Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
DA 07-3140
Released: July 18, 2007
Paxson Communications License Company, LLC
c/o John P. Feore, Jr.
Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC
1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-6802
Minden Television Corporation
c/o Melodie A. Virtue
Garvey, Schubert & Barer
Fifth Floor
1000 Potomac St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007-3501
Common Cause
c/o Andrew J. Schwartzman
Media Access Project
Suite 1118
1625 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
The Christian Network
c/o Jacqueline P. Cleary
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
555 13th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004-1109
Re:   Application for Assignment of License
KPXJ-TV, Minden, Louisiana
File No. BALCT-20031008ACZ
Fac. ID No. 81507
Dear Counsel:
The captioned application sought consent to assign the license of KPXJ(TV) (PAX), Minden Louisiana, 
from Paxson Communications License Company, LLC (Paxson), to Minden Television Corporation 
(Minden).  Common Cause filed a Petition to Deny the application, challenging the permissibility of an 
existing programming agreement (Station Agreement) between Paxson and the Christian Network, Inc. 
(CNI), which Paxson will assign to Minden upon consummation.  In a letter decision dated April 14, 2004 
(“Letter Decision”) by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau, we conditionally granted the assignment 
of the license of KPXJ(TV), Minden, Louisiana to Minden Television Corporation (MTC).1 We now 
  
1 Common Cause filed an Application for Review of that decision on May 13, 2004, which will be resolved in a 
separate decision.
2
have before us a Petition for Reconsideration of that decision filed by Paxson Communications License 
Company, LLC (Paxson),2 which challenges the finding in the Letter Ruling that Common Cause had 
standing to file its Petition to Deny.  For the reasons stated below, we deny the Petition for 
Reconsideration.
Paxson objects to our finding that Common Cause had standing to file its petition to deny.  Specifically, 
Paxson objects to our acceptance of a late-filed declaration by Alice Stewart, a member of Common 
Cause, on which Common Cause relied to establish standing.  Paxson does not contest the statements in 
Ms. Stewart’s declaration that she is both a resident of the station’s service area and a member of 
Common Cause.  Instead, Paxson argues that we were compelled to reject her declaration and deny 
standing solely because the declaration was filed twenty days late.3 As Common Cause correctly notes in 
its opposition, we have discretion in whether or not to accept supplemental materials and Paxson has not 
demonstrated that such discretion was improperly exercised here.4 Therefore, we deny Paxson’s petition 
for reconsideration.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Paxson 
Communications License Company, LLC in regard to the grant of the assignment of license of 
KPXJ(TV), Minden, Louisiana to Minden Television Corporation (File No. BALCT-20031008ACZ) IS 
DENIED.
Sincerely,
Barbara A. Kreisman
Chief, Video Division
Media Bureau
    
2 Petition for Reconsideration filed by Paxson, May 20, 2004. Common Cause filed its opposition to Paxson’s 
petition late with a motion to accept the late filing.  Paxson filed a pleading entitled “Notice of Lack of Objection 
to Petition for Reconsideration.”  Paxson also filed a motion to strike for lateness both Common Cause’s 
opposition to the petition for reconsideration and its reply to Paxson’s opposition to the application for review.  
Paxson states that it was not served properly with either of these pleadings.  Although we admonish Common 
Cause on the crucial importance of both timely responses and of proper service, it does not appear any harm to 
Paxson resulted from Common Cause’s actions.  In the interest of a complete record, we will deny Paxson’s 
motion and consider Common Cause’s pleadings.  Parties should not assume, however, that such negligence 
regarding timeliness and service is acceptable and will be in no position to protest if we choose to strike late-filed 
or improperly served pleadings in the future.
3 Paxson Petition for Reconsideration at 2-3.
4 See, e.g., Branch v FCC, 824 F.2d 37, 40 (D.C. Cir. 1987)(accepting petitioner’s post-argument declaration 
clarifying claims to standing).