Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1049
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.  20554
In the Matter of  
Emmis Radio License, LLC
License Renewal Applications of
Station WFNI(AM) 
Indianapolis, Indiana
Station WLHK(FM) 
Shelbyville, Indiana
Station WYXB(FM)
Indianapolis, Indiana
Station WWVR(FM)
West Terre Haute, Indiana
Station WTHI-FM
Terre Haute, Indiana
and
Merlin Media License, LLC
Station WKQX(FM) 
Chicago, Illinois
                                            
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. BR-20040401AOH
Facility I.D. No. 19521                              
File No. BRH-20040401ARD
Facility ID No. 19522
File No. BRH-20040401AOL
Facility ID No. 51432
File No. BRH-20040401AJO
Facility ID No. 68824
File No. BRH-20040401AJH
Facility ID No. 70652
File Nos. BRH-20040802AQH, 
BRH-20120801AJU
Facility ID No. 19525
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 filed on April 7, 2014, by David E. 
Smith (“Smith”), Peter LaBarbera, Kathy Valente, Illinois Family Institute, and Illinois Chapter of the 
Concerned Women for America (collectively, “Petitioners”).
1
  The Petition seeks reconsideration of the 
Commission’s April 12, 2013, Memorandum Opinion and Order, which denied two Applications for 
Review (“AFRs”), one filed by Smith, and the second filed jointly by Petitioners.
2
  In this Order on 
                                                          
1
A Joint Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration was filed on April 22, 2014, by Emmis Radio License, LLC 
(“Emmis”), and Merlin Media License, LLC (“Merlin”).  Emmis assigned to Merlin the license for Station 
WKQX(FM) in 2011.  See File No. BALH-20110627AAW.  Petitioners filed a Reply on May 2, 2014.
2
Emmis Radio License, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 2571 (2014) (“MO&O”).  
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1049
2
Reconsideration, we dismiss the Petition pursuant to Section 1.106(p) of the Commission’s Rules
(“Rules”).
3
II. BACKGROUND
2. The AFRs sought review of Media Bureau (“Bureau”) decisions
4
granting the captioned 
license renewal applications filed by Emmis Radio License, LLC (“Emmis”), for Stations WFNI(AM) 
(formerly WIBC(AM)), Indianapolis, Indiana; WLHK(FM) (formerly WENS(FM)), Shelbyville, Indiana; 
WYXB(FM), Indianapolis, Indiana; WWVR(FM), West Terre Haute, Indiana; and WTHI-FM, Terre 
Haute, Indiana (collectively, “Indiana Applications”), and for Station WKQX(FM) (formerly WIQI(FM)), 
Chicago, Illinois (“WKQX Application”) (collectively, “Emmis Applications”).  In the Indiana Staff 
Decision, the Bureau denied Smith’s Informal Objection to the Indiana Applications and held that: 1) the 
Bureau was barred from considering Smith’s indecency complaints against Emmis by the terms of 
consent decree entered into by the Commission and Emmis’ parent corporation, Emmis Communications 
Corporation;
5
and 2) the Bureau did not need to consider the civil lawsuit filed against Smith by Erich 
“Mancow” Muller, who hosted a program that was broadcast by Emmis, because the lawsuit was a non-
broadcast activity not regulated by the Commission and not involving Emmis.  The MO&O affirmed the 
Bureau decisions for the reasons stated therein.
6
3. Petitioners base the subject Petition on Section 1.106(b)(2)(i) of the Rules, which 
provides that where the Commission has denied an application for review, a petition for reconsideration 
will be entertained if “the petition relies on facts or arguments which relate to events which have occurred 
or circumstances which have changed since the last opportunity to present such matters to the 
Commission.”
7
  Petitioners state that they “are Christian and seek to defend traditional Judeo-Christian 
morals and virtues.”
8
Petitioners “argue that the Commission has violated their right to equal protection 
under the 14
th
Amendment to the United States Constitution
9
because it did not “investigate Emmis for its 
apparent violations of federal criminal statutes,” but did “consciously investigate[] and/or impose[] civil 
forfeitures upon Christian organizations for relatively minor violations [of the Rules].”
10
Accordingly,
Petitioners argue that the Commission is required by the Equal Protection Clause to likewise investigate 
Emmis by designating the Emmis Applications for hearing.
                                                          
3
47 C.F.R. § 1.106(p).
4
Emmis Radio License Corporation, Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 16637 (MB 2007) (denying Smith’s Informal Objection to 
the Indiana Application) (“Indiana Staff Decision”), aff’d Emmis Radio License Corporation, Letter, 24 FCC Rcd 
369 (MB 2009); Emmis Radio License Corporation, Letter, Ref. 1800B3-MFW (MB Oct. 22, 2010) (denying 
Petitioner’s Petition to Deny the WKQX Application).  
5
Emmis Communications Corp., Order, 19 FCC Rcd 16003 (2004) (“Consent Decree”), recon. denied, Order on 
Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd 12219 (2006) (denying Petitioners’ petition for reconsideration of the order approving 
the consent decree), aff’d sub nom. David Edward Smith et al. v. FCC, No. 06-1381, Order (D.C. Cir. Mar. 29, 
2007).
6
MO&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 2572.
7
Petition at 2, citing 47 C.F.R § 1.106(b)(2)(i).
8
Petition at 3.
9
U.S. Const. amend. XIV § 1 (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction 
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any 
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any 
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the 
equal protection of the laws.”) (“Equal Protection Clause”).
10
Petition at 4-5.  Petitioners provide a list of Commission enforcement proceedings against what they identify as 
“Christian broadcasting organizations.”  Petition at Exhibit A.
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1049
3
III. DISCUSSION
4. We find that Petitioners have not demonstrated that there has been a change of 
circumstances warranting review of the MO&O pursuant to Section 1.106(b)(2)(i).  Petitioners have 
merely identified several enforcement actions against allegedly Christian affiliated licensees which 
occurred following the filing of the AFRs.  Petitioners have not presented any facts to support its 
contention that these actions demonstrate a change in Commission policy. Accordingly, we will dismiss 
the Petition for failing to satisfy the requirements of Section 1.106(b)(2)(i).
11
  
5. Additionally, Section 1.106(p) provides “[p]etitions for reconsideration of a Commission 
action that plainly do not warrant consideration by the Commission may be dismissed or denied by the 
relevant bureau(s) or office(s),”
12
including petitions that “relate to matters outside the scope of the order 
for which reconsideration is sought.”
13
  The proceedings that Petitioners claim shows a history of 
Commission enforcement actions against “Christian broadcasting stations” are unrelated to the matter at 
hand – whether the Commission erred by not designating the Emmis Applications for hearing.  
Accordingly, we dismiss the Petition to the extent it raises matter unrelated to the current proceeding.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSE
6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to authority contained in Section 
1.106(b)(3) and 1.106(p) of the Commission’s Rules,
14
that the Petition for Reconsideration filed on April 
7, 2014, by David E. Smith, Peter LaBarbera, Kathy Valente, Illinois Family Institute, and Illinois 
Chapter of the Concerned Women for America IS DISMISSED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William T. Lake  
                    Chief, Media Bureau
                                                          
11
47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(3) (“A petition for reconsideration of an order denying an application for review which fails 
to rely on new facts or changed circumstances may be dismissed by the staff as repetitious.”).  See, e.g., Holy Family 
Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 15687 (MB 2013) (Media Bureau dismisses 
a petition for reconsideration pursuant to Section 1.106(b)(3) where it found petitioner had not demonstrated new 
circumstances warranting review of Commission decision).
12
47 C.F.R. § 1.106(p).
13
47 C.F.R § 1.106(p)(5).
14
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106(b)(3), 1.106(p).