Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
September 30, 2010
DA 10-1903
In Reply Refer to:
1800B3-KES
Released: September 30, 2010
Scott R. Flick, Esq.
Christine A. Reilly, Esq.
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
2300 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Paul G. Madison, Esq.
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
3050 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20007
In re:          DW276BX, Pompton Lakes, NJ
New Jersey Public Broadcasting Authority
Facility ID No. 143128
File No. BLFT-20071130ADA
Petition for Reconsideration
Dear Counsel:
We have before us a second Petition for Reconsideration (“Second Petition”) filed on August 9, 
2009, by Mariana Broadcasting, Inc. (“Mariana”), licensee of daytime-only AM Station WGHT(AM), 
Pompton Lakes, New Jersey.  Mariana seeks reconsideration of the July 13, 2009, letter (the “Staff 
Decision”) dismissing Mariana’s request for reinstatement of the license for FM translator Station 
DW276BX, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey (the “Station”).1 For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the 
Second Petition.
Background. On November 18, 2008, New Jersey Public Broadcasting Authority (“NJPBA”), 
former Station licensee, requested voluntary cancellation of the Station license.  The staff granted 
NJPBA’s request and announced cancellation of the license by Public Notice on January 16, 2009.2 On 
February 17, 2009, Mariana filed a Petition for Reconsideration (“Initial Petition”), stating that 
cancellation of the license was “contrary to the public interest, and harmful to the welfare and safety of 
the residents of Pompton Lakes.”3  
  
1 Mariana Broadcasting, Inc., Letter, 24 FCC Rcd 9064 (MB 2009).
2 Broadcast Actions, Public Notice, Report No. 46904 at 1 (Jan. 16, 2009) (“Public Notice”). 
3 Initial Petition at 1.  Mariana also included as exhibits several letters of support from local police departments, 
members of the New Jersey General Assembly, and a letter from Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr., representing the 
Eighth District of New Jersey.
2
The Staff Decision found that Mariana lacked standing to file the Initial Petition because it had 
failed to show that its interests had been adversely affected by the voluntary cancellation of the Station 
license.  The Staff Decision indicated that “[w]hile we acknowledge Mariana’s desire to expand coverage 
of its local programming to nighttime service, cancellation of the DW276BX Station license in no way 
affects Mariana’s current programming or coverage.  Moreover, Mariana has no rights with regard to 
assignment or disposal of this license and therefore no interest which could be adversely affected by its 
cancellation.”4 The Staff Decision also noted that it was unable to provide the relief requested because 
“the Commission has no authority to require any party [e.g., NJPBA] to assume a license and the 
corresponding duties and responsibilities that inhere in assuming the role of a licensee . . . .”5 Finally, the 
Staff Decision noted that grant of Mariana’s petition would violate the procedural rights of other potential 
applicants that might have an interest in operating the Station or a facility precluded by reinstatement of 
the Station license.6
In the Second Petition, Mariana reiterates its arguments that 167,000 people located within 5 
miles of WGHT(AM)’s transmitter are served by no other signal that provides coverage of local news or 
events after sunset.7 Additionally, Mariana argues that: (1) a party cannot elect to cease being a licensee 
to the detriment of the public or another licensee, citing Pappamal Wellington Kurian;8 (2) it has standing 
to seek reconsideration as a “local listener, a local resident, a competitor, or the proposed originating 
station or assignee of W276BX,” because “WGHT(AM)’s authority to utilize an FM translator, and to 
provide service at night, will be eliminated if W276BX is not reinstated”;9 and (3)  the Commission 
should “exercise its public interest mandate and facilitate such a service whether it believes Mariana has 
standing . . . or not.”10 Mariana also states that the Staff Decision’s reliance on Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. 
FCC is misplaced,11 and it references Section 310(d) of the Act which, it states, “prohibits the 
Commission from considering any applicant but the proposed assignee in processing an assignment 
application.”12 Finally, Mariana argues that reinstatement of the Station license is particularly warranted 
because only a currently licensed FM translator station may be used to retransmit the signal of an AM 
station.13
  
4 Staff Decision, 24 FCC Rcd at 9065.
5 Id. at 9066, citing 47 U.S.C. § 303 (describing the powers and duties of the Commission).
6 The Staff Decision cited Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC, 326 U.S. 327, 333 (1945) (“Ashbacker”), in which the 
Supreme Court held that, where two parties’ applications are mutually exclusive, to grant one application without 
first considering the other would deny the second applicant the procedural right to a hearing granted to it by 
Congress.
7 Second Petition at 3.  Mariana again submits letters of support from local governmental officials and agencies.  See 
generally id. at Exhibits 1-9.
8 Pappamal Wellington Kurian, 22 FCC Rcd 18660 (WTB 2007) (“Kurian”).
9 Second Petition at 8.
10 Id. at 6.
11 Id. at 10, citing Ashbacker.   Mariana references EchoStar Satellite Operating Corp., 23 FCC Rcd 3252 (2008), at 
¶ 12 which states that Ashbacker (which provides guidance in selecting a license grantee from a pool of mutually
exclusive applicants) does not apply where no other petitions or applications exist, as in this case.  
12 Id. at 10.
13 Id. at 11, citing Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast Translator Stations, Report and 
Order, 24 FCC Rcd 9462 (2009).  
3
Discussion. Section 1.106(k)(3) of our Rules states that a “petition for reconsideration of an 
order which has been previously denied on reconsideration may be dismissed by the staff as 
repetitious.”14 As the Commission has observed, “[i]f the ‘tacking’ of petitions were permitted, 
Commission actions might never become final and the rule would become nugatory.”15 Mariana has 
shown no “extraordinary circumstances” here – that it is required to continue the status quo as an AM 
daytime station is not in any way “extraordinary” – and we will dismiss the Second Petition as repetitious.
Moreover, the Second Petition is without merit.  Reconsideration is warranted only if the 
Petitioner sets forth an error of fact or law, or presents new facts or changed circumstances which raise 
substantial and material questions of fact that otherwise warrant reconsideration of the prior action. 16 For 
the reasons set forth in the Staff Decision, Mariana has no interest in the Station license and its 
cancellation does not impact in any way Mariana’s current operation of WGHT(AM).  Thus, Mariana 
lacks standing to seek reconsideration of the cancellation of the Station license because it is not adversely 
affected by that action.17
In particular, Mariana’s reliance on Kurian to establish standing is unavailing. In Kurian, Ms. 
Kurian, former wife of the licensee, Mr. Kurian, sought to block Mr. Kurian’s request to cancel 39 
wireless station authorizations.  She contended that those licenses had been awarded to her pursuant to a 
court-approved property settlement.18 However, the cancellations at issue in Kurian were based on rules 
not applicable to the broadcast services.  Thus, Kurian is inapposite.  Moreover, under the wireless radio 
authorization rules at issue in Kurian, licenses “automatically terminate, without specific Commission 
action” if the licensee fails to meet applicable construction or coverage requirements, or service is 
permanently discontinued.19 Mr. Kurian’s “request” to cancel these authorizations was, in fact, a 
notification that they had cancelled automatically under these rules.  In rejecting Ms. Kurian’s initial 
challenge to the requested cancellations, the Mobility Division of the Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau (“WTB”) noted specifically that “the identity of the party notifying the Commission of the 
cancellation, and even the absence of any such notification, is not relevant to the question of the whether 
the license had cancelled.”20 In contrast, NJPBA requested the voluntary dismissal of the Station License.  
Axiomatically, only a licensee can make such a request.  WTB reinstated two authorizations on 
reconsideration based on facts that established that automatic cancellation had not occurred.  That action, 
however, does not provide any support for Mariana’s novel standing theory here.
  
14 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(k)(3).  See also A.G.P., Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 4628, 4629 (1996) 
and Iolaa Broadcasting Company, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 FCC 2d 439 (1966) (it is not in the interests 
of orderly procedure to permit repeated petitions for reconsideration).
15 Great Lakes Broadcast Academy, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 11655, 11656 (2004), 
citing Brainerd Broadcasting Co., 25 R.R. 297, 298 (1963).
16 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.106.
17 See 47 U.S.C. § 405(a)(requiring petitioners to show they will be adversely affected by the decision at hand). 
18 Kurian, 22 FCC Rcd at 18662.
19 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.955(a)(2) and (3).
20 Kurian, 22 FCC Rcd at 18661 (quoting Letter to George L. Lyon, Jr. (WTB Feb.12, 2007)).
4
Finally, we conclude that Mariana’s argument that Ashbacker is inapposite is also without merit.21  
The issuance of an authorization to Mariana, as proposed in the Second Petition, would necessarily 
prejudice the rights of potential competing applicants.22 Thus, assuming arguendo, that the staff has the 
authority to reinstate the Station license without specifying NJPBA as the licensee, we would still be 
required to afford other interested parties the opportunity to compete for this spectrum.  Mariana’s 
reliance on Section 310(d) is misplaced.  Even if there were a license to assign, no application is pending 
before the Commission.
Conclusion/Action. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed on 
August 9, 2009, by Mariana Broadcasting, Inc. is DISMISSED.
Sincerely,
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau              
  
21 Second Petition at 10.
22 See Modification of FM and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License, 4 FCC Rcd 4870, 4873 
(1989), citing Cheyenne, Wyoming, 62 FCC 2d 63 (1976); see also Bachow Communications Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 
683, 689 (D.C. Cir 2001) (due process rights established in Ashbacker also protect potential applicants that could not 
file competing proposals due to an application freeze), citing Kessler v. FCC, 326 F.2d 673 (D.C. Cir. 1963).