Federal Communications Commission DA 16-808
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Urban One Broadcasting Network, LLC
Application for Construction Permit for 
New FM Station WURB(FM), at 
Cross City, Florida
Application for a Construction Permit for 
Minor Modification to WURB(FM), 
Cross City, Florida
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. BMPH-20140519ABG
Facility ID No. 189555
File No. BNPH-20110524AHQ
Facility ID No. 189555
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted:  July 18, 2016 Released: July 18, 2016
By the Chief, Media Bureau:
I. INTROUDUCTION
1. We have before us a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition), filed on April 29, 2016, by 
Urban One Broadcasting Network, LLC (Urban One).  The Petition seeks reconsideration of the 
Commission’s April 5, 2016, Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O)
1
that dismissed in part and 
otherwise denied Urban One’s Application for Review of a March 3, 2015, Media Bureau (Bureau) 
decision.
2
  For the reasons set forth below, pursuant to Section 1.106(p) of the FCC’s rules (Rules),
3
we 
dismiss the Petition. 
II. BACKGROUND
2. On May 19, 2014, with about two months left on its construction permit for a new FM 
station on Channel 249 at Cross City, Florida (Station), Urban One filed the above-captioned 
modification application proposing a new antenna site, citing difficulties obtaining access to the permitted
site.
4
In a letter dated July 17, 2014, the Bureau found that the Modification Application failed to comply 
with the Commission’s environmental rules and thus withheld action for thirty days to provide time for 
Urban One to amend the Application.
5
  The Deficiency Letter also reminded Urban One that this action 
did not extend the expiration date on the existing Construction Permit.
6
  On July 18, 2014, Urban One 
submitted a request for special temporary authority (STA Request) for operation at the site specified in 
                                                     
1
Urban One Broad. Network, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 4186 (2016) (MO&O).
2
William Johnson, Letter Order, 30 FCC Rcd 2015 (MB Nov. 17, 2015) (Reconsideration Decision).
3
47 CFR § 1.106(p) (“Petitions 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).”).
4
File No. BMPH-20140519ABG (Modification Application).
5
Letter to Mr. William Johnson, Urban One Broad., LLC, Letter Order, Ref. 1800B3-AED (MB July 17, 2014) 
(Deficiency Letter).
6
Id. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-808
2
the Modification Application.  Three days later, with the STA Request pending, Urban One submitted a 
license to cover application (License Application) specifying the proposed STA facilities. 
3. In the Reconsideration Decision, the Bureau concluded that Urban One failed to 
construct as authorized by the Construction Permit.  It therefore upheld the staff’s determination that the 
Construction Permit had automatically expired and was forfeit by its own terms pursuant to Section 
73.3598(e) of the Rules on July 21, 2014, notwithstanding Urban One’s pending STA Request and 
License Application.
7
  In the MO&O, the Commission upheld the Reconsideration Decision, finding, 
inter alia, that there were no grounds for Urban One’s assertion that the Bureau had treated it differently 
than other applicants and noting that “neither special temporary authority nor program test authority 
typically associated with a ‘license to cover’ application would modify the terms of the Construction 
Permit or extend its expiration date.”
8
  
4. In its Petition, Urban One argues that the Commission was required to grant the STA 
Request under Section 309(f) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), because loss of 
access to the permitted tower site was an “extraordinary circumstance” warranting temporary operations.
9
  
Urban One also claims that the Commission’s failure to grant the STA Request “wrongfully deprived” the 
African-American community in Cross City, Florida of “the voice that would have been afforded to them 
by [the Station].”
10
  Finally, Urban One argues that the failure to grant its STA “clearly shows the 
agency’s bias against the [P]etitioner,” because the Commission granted an STA to Radio Goldfield 
Broadcast, “a pirate radio station operator.”
11
  According to Urban One, the Commission’s refusal to grant 
the STA Request was therefore an arbitrary and capricious action.
12
5. Additionally, Urban One argues that, pursuant to Section 557(a) of the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA), the Commission was required to “furnish the petitioner with a copy of its proposed 
tentative decision in the instant matter, before issuing its tentative decision as the final public decision.”
13
  
Thus, Urban One argues that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously, abused its discretion, and 
committed a prejudicial procedural error when it “deprived the lay [P]etitioner a reasonable opportunity to 
submit its exceptions to the [Commission’s] tentative decision.”
14
  According to Urban One, these 
violations “establish a bias[ed] pattern of violating the rights of the petitioner, who happens to be an 
African-American permittee.”
15
Urban One contends that the Commission should have provided a copy of 
its tentative decision prior to the release of the MO&O and therefore that the Petition is its first 
opportunity to raise this issue.
III. DISCUSSION
6. Section 1.106(p) of the Rules provides that “[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).”
16
Section 1.106(p)(3) of the Rules specifies that a petition 
                                                     
7
Reconsideration Decision, 30 FCC Rcd at 2021.
8
MO&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 4188-89, para. 6.
9
Petition at 3.
10
Id. at 4. 
11
Id. at 8. 
12
Id.
13
Id. at 4, quoting 5 U.S.C. § 557 (Section 557).
14
Petition 6-7.
15
Id. at 6.
16
47 CFR § 1.106(p); see, e.g., LPFM MX Group 198, Order on Reconsideration, 30 FCC Rcd 14317, 14320, para. 
9 (MB 2015) (dismissing new arguments that plainly did not warrant consideration by the Commission because 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-808
3
for reconsideration that relies on “arguments that have been fully considered and rejected by the 
Commission within the same proceeding” does not warrant reconsideration.
17
  It is axiomatic that 
reconsideration will not be granted for the purpose of debating matters on which the Commission has 
deliberated and spoken.
18
  In the MO&O, the Commission considered and rejected Urban One’s 
arguments that the STA Request should have been accepted for filing and granted, that other applicants 
have been treated more favorably, and that the staff’s actions were discriminatory against Urban One.
19
  
Moreover, to the extent that Urban One introduces new facts or arguments not previously presented to the 
Commission, we find that these facts and arguments could have been presented earlier but were not, and 
are therefore subject to dismissal under Sections 1.106(p)(2) and 1.106(b)(2) of the Rules.
20
  Therefore, 
we dismiss the Petition to the extent that it relies upon impermissible facts and arguments.  We once again 
note, however, that even if the STA Request had been granted, the terms of the Construction Permit 
would not have changed nor would the expiration date for the construction of the permitted facilities have 
been extended.
21
  Therefore, the disposal of Urban One’s STA Request is irrelevant to the outcome of this 
case. 
7. Additionally, Section 1.106(p)(1) of the Rules provides for the dismissal of petitions for 
reconsideration of Commission action that “[f]ail to identify any material error, omission, or reason 
warranting reconsideration.”
22
  Section 557 of the APA is inapplicable here, because that section only 
applies when a hearing is required to be conducted.
23
  In the instant case, no hearing was required, and 
Urban One therefore was not entitled to submit exceptions to a tentative decision pursuant to Section 
557(c).
24
  Accordingly, we dismiss the Petition to the extent that it relies upon this argument.
25
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
petitioner could have presented them before, but did not); see also Able Radio Corp., Order on Reconsideration, 29 
FCC Rcd 9126, 9128, para. 5 (MB 2014).
17
47 CFR § 1.106(p)(3) (Section 1.106(p)(3)); see, e.g., Shaw Commc’ns, Letter Order, 27 FCC Rcd 6995, 6996, 
para. 5 (MB 2012) (dismissing petition for reconsideration and finding that the public interest did not compel 
reconsideration where petition relied on facts and arguments that were fully considered and rejected by the 
Commission previously in the proceeding). 
18
See, e.g., WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964).
19
MO&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 4186, para. 4.
20
47 CFR §§ 1.106(b)(2), 1.106(p)(2).  These new facts and arguments concern: (a) whether the Commission was 
required to grant the STA pursuant to Section 309(f) of the Act; and (b) whether the treatment afforded Radio 
Goldfield Broadcast and Urban One with regard to their respective STA applications established bias in this 
proceeding.
21
MO&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 4186, para. 6.
22
47 CFR § 1.106(p)(1).
23
See 5 U.S.C. § 557(a) (“This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, when a hearing is required to be 
conducted in accordance with section 556 of this title.”).
24
5 U.S.C. § 557(c).  The Commission’s rules for hearing proceedings, including the rule concerning exceptions to 
an administrative law judge’s initial decision, are set forth in 47 CFR §§ 1.201-1.364 and apply to cases in which a 
hearing designation order is issued pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 309(e).  The instant proceeding was never designated for 
hearing, and instead was adjudicated pursuant to rules applicable to non-hearing cases, set forth in 47 CFR §§ 1.101-
1.115 and 73.3566(a).
25
Royce Int’l Broad. Co., Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 214, 217, para. 10 (MB 2016) (dismissing petition 
for reconsideration of Commission action pursuant to 47 CFR § 1.106(p)(1) because petition failed to identify any 
material error, omission, or reason warranting reconsideration); aff’d Royce Int’l Broad. Co., Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, FCC 16-76 (June 20, 2016).
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-808
4
IV. ORDERING CLAUSE
8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Urban 
One on April 29, 2016, IS DISMISSED pursuant to Section 1.106(p) of the FCC’s Rules.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William T. Lake  
                    Chief, Media Bureau