Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1048
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.  20554
In the Matter of  
Able Radio Corporation
Application for a Construction Permit
For a New FM Broadcast Station at Aguila, 
Arizona
                                            
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. BNPH-20070403ACO
Facility I.D. No. 170953                            
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted:  July 24, 2014 Released:  July 24, 2014
By the Chief, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. We have before us a Petition for Reconsideration (“Petition”) filed on behalf of 
Entravision Holdings, LLC (“Entravision”) on May 21, 2014. Entravision seeks reconsideration of the 
Memorandum Opinion and Order (“MO&O”)
1
denying its Application for Review (“AFR”) and 
affirming the grant of the captioned application of Able Radio Corporation (“Able”)
2
for a new FM 
Station at Aguila, Arizona (“Application”).
3
For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the Petition 
pursuant to Sections 1.106(p) and 1.106(b)(3) of the Commission’s Rules (“Rules”).
4
II. BACKGROUND
2. In FM Auction 70, Able was the winning bidder for a new commercial FM station at
Aguila, Arizona. Able then timely filed its FCC Form 301 and submitted several amendments, including 
an amendment to its Application in May 2008 specifying a new transmitter location in Tonopah, Arizona
(“May 2008 Site”). Entravision has unsuccessfully contested the Application as initially considered by 
the staff,
5
on reconsideration,
6
and on review to the Commission.
7
  The gravamen of Entravision’s 
argument has been that Able lacked reasonable assurance of the May 2008 Site and thus the Commission 
should dismiss or deny the Application.  On April 23, 2014, the Commission denied review,
8
stating that 
                                                          
1
Able Radio Corp., 29 FCC Rcd 4363 (2014) (“MO&O”).
2
On July 11, 2013, Able applied for an involuntary assignment of the Station’s license to Rodney D. Tow, Trustee 
(“Tow”), stating that it had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on May 22, 2013.  File No. BAPH-20130711AAV, 
Exhibit 2.  The staff granted the involuntary assignment Application on December 9, 2013, and the parties 
consummated that same day.  For convenience, we refer to the permitee as “Able” herein.
3
Able filed an Opposition to the Petition (“Opposition”) on June 4, 2014.
4
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106(b)(3), 1.106(p).  See, e.g., A-O Broadcasting Corp., Letter, 24 FCC Rcd 13666 (MB 2009) 
(Bureau dismissed petition for reconsideration as repetitious under Section 1.106(b)(3)).
5
Able Radio Corp., Letter, 26 FCC Rcd 16161, 16163-64 (MB 2011) (“Letter Decision”).
6
Able Radio Corp., Letter, 27 FCC Rcd 15190, 15192-94 (MB 2012) (“Reconsideration Decision”).
7
MO&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 4364.
8
Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1048
2
this case did not involve a dispute about the availability of the site specified in Able’s original FCC Form 
301, but centered on the availability of a different site identified in a post-auction amendment.
9
The 
Commission held that the Bureau did not need to reach the issue of reasonable assurance for the May 
2008 Site because Able subsequently filed another amendment to specify a new site for which it did have 
reasonable assurance and the Commission permits such amendments in the auction context, thus 
“expressly and deliberately” treating auction winners dissimilarly to other non-auction applicants because 
“the competitive bidding process itself [lessens] the incentive for insincere application filings.”
10
The 
Commission also affirmed the Bureau’s finding that Able had adequately prosecuted its Application by 
filing amendments and responding to staff inquiries and requests for information, as “where an applicant 
is incentivized to build promptly in order to recoup upfront auction expenses, the concern with spectrum 
speculation is ‘minimal.’”
11
3. In its Petition, Entravision accuses the Commission of “resort[ing] to a variety of 
theories”
12
in an effort to grant Able’s Application, and it again reiterates the arguments that: (1) Able 
failed to obtain reasonable assurance for its May 2008 Site
13
and (2) Able did not adequately prosecute its 
application,
14
both necessitating the denial of Able’s Application.
15
Entravision argues that the 
Commission’s “simplistic logic” that applicants are of two classes – auction applicants and non-auction 
applicants – is “truly unacceptable and at odds with the facts.”
16
4. In Opposition, Able argues that Entravision has not offered the Commission a “valid 
basis” on which to grant its Petition.
17
  Able contends that Entravision has not even acknowledged the 
standard by which the Commission judges a petition for reconsideration of the denial of an application for 
review.
18
Able argues that Entravision in its Petition has presented the same arguments supported by the 
same facts that it presented the Commission;
19
therefore, the Commission should dismiss the Petition.
20
Able further argues that even if the Commission were to consider Entravision’s arguments in the Petition, 
Entravision has failed to show that the Commission has erred.
21
                                                          
9
Id.
10
Id. at 4364, quoting Reconsideration Decision, 27 FCC Rcd at 15192-93.  In so doing, the Commission affirmed 
that all applicants must have reasonable assurance of site availability when filing an FCC Form 301.  MO&O, 29 
FCC Rcd at 4364.
11
Id. at 4364, citing Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining of Mass Media Applications, Rules, and Processes, 
Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 23056, 23071 (1998) (subsequent history omitted).
12
Petition at 2. 
13
Id. at 5.
14
Id. 
15
Id. at 6
16
Id. at 2.
17
Opposition at 4.
18
Id.
19
Id.
20
Id. at 5.
21
Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1048
3
III. DISCUSSION
5. We dismiss Entravision’s Petition under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 
1.106(b)(3) and 1.106(p) of the Rules.
22
  Under Section 1.106(p), staff may dismiss a petition for 
reconsideration of a Commission action that “plainly [does] not warrant reconsideration”
23
if the petition 
is used to merely repeat arguments that have been “fully considered and rejected by the Commission 
within the same proceeding.”
24
Similarly, the staff may dismiss a petition for reconsideration of an order 
denying an application for review that “fails to rely on new facts or changed circumstances.”
25
6. As detailed above, Entravision accuses the Commission of offering different arguments 
in support of the grant of Able’s “failed” Application.
26
  However, Entravision uses its Petition merely to 
re-assert the arguments it made repeatedly to the staff and the Commission.  It presents no new arguments 
and cites to no new facts or events that have occurred or circumstances that have changed since its last 
opportunity to present such matters, or that were unknown to it and could not have been learned through 
the exercise of ordinary diligence.
27
  The Petition is thus subject to dismissal by the staff pursuant to 
delegated authority.
28
IV. ORDERING CLAUSE
7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in Section 1.106(p) and 
1.106(b)(3)
29
of the Rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Entravision Holdings, LLC, on 
May 21, 2014, IS DISMISSED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William T. Lake
Chief, Media Bureau
                                                          
22
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106(b)(3), 1.106(p).
23
47 C.F.R. § 1.106(p).
24
47 C.F.R. § 1.106(p)(3).
25
47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(3).
26
AFR at 1-2.
27
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106(b)(2)-(3).
28
See, e.g., Fireside Media, Order on Reconsideration, 28 FCC Rcd 16446 (MB 2013).
29
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106(b)(3), 1.106(p).