman,  Chief,  Video  Services  Division,  James  Brown,  Deputy  Chief,  Video  Services  Division, 
 and  Hossein  Hoshemzadeh,  Video  Services  Division,  all  of  the  Mass  Media  Bureau. 


 7  IBN  Petition  at  2  (citing  Robert  E.  Kelly  v.  Federal  Communications  Commission,  filed  on  or  about  June  28, 


 2001  with  the  U.  S.  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  District  of  Columbia  Circuit). 
 8  Virginia  Petroleum  Jobbers  Ass’n  v.  FPC,  259  F.  2d  921,  925  (D.  C.  Cir.  1958),  see  also  Washington 


 Metropolitan  Area  Transit  Comm’n  v.  Holiday  Tours,  559  F.  2d  841,  843  (D.  C.  Cir.  1977). 
2