10 FCC Red No. 13 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 95-1367
Before the
Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554
PUBLIC NOTICE
Released: June 23,1995
FEE DECISIONS OF THE MANAGING 
DIRECTOR AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC
The Managing Director is responsible for fee decisions in 
response to requests for waiver or deferral of fees as well as 
other pleadings associated with the fee collection process. 
On a monthly basis, a public notice is released and the 
entire text of these fee decisions is published in the FCC 
record.
The decisions are placed in general docket 86-28S and 
are available for public inspection. A copy of the decision 
is also placed in the appropriate docket, if one exists.
The following Managing Director fee decisions are re 
leased for public information:
Ariel Broadcasting, Inc. - Request for refund of a filing 
fee submitted in connection with an application for an FM 
station at St. Augustine Beach, Florida - Granted (June 6, 
1995). [See 47 C.F.R. Section l.llll(b)(2).]
AT&T Corp. - Request for refund of a hearing fee in 
connection with the proceeding of Elehue K. Freeman, et 
al. v. AT&T Corp. - Granted (May 18, 1995). [See 47 
C.F.R. Section I.lll2(b).]
Baja Florida Radio, Inc. - Request for refund of a hear 
ing fee for a new AM station at Kendall, Florida - Granted 
(May 18, 1995). [See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1112(b).J
Big Tree Communications - Request for refund of a filing 
fee submitted in connection with an application for a new 
FM station at Merrill, Oregon - Granted (May 11, 1995). 
[See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1112(a)(6).J
Charter Broadcast Group - Request for refund of filing 
fees submitted in connection with an application for a 
station at Loudonville. Ohio - Granted (May 12, 1995). 
[See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1112(a).l
Conway, Lars T. dba Conway Broadcasting - Request for 
refund of filing fees submitted in connection with petitions 
to amend the FM table of allotments for the Billings, 
Montana; Sioux Falls, South Dakota markets - Granted 
(May 10, 1995). [See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1112(a)(l).[
Great Lakes of Iowa, Inc. - Request for refund of a filing 
fee submitted in connection with a formal complaint - 
Granted (June 14, 1995). [See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1108(d).j
Heritage Media Corporation - Request for refund of a 
filing fee submitted in connection with an application for 
an FM station at Liberty, Missouri - Denied (May 18, 
1995). [See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1112.]
Holston Valley Broadcasting Corporation - Request for 
refund of a filing fee submitted in connection with an 
application for an FM station at Kingsport, Tennessee - 
Granted (May 12, 1995). [See 47 C.F.R. Section
JEM Broadcasting Company, Inc. - Request for refund of 
hearing fee for a new FM station at Bentonville, Arkansas - 
Granted (May 18, 1995). [See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1112(b).]
KFTY Broadcasting, Inc. - Request for reduction of Fiscal 
Year 1994 regulatory fee for Channel 50 at Santa Rosa, 
California - Granted (May 2, 1995). [See 47 C.F.R. Section
Maranatha Broadcasting Company, Inc. - Request for 
reduction of Fiscal Year 1994 regulatory fees for a UHF 
station at Allentown. Pennsylvania - Granted (June 6, 
1995). [See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1165(d).j
Medinet, Inc. - Request for refund of filing fees submitted 
in connection with an application for equipment authoriza 
tion - Granted (May 11, 1995). [See 47 C.F.R. Section
Navajo Nation - Petition for Declaratory Ruling and 
request for refund of regulatory fees - Granted (May 26, 
1995). [See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1159(a)(l).J
Paugus Television, Inc. - Request for reduction of Fiscal 
Year 1994 regulatory fees for a TV station at Merrimack, 
New Hampshire - Rescinded (June 7, 1995). [See 47 C.F.R. 
Section 1.1165(d).|
RAM Mobile Data USA LP - Petition for reconsideration 
of a request for waiver of fees filed in conjunction with an 
application for waiver of rules - Granted (June 12, 1995). 
[See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1112.]
Robinson, Todd P. - Request for refund of a hearing fee 
for a new FM station at Harrisburg, North Carolina - 
Granted (May 18. 1995). [See 47 C.F.R. Section
RR Donnelley & Sons Company - Request for waiver and 
refund of (Fiscal Year 1994 regulatory fees - Granted (May 
26, 1995). [See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1165(d).|
Tutera, Carl Como - Request for refund of a hearing fee 
for a new FM station at St. Augustine Beach, Florida - 
Granted (May 18, 1995). [See 47 C.F.R. Section
Visitor Information Radio of Florida, Inc. - Request for 
refund of a hearing fee for a FM station at St. Augustine 
Beach, Florida - Granted (May 18, 1995). [See 47 C.F.R. 
Section l.llll(b)(2).|
WHOT, Inc. - Request for refund of filing fees submitted 
in connection with an application for a new broadcast 
station at Youngstown, Ohio - Granted (May 12, 1995). 
[See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1112(a).]
NOTE: ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RE 
PORT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE PREPARER, 
CLAUDETTE PRIDE, CHIEF, FEE SECTION ON (202) 
418-1995.
6731
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, 0. C. 20554
OFFICE OF
MANAONG OtReCTOR «HW .5 $05
J. Geoffrey Bent ley, Esq.Birch, Horton, Bittner and Cherot
1155 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20036
Re: Ariel Broadcasting, Inc. New FM Station 
St. Augustine Beach, Florida
Dear Mr. Bent ley:
This is in response to your request for refund of the fee submitted in the above -referenced matter.
Your request is granted. We have reviewed the facts surrounding your filing and have concluded that a refund is warranted pursuant 
to Section 1.1111 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. §1.1111. The subsection checked below is specifically applicable to your 
request .
____ No fee is required for the above -referenced submission (§ 1.1111 (a) (1) ).
____ An insufficient fee has been submitted with the application/filing (51. 1111 (a) (2)) .
_____ The applicant cannot fulfill the prescribed age requirement (§1.1111 (a) (4) ) .
____ The Commission had adopted a new rule that has nullified the application after its acceptance 
for filing (§1.1111 (a) (4) ).
____ A new law or treaty has rendered useless a grant or other positive disposition of the application 
a) (4)) .
The application was not timely filed in accordance with the filing window as established by the 
Commission (§1.1111 (a) (6)) .
In the case of a broadcast applicant, the application was granted without being designated 
for hearing (§l.llll(b) (1) ) .
In the case of a broadcast applicant, the individual application was dismissed pursuant to a
6732
Mr. Bentley Page 2
global settlement prior to designation for hearing (§1.1111(b)(2)).
____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, theapplication was dismissed for failure to file a 
Notice of Appearance (§1.1111(b)(2)).
____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, the applicant was the only applicant in the proceeding to file a 
Notice of Appearance and the application was immediately grantable (§1.1111Cb)(3)).
____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, the applicant was the only applicant in the proceeding who filed a 
Notice of Appearance and the application was immediately grantable upon deletion of a matter(s) 
specified in the designation order and requiring resolution (§1.1111(b)).
____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, a settlement agreement filed with the presiding judge by the 
Notice of Appearance deadline provided for the dismissal of all but the above-referenced 
application, and the application was immediately grantable (§l.llll(b)(4)).
____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, a settlement agreement filed with the presiding judge by the 
Notice of Appearance deadline provided for dismissal of all but the above-referenced application and the 
application was immediately grantable upon deletion of a matter(s) specified in the designation order 
and requiring resolution (§l.llll(b)(4)).
A check, made payable to the maker of the original check and drawn in the amount of $6,760, will be sent to you at 
the earliest practicable time. 
If you have any questions concerning 
this refund, please contact the Chief, Fee Section at (202) 418-1995.
Sincerely,
J* '.- * V
 "  ' «>---^t^---=-v-.^ ; . ...-,., .   , :  .- .
Marilyn J. McDermett 
Associate Managing Director for Operations
6733
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D. C. 20554
OFFICE OF MAY 1 8 1995
MANAGING DIRECTOR
Peter H. Jacoby, EsquireSenior Attorney
AT&T Corp.
Room 3245F3295 North Maple Avenue
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
Re: AT&T Corp.Elehue K. Freeman, et 
al.v. AT&T Corp.
Request for hearing fee refundFee Control No. 9409028125001001
Dear Mr. Jacoby:
This is in response to your request for refund of a hearing fee,  initially filed by AT&T Corp. (AT&T) on December 19, 1994 and 
supplemented on April 4, 1995, in connection with AT&T's participation, as respondent, in the above-captioned proceeding.
You state that, at the time AT&T filed its hearing fee, it was unaware that a respondent, in a complaint proceeding designated 
for hearing, is not required to remit a hearing fee.
In establishing its rules governing filing fees, the Commission determined that no fee should apply to enforcement actions 
because "the imposition of a fee would require a party to pay a fee to defend itself." See ^gtr?*?lishment of a Fee Collection
Budget Act of 1985. 2 FCC Red 947, 966 (1987), recon. denied. 3 
FCC Red 5987 (1988). Therefore, a refund is warranted.
Accordingly, your request is granted. A check, made payable to the maker of the original check and drawn in the amount of 
$7,765.00, will be sent to you at the earliest practicable time. If you have any questions concerning this refund, please contact 
the Chief, Fee Section at (202) 418-1995.
Sincerely,
'".I    -- - t J M r ~^_. / ' . .* * ..   . . /*T  «___/
'*.>  I
Marilyn J. McDermett Associate Managing Director 
for Operations
6734
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D. C. 20554
OFFICE OF . . 
MANAGING DIRECTOR $I\Y i -; '• ;
Joseph A. Belisle, Esquire Leibowitz & Associates 
Suite 1450Sunbank International Center 
One Southeast Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-1715
Re: Baja Florida Radio, Inc.For a new AM station at Kendall,
FloridaRequest for a hearing fee refund 
Fee Control No. 9107188170295001
Dear Mr. Belisle:
This is in reference to your request for refund of the hearing fee submitted by Baja Florida Radio, Inc. (Baja), applicant for a new- 
AM Station at Kendall, Florida.
You state that Baja was required to submit a hearing fee because its application for the station at Kendall was mutually exclusive 
with an application for changes in facilities filed by WYFX, Boynton Beach, Florida. Subsequently, as a result of an amendment 
by Baja to its application, the Mass Media Bureau determined that the application was no longer mutually exclusive with WYFX and 
began processing the application. See letter from Joseph B. Szczesny, AM Branch, dated January 17, 1995.
In view of the Mass Media Bureau determination that Baja's application is no longer mutually exclusive, it appears that Baja's 
application will no longer be designated for hearing. Therefore, we find that a grant of your request for refund is warranted.
Accordingly, your request is granted. A check, made payable to the maker of the original check and drawn in the amount of $6,760, will 
be sent to you at the earliest practicable time. If you have any questions concerning this refund, please contact the Chief, Fee 
Section at (202) 418-1995.
Sincerely,^.'^  \
•^^,.» /*
Marilyn J. McDermett Associate Managing Director 
for Operations
6735
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D. C. 20554
OFFICE OF 
MANAGING DIRECTOR NAY 1 1 1995
Dennis M. Crepps
17544 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Shastina/Weed, California 96094
Re: Big Tree Communications 
New FM Station 
Merrill, Oregon 
Fee Control # 9404298195741002
Dear Mr. Crepps:
This responds to your request for refund of a filing fee submitted on behalf of Big Tree 
Communications ("Big Tree"), with its construction permit application for a new FM station 
at Merrill, Oregon.
You state that Big Tree filed its original application on April 19, 1994, subsequent to the 
Commission's issuance of the Public Notice. "FCC Freezes Comparative Proceedings" 
("Freeze Public Notice"). 9 FCC Red 1055 (1994). The Commission's Freeze Public 
Notice stayed comparative broadcast proceedings following the decision in Bechtel v. FCC. 
10 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1993), which invalidated the Commission's integration policy. The 
Freeze Public Notice established that during the stay, cut-off lists and window filings for 
new FM filings would not be issued.
Under the circumstances, since Big Tree's filing fee was submitted after the release of the 
Freeze Public Notice, and thus outside any applicable FM window, refund of the filing fee 
is appropriate. See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1112(a)(6). Accordingly, your request is granted. 
A check, made payable to the maker of the original check and drawn in the amount of 
$2,030.00, will be sent to you at the earliest practicable time. If you have any questions 
concerning this refund, please contact the Chief, Fee Section at (202) 418-1995.
Sincerely,
Marilyn J/McI 
Associate Managing Director 
for Operations
6736
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D. C. 20554
OFFICE OF I* iy 1 0 
MANAGMQ OWECTOR WAI ' "
Donald E. Martin, President 
Charter Broadcast Group, Ltd. 
6060 Hardwick Place 
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
Re: Fee Control # 9411188350269005 
Dear Mr. Martin:
This will respond to your request for refund of the filing fee submitted on behalf of Charter 
Broadcast Group ("Charter"), in connection with its assignment application.
You state, and your documentation shows, that the Audio Services Division dismissed Charter's 
application as unacceptable for filing, because Charter had utilized an obsolete FCC Form. 
Under the circumstances, since the Audio Services Division never processed Charter's 
assignment application, refund of the filing fee is appropriate. See 47 C.F.R. §1.1112(a). 
Accordingly, your request is granted. A check, made payable to the maker of the original check 
and drawn in the amount of $95.00, will be sent to you at the earliest practicable time. If you 
have any questions concerning this refund, please contact the Chief, Fee Section at (202) 418- 
1995.
Marilyn J. McDermett 
Associate Managing Director 
for Operations
6737
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D. C. 20554
OFFICE OF
MANAGING DOCTOR MAY 1 0 1995
Mr. Lars T. Conway
President
Conway Broadcasting
4415 Fremont Ave. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55409
Dear Mr. Conway:
This is in reference to your request for refund of the fees you submitted in September, 1994 
in connection with your petitions to amend the FM table of allotments for the Billings, 
Montana, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and Rapid City, South Dakota markets. You indicated 
that after filing the petitions, you contacted a member of the FCC staff and were told that no 
fee was required for the petitions. You therefore maintain that you are entitled to a refund 
of $5400.
We have verified the receipt of three fee submissions from Conway Broadcasting, in the 
amount of $1800 each, associated with your petitions to amend the FM table of allotments.
The Commission's rules do not require a fee for filing a petition to amend the table of 
allotments for the filing of applications for new stations. Section 1.1104(2)(k) of the 
Commission's rules does provide that permittees or licensees filing a petition for rulemaking 
to change to a new community of license or a higher class channel must pay a fee of $1800. 
However, that provision applies only to permittees or licensees seeking to change their 
current authorizations. Because your petitions were to amend the table of allotments to allow 
for the filing of applications for new stations for those communities, this provision would not 
apply. Therefore, refund of your three filing fees is warranted.
Based on the foregoing, your request for the refund of the three fees is granted. A check, 
made payable to the maker of the original check and drawn in the amount of $5400, will be 
sent to you at the earliest practicable time. If you have any questions concerning this refund, 
please contact the Chief, Fee Section at (202) 418-1995.
Sincerely,
^u- 
f
Marilyn J. McDermett 
Associate Managing Director 
for Operations
6738
MANAGING DIRECTOR
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
' Washington, D. C. 20554
1.;
Robert A. Harris, II, Esq. 
Alien & Harold 
2000 L Street, N.W. 
Suite 200 
Washington, D.C. 20036
Re: Fee Control # 9411178120024001 
Dear Mr. Harris:
This will respond to your request for refund of the filing fee submitted on behalf of Great Lakes 
of Iowa, Inc. ("Great Lakes"), in connection with its formal complaint.
You state that the Great Lakes had inadvertently submitted a $120 fee, which was less than that 
specified under the fee schedule, as set forth in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1105(l)(c). You further 
state that Great Lakes subsequently had resubmitted its application and tendered the correct fee 
to cover the complaint filing. Under the circumstances, refund of the original filing fee is 
appropriate. See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1108(d).
Accordingly, your request is granted. A check, made payable to the maker of the original check 
and drawn in the amount of $120.00, will be sent to you at the earliest practicable time. If you 
have any questions concerning this refund, please contact the Chief, Fee Section at (202) 418- 
1995.
Sincerely,
Marilyn J. McDermett 
Associate Managing Director 
for Operations
6739
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D. C. 20554
F MAY i 0 i?95
MANAGiNG OIReCTOR
Michael S. Ray, Esq.
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P.
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Ray:
This will respond to your request for refund of a filing fee paid on behalf of Heritage Media 
Corporation ("Heritage") in connection with Heritage's request to change the call sign of its FM 
station. You state that Heritage is seeking the refund because it has withdrawn its request for the 
call sign change.
Unfortunately, your request for refund may not be granted. The Commission's rules do not 
provide for the refund of a filing fee upon the withdrawal of an application. See 47 C.F.R. 
Section 1.1112. Moreover, the Commission has explicitly stated that a refund would not be 
granted once an application has cleared the fee review process, irrespective of the disposition of 
the application. See Fxtahlishment of a Fee Collection Program. 2 FCC Red 947, 949 (1987), 
recon. denied. 3 FCC Red 5987 (1988). Where applications have been withdrawn, requests for 
refunds have been denied. See, e.g.. Public Notice. 9 FCC Red 356, 363 (M.D. 1993); Public 
Notice. 8 FCC Red 8258, 8263 (M.D. 1993).
•Based on the foregoing, your request for refund is denied. If you have any questions concerning 
this matter, please contact the Chief, Fee Section at (202) 418-1995.
Sincerely,
Marilyn J. McDermett 
Associate Managing Director 
for Operations
6740
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D. C. 20554
OFFICE OF 
MANAGING OIReCTOR
Dennis J. Kelly, Esq. 
Cordon and Kelly 
P.O. Box 6648 
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Re: Fee # 950208195318002 
Dear Mr. Kelly:
This will respond to your request for refund of a fee submitted on behalf of Holston Valley 
Broadcasting Corporation ("Holston"), permittee of FM station WTFM, Kingsport, 
Tennessee, in connection with its filing of an application to cover its construction permit 
for facilities that included a directional antenna system.
You state that the Audio Services Division had determined that Holston's application would 
be dismissed because Holston's filing fee was insufficient, and had advised Holston 
accordingly. You further state that Holston subsequently resubmitted its application and 
included the proper fee. Thus, you are requesting that the Commission refund Holston's 
initial fee payment. Under the circumstances, a refund is appropriate. See 47 C.F.R. 
Section 1.1112(a)(2).
Accordingly, your request is granted. A check, made payable to the maker of the original 
check and drawn in the amount of $410.00 will be sent to you at the earliest practicable 
time. If you have any questions concerning this refund, please contact the Chief, Fee 
Section at (202) 418-1995.
Sincerely,
Marilyn J. McDennett 
Associate Managing Director 
for Operations
6741
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D. C. 20554
OFFICE OF MflV 1 
MANAGNG DIRECTOR WHI
Mr. Elvis MoodyPresident
JEM Broadcasting Company, Inc.216 North Main Street
Bentonville, Arkansas 72712
JEM Broadcasting Company, inc. Request for refund of hearing
feeControl No. 9403118170062001 
Dear Mr. Moody:
This is in response to your request for refund of the hearing fee that JEM Broadcasting Company, Inc. (JEM) filed in connection 
with its application for a radio station at Bentonville, Arkansas .
You state that JEM is within the category of mutually exclusive applicants that were directed to file hearing fees, but whose 
applications were held in abeyance pending the Commission's consideration of appropriate action following the court's remand 
in Bechtel v. FCC. 10 P. 3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1993). See FCC Freezes Comparative Proceedings. 9 FCC Red 1055 (1994) . Subsequently, 
the Commission announced by Public Notice that any party that submitted a hearing fee after February 25, 1994 is entitled to a 
refund of its hearing fee. See Public Notice. No. 94-204, issued August 4, 1994. JEM's check, covering its hearing fee payment, 
was deposited into the Commission's account on March 11, 1994.
Under the circumstances, since JEM's hearing fee was submitted after February 25, 1994, refund of its fee is appropriate. 
Accordingly, your request is granted.
A check, made payable to the maker of the original check and drawn in the amount of $6,760.00, will be sent to you at the 
earliest practicable time. If you have any questions concerning this refund, please contact the Chief, Fee Section at (202) 418- 
1995.
Sincerely,
Marilyn J. McDermett Associate Managing Director 
for Operations
6742
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D. C. 20554
OFFICE OF MAX P 199*
MANAQMQ DIRECTOR °
Roger J. Metzler, Esq.Keck, Mahin & Gate
One Maritime PlazaSan Francisco, CA 94111-3577
Re: Fee Control # 9408018835092008# 9409098835447005 
Fee Paid: $14,400 KFTY Broadcasting, Inc. 
Channel 50 Santa Rosa, California
Dear Mr. Metzler:
This is in response to your request for reduction of the Fiscal Year 1994 regulatory fee assessed upon KFTY Broadcasting, Inc., 
licensee of UHP Station KFTY, Santa Rosa, California.
You maintain that, although KFTY Broadcasting is assigned by Arbitron to the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose California ADI 
(Area of Dominant Influence), it does not serve any of the major cities in that market, and its signal is not entitled to "Must 
Carry" protection on any of the cable systems serving San Francisco, Oakland, or San Jose. You state that KFTY has an 
audience of about 246,000 households, which would place it in the top 50 to 100 markets. Therefore, you contend that it would be 
inequitable to require KFTY Broadcasting to pay the regulatory fee assessed for a station in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose 
market, which ranked in the top ten markets. You submitted payments totaling $14,400 for the fee for a San Francisco 
station.
Our review of the record discloses that KFTY is included in the San Francisco, Television Market, the 5th largest television 
market. KFTY, however, does not serve San Francisco, Oakland or San Jose, or any significant population areas in those 
metropolitan regions, nor does its Grade B contour cover any part of those cities. Rather, KFTY is considered to be in the San 
Francisco ADI because it serves an area where the preponderance of TV households view the programming of San Francisco stations. 
Arbitron states that there are 438,200 TV households covered by KFTY's signal. Television ft C,able Factbook 1994. p. A181. Thus, 
we agree that KFTY should not be considered a station serving the fifth largest market for purposes of assessment of the regulatory 
fee. Therefore, we will assess KFTY's fee based on the number of TV households served. Since the 438,200 TV households covered 
would place KFTY in the 51-100 TV markets, we will require KFTY Broadcasting to pay a fee of $6,400 for Fiscal Year 1994, the fee 
assessed for UHF television stations serving the 51-100 markets.
6743
Accordingly, your request is granted and the fee will be reduced. Crediting the $14,400 
payment that KFTY Broadcasting tendered for Fiscal Year 1994 regulatory fee, we will 
refund the $8000 overpayment to KFTY Broadcasting. Absent significant changes 
in population or KFTY's service area, KFTY will be considered as a 
market 51-100 UHF station in succeeding years. KFTY Broadcasting should retain this 
letter and submit a copy with any future correspondence with the Commission concerning 
the regulatory fee for KFTY.
A check payable to the maker of the original check in the amount of $8000 will be sent 
to you at the earliest practicable time. If you have any questions concerning the fee 
or refund, please call the Chief, Fee Section at (202) 418-1995.
^Sincerely, ^" 
'""
Marilyn J. McDermett Associate Managing 
Director for Operations
6744
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D. C. 20554
OFFICE OF ,...., l 1995 
MANAONQ OB6CTOR JUN ° IW
Mr. J. Geoffrey Bentley, Esquire Birch, Horton, Bittner and Cherot 
1155 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
Re: Maranatha Broadcasting WFMZ-TV
Allentown, Pennsylvania Fee Control #9409078835442006
Dear Mr. Bentley:
This is in response to your request dated August l, 1994, for reduction of the annual regulatory fee for UHP Station WFMZ-TV, 
Allentown, Pennsylvania, licensed to Maranatha Broadcasting Company, Inc.
You argue that although WFMZ-TV is assigned by Arbitron to the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ADZ (Area of Dominant Influence) 
Market, it does not operate as a Philadelphia Station, it is treated as a separate smaller market under the Commission's cable 
television rules (47 C.F.R. §§ 76.53 and 76.59), and that it would be inequitable to require it to pay the regulatory fee for 
a Philadelphia Station. Therefore, you argue that the Commission should regard WFMZ-TV as a non-top 100 or "remaining market* 
station subject to a regulatory fee of $4,000. Maranatha Broadcasting Company, Inc. submitted payment of $6,400 and it 
requests a refund of $2,400. For FY 1994, the regulatory fee payment due for a UHF station in the Philadelphia market is 
$14,400.
Our review of the record shows that WFMZ-TV is in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Market, the 4th largest market. WFMZ- 
TV, however, does not serve Philadelphia or any significant population in the Philadelphia area. The Broadeaatina & Cable 
Yearbook 1994. p. c-202 lists Allentown as a Non-ADI market. A Non-ADI market is defined as a single-county market whose 
"preponderance of viewing is not to the home market station.* The home county in this case, Lehigh County, is assigned to the 
Philadelphia ADI solely because the preponderance of viewing in the county is of the Philadelphia stations. Thus, we agree that 
WFMZ-TV should not be considered a Philadelphia market station for purposes of assessing the regulatory fee.
6745
- 2 -
Arbitron shows that there are 467,300 TV households in WFMZ-TV's service area with little or no significant penetration into the 
Philadelphia metropolitan area. The 467,300 TV households is the equivalent of a station in the 51-100 markets category. Under 
these circumstances, we will regard Allentown as a 51-100 market, and WFMZ-TV is assessed a regulatory fee for PY 1994 of $6,400, 
the fee for a 51-100 market UHF station. Absent significant changes in population or coverage area, WFMZ-TV will be 
considered as a 51-100 market station in succeeding years. A copy of this letter should be included with any future 
correspondence with the Commission with respect to the regulatory fee for station WFMZ-TV.
The payment previously submitted by Maranatha Broadcasting Company, Inc. satisfies its regulatory fee obligation for FY 
1994. If you have any questions concerning the regulatory fee, please call the Chief, Fee Section at (202) 418-1995.
Sincerely,
Marilyfc J.^McDermett Associate Managing Director 
for Operations
6746
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D. C. 20554
OFFICE OF *»«•«" "* \ '^95 
MANAGING DtRECTOR i"-" ' l '
Mr. Cheng-Yang Ho, Manager
Spectrum Research & Testing Laboratory, Inc.
1603 Skinners Turn Road
Owings, Maryland 20736
Re: Fee Control # 9502038315053011
Dear Mr. Ho:
This will respond to your request for refund of the filing fees submitted on behalf of 
Medinet, Inc. ("Medinet") in connection with its application for equipment 
authorization. You state that Medinet 's application was dismissed because it had 
specified an FCC Identifier that the Commission had previously issued. You further 
state that you have refiled Medinet' s application, with a new FCC Identifier and an 
additional fee payment.
As part of the Commission's equipment authorization process, approved equipment must 
be identified with a unique FCC Identifier, which consists of the grantee code and the 
equipment number/product code. See 47 C.F.R. sections 2.925, 2.926. This 
identification requirement provides a systematic method by which Commission approved 
equipment can readily be identified. Applications for equipment authorizations often are 
dismissed, without any engineering review, due to a defective FCC Identifier. The 
Commission has recognized that it may be unfair to require the applicant/grantee to 
refile its application with an additional fee payment merely to correct such errors or 
deficiencies. See Establishment of a Fee Collection Program to Implement the 
Provisions of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Act of 1985. 2 FCC Red 947, 964 
(1987). In such cases, the Commission has indicated that under section 1.1108(d) of 
the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. section 1.1108(d), it may be appropriate for the 
applicant/grantee to refile its corrected application without paying an additional fee. Id. 
However, since Medinet did pay an additional fee with its resubmission, we believe a 
refund is appropriate.
Accordingly, your request is granted. A check, made payable to the maker of the 
original check and drawn hi the amount of $845.00, will be sent to you at the earliest 
practicable time. If you have any further questions concerning this refund, please 
contact the Chief, Fee Section at (202) 418-1995.
Marilyn J. McDermett 
Associate Managing Director 
for Operations
6747
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D. C. 20554
OFFICE OF MAY 2 6 1995
MANAGING DIRECTOR
Ann K. Ford, EsquireFisher, Wayland, Cooper, Leader & Zaragoza
2001 Pennsylvania Ave.. N.W.Washington, D.C. 20006
Re: Navajo Nation
KTNN(AM)
KWRK(FM)
Fee Control # 9408038835056011 
# 9409078835461002
Dear Ms. Ford:
This is in response to the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed September 2, 1994, requesting a refund of the $900 in regulatory 
fee payments tendered in the above referenced matter. In the petition you requested that the Commission exempt the Navajo 
Nation as a government entity from payment of the regulatory fees.
Congress exempted governmental entities from the regulatory fees. 47 U.S.C. § 159(h). In Implementation of Section 9 of the 
Communications Act. 9 FCC Red 5333, 5339-40 § 14 (1994) we codified the exemption for governmental entities. See 47 C.F.R. 
§ 1.116Kb) . The Navajo Nation was established by treaty with the United States, with its own land, laws and government. As 
such, it falls within that exemption from the regulatory fees for governmental entities as established by Congress.
Thus, the Navajo Nation is entitled to a refund of its regulatory fee payment pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.1159(a)(1), because no 
regulatory fee is required.
A check, made payable to the maker of the original checks in the amount of $900, will be sent to you at the earliest practicable 
time. If you have any questions concerning this refund, please contact the Chief, Fee Section at (202) 418-1995.
Sincerely,
Marilyn J. McDermett h Associate Managing Director 
for Operations
6748
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D. C. 20554
OFFICE OF 
MANAGING DIRECTOR MAY 2 5 1995
Mr. Lon Mirolli President/General Manager 
Paugus Television, Inc. 1 Sundial Avenue 
Suite 501 Manchester, NH 03103
Re: Paugus Television, Inc.WGOT-TV
MerrimacJc, NHFee Control # 9409078835442005 
9502178835215001 Fee Paid: $14,400
Dear Mr. Mirolli:
This is in response to your request, for a reduction in the Fiscal Year 1994 regulatory fee assessment for Paugus Television, 
Inc. (Paugus), licensee of UHF Station WGOT-TV, Merrimack, New Hampshire.
You maintain that although Merrimack is assigned by Arbitron to the Boston, Massachusetts, ADI (Area of Dominant Influence), it 
does not serve the City of Boston. Therefore, you contend that it would be inequitable to require Paugus to pay the regulatory 
fee for a Boston station. Moreover, because WGOT-TV serves an area in New Hampshire, with a population of 371,880, you contend 
that Paugus should be assessed the regulatory fee applicable to a UHF station serving markets 51 through 100.
Our review of the record discloses that WGOT-TV is included in the Boston Television Market, the 6th largest television market. 
WGOT-TV, however, does not serve Boston or any significant population in the Boston metropolitan area. Rather, WGOT-TV is 
considered to be in the Boston ADI because it serves an area where the preponderance of TV households view the programming of 
Boston stations. Arbitron shows that there are 325,000 TV households, located in New Hampshire, covered by WGOT's signal, 
and little, if any, significant viewing of WGOT-TV's programming by viewers in the Boston metropolitan area. Thus, we agree that 
WGOT-TV should not be considered a Boston market station for purposes of assessment of the regulatory fee. Therefore, we will 
assess WGOT-TV's fee based on the number of TV households served. Since the 325,000 TV households covered would place WGOT-TV in 
the equivalent of the 51-100 TV markets, we will require Paugus to pay a fee of $6,400, the fee assessed for UHF television 
stations serving the 51-100 markets.
6749
Accordingly your request is granted. Crediting the $14,400 fee payment previously tendered by 
Paugus for Fiscal Year 1994, we will refund the $8000 overpayment to Paugus. Absent significant 
changes in population or WGOT-TV's service area, WGOT-TV will be considered as a market 51-100 UHF 
station in succeeding years. Paugus should submit a copy of this letter with future 
correspondence with the Commission concerning the regulatory fee applicable for WGOT-TV.
A check made payable to the maker of the original check in the amount of $8000, will be sent to you at 
the earliest practicable time. If you have any questions concerning the fee or refund, 
please call the Chief, Fee Section at (202) 418-1995.
Sincerely,
Marilyn J. McDermett Associate Managing director 
for Operations
6750
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D. C. 20554
OFFICE OF
MANAGING DIRECTOR r .,.,. • « .. lVr
Jonathan L. Wiener, Esq. Goldberg, Godles, Wiener & Wright 
1229 Nineteenth Street, N.W. Washington, B.C. 20036
Re: Fee Control # 9309238300249005 Fee Paid: $105
Fee Control # 9405098300451015 Fee Paid: $168,630 
RAM Mobile Data USA Limited Partnership
Dear Mr. Wiener:
This is in response to the Petition for Reconsideration that you filed on behalf of RAM Mobile Data USA Limited Partnership (RAM) 
requesting that the Commission waive the fees paid by RAM in conjunction with its requests for waivers of Section 90.603(c) of 
the Commission's Rules. 42 C.F.R. § 90.603(c).
RAM filed 1,823 applications for transfer of licenses in the Specialized Mobile Radio Services (SMRS) together with a single 
waiver fee of $105. Subsequently, RAM reduced the number of its SMRS applications and paid an additional 1,606 filing fees for 
the waiver request, amounting to $168,630. In a letter dated August 25, 1994, the Associate Managing Director denied RAM's 
waiver request for a refund of the Section 90.603(c) waiver filing fees, finding that RAM's waiver requests were "non- 
routine" and therefore, were each subject to a filing fee of $105. Subsequently, in Eligibility for the Specialized Mobile 
Radio Services. FCC 95-98, released March 7, 1995, the Commission removed the restrictions against wireline telephone carrier entry 
into the SMRS markets, and it dismissed RAM's waiver requests as moot.
Section 1.1112(a)(4) provides that the Commission will refund fees "(w)hen the Commission adopts new rules that nullify 
applications already accepted for filing. ..." Here, RAM's requests for rule waivers were dismissed because of changes in 
the Commission's rules, and as a result, we are satisfied that RAM should receive a refund of the filing fees that it paid for 
the dismissed waiver applications.
6751
Accordingly, your petition is granted. A check, made payable to the maker of the original check in the amount 
of $168,735, will be sent to you at the earliest practicable time. If you have any 
questions concerning this refund, please contact the Chief, Fee Section at (202) 418-1995.
Sincerely,
Marilyn: J. McDermett Associate Managing Director 
for Operations
6752
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D. C. 20554
aw t o r;?5
MANAQWQ ORcCTOR
Mr. A. Wray Fitch, III, Esq. Gammon & Grange, P.C. 
8280 Greensboro Drive McLean, Virginia 22102
Re: Todd P. Robinson New FM Station 
Harrisburg, North Carolina Fee Control # 9209298170386001
Dear Mr. Fitch:
This is in response to your request for refund of the fee submitted in the above-referenced matter.
Your request is granted. We have reviewed the facts surrounding your filing and have concluded that a refund is warranted pursuant 
to Section 1.1111 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. §1.1111. The subsection checked below is specifically applicable to your 
request.
____ No fee is required for the above-referenced submission (§ l.llll(a)(1)).
An insufficient fee has been submitted with the application/filing (Sl.llll(a)(2)).
The applicant cannot fulfill the prescribed age requirement (§1.1111(a)(4)).
The Commission had adopted a new rule that has nullified the application after its acceptance 
for filing (§l.llll(a)(4)).
A new law or treaty has rendered useless a grant or other positive disposition of the application 
(51.1111(a)(4)).
The application was not timely filed in accordance with the filing window as established by the 
Commission (§1.1111(a)(6)).
In the case of a broadcast applicant, the application was granted without being designated 
for hearing (§l.llll(b)(1)).
In the case of a broadcast applicant, the application was dismissed prior to designation for 
hearing or in the order designating the"case for
6753
Mr. Fitch Page 2 
hearing (§1.1111(b)(2)).
____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, theapplication was dismissed for failure to file a 
Notice of Appearance (§1.1111(b)(2)).
____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, the applicant was the only applicant in the proceeding to file a 
Notice of Appearance and the application was immediately grantable (§l-.llll(b) (3)) .
____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, the applicant was the only applicant in the proceeding who filed a 
Notice of Appearance and the application was immediately grantable upon deletion of a matter(s) 
specified in the designation order and requiring resolution (§1.1111(b)).
X In the case of a broadcast applicant, a settlement agreement filed with the presiding judge by the 
Notice of Appearance deadline provided for the dismissal of all but the merged application, and the 
application was immediately grantable (Si.illKb) (4)) .
____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, a settlement agreement filed with the presiding judge by the 
Notice of Appearance deadline provided for dismissal of all but the above-referenced application and the 
application was immediately grantable upon deletion of a matter(s) specified in the designation order 
and requiring resolution (§l.llll(b)(4)).
A check, made payable to the maker of the original check and drawn in the amount of $6,760, will be sent to you at the 
earliest practicable time. If you have any questions concerning this refund, please contact the Chief, Fee Section at (202) 
418-1995.
Sincerely,
yin • 4 //ta^A^x/
1Marilyn -J •. McDe-rme-tt--" 
Associate Managing Director for Operations
6754
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D. C. 20554
HIY 2
MANAQMQ DIRECTOR
J. D. -Thomas, EsquireCole, Raywid & Bravezman
Second Floor1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-3458
Fee Control No. 9409158835547006 R. R. Donnelley and Sons Company 
Request for regulatory fee refund Warsaw, Indiana (E860673), Lancaster, 
Pennsylvania (E860674), Chicago, Illinois (E860693), Reno, Nevada 
(E881089), Spartanburg, South Carolina (E6666), and Gallatin, Tennessee 
(E6667)
Dear Mr. Thomas:
This is in response to your request for waiver and refund on behalf of R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company (Donnelley) of its 
Fiscal Year (FY) 1994 regulatory fee payments for the above- captioned earth stations.
You state that Donnelley totally ceased operation of the subject earth stations no later than December, 1992, nine months before 
the calculation date of the fees, as a result of technological changes and changes in its operational requirements. As a 
consequence, you contend that no fees are due from Donnelley because it did not operate the earth stations at any time during 
FY 1994. In fact, Donnelley has dismantled and sold its earth station equipment with the exception of its facility at Chicago. 
Finally, you state that Donnelley surrendered its licenses covering the earth stations concurrently with the filing of the 
instant waiver request.
In support of the foregoing, you have submitted a statement by John Robinson, Technical Director in the Communications Systems 
Section of Donnelley, the official responsible for the coordination and implementation of Commission authorizations and 
Donnelley's earth station facilities. Mr. Robinson states that he was unaware of Donnelley's regulatory fee obligation, but had 
he known of the requirement, he would have timely surrendered the authorizations so that Donnelley would not be subject to 
regulatory fee payments for facilities no longer in use.
In adopting its schedule of regulatory fees for FY 1994, the Commission stated that the fees should be submitted for 
authorizations, including earth stations licenses, held as of October 1, 1993, the first day of FY 1994. See Implementation of 
Section 9 of the Communications Act. 9 FCC Red 5333, 5349 (1994).
6755
The Commission selected October 1, 1993 as the date for calculating most fees so that "current 
licensees subject to the fees would have benefitted from our regulatory activities since 
the beginning of the period covered by their payment." Id. Thus, 'the Commission contemplated that the payers 
of the fees would receive at least some period of regulatory benefit during 
the fiscal year covered by the fee requirement.
In the case of Donnelley, its earth stations were out of operation well in advance of the first day 
of the FY 1994 and, therefore, we cannot find that Donnelley received any regulatory 
benefit during any portion of the relevant fiscal year. Nor will Donnelley receive any future benefit from 
our regulation since it has both dismantled and sold its earth station facilities, except 
for its Chicago facility, and surrendered its earth station licenses, including its authority to operate 
its Chicago facility. Finally, we are cognizant of its Technical Director's 
representation that Donnelley would have timely surrendered the licenses for its non-operational earth stations 
had he been aware of the pendency of the regulatory fee requirement.
Under these circumstances, we find that, although Donnelley held the subject licenses on October 1, 1993, it is entitled 
to a waiver of its FY 1994 regulatory fees for the discontinued 
stations.
Accordingly, your request is granted. A check, made payable to the maker of the original check and drawn 
in the amount of $4,083.00, will be sent to you at the earliest practicable time. 
If you have any questions concerning this refund, please contact the Chief, Fee Section at (202) 418-1995.
Sincerely,
Marilyn J. McDermett Associate Managing Director 
for Operations
6756
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D. C. 20554
OFFICE OF MANAGING DIRECTOR
Neal J. Friedman, Esq. Pepper & Corazzini 
1776 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006
Dear Mr. Friedman:
MOT•VJJ
Re: Carl Cornd Tutera New FM Station 
St. Augustine Beach, Florida
This is in response to your request for refund of the fee submitted in the above-referenced matter.
Your request is granted. We have reviewed the facts surrounding your filing and have concluded that a refund is warranted pursuant 
to Section 1.1111 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. §1.1111. The subsection checked below is specifically applicable to your 
request.
No fee is required for the above-referenced submission (§ 1.1111(a)(1)).
An insufficient fee has been submitted with the application/filing (§1.1111(a)(2)).
The applicant cannot fulfill the prescribed age requirement (§1.1111(a)(4)).
The Commission had adopted a new rule that has nullified the application after its acceptance 
for filing (§1.1111(a) (4)).
A new law or treaty has rendered useless a grant or other positive disposition of the application 
(SI.1111(a) (4)) .
The application was not timely filed in accordance with the filing window as established by the 
Commission (§1.1111(a)(6)).
In the case of a broadcast applicant, the application was granted without being designated 
for hearing (51.1111(b)(1)).
In the case of a broadcast applicant, the individual application was dismissed pursuant to a 
global settlement prior to designation for hearing (§1.1111(b)(2)}.
6757
Mr. Friedman Page 2
____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, the
application.was dismissed for failure to file a Notice of Appearance (Sl.llll(b)(2)).
_____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, the applicant was the only applicant in the proceeding to file a 
Notice of Appearance and the application was immediately grantable (§l.llll(b)(3)).
_____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, the applicant was the only applicant in the proceeding 
who filed a Notice of Appearance and the application was 
immediately grantable upon deletion of a matter(s) specified in the designation order and requiring 
resolution (§1.1111(b)).
_____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, a settlement agreement filed with the presiding judge by the 
Notice of Appearance deadline provided for the dismissal of all but the above-referenced 
application, and the application was immediately grantable (§1.1111(b) (4)) .
_____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, a settlement agreement filed with the presiding judge by the 
Notice of Appearance deadline provided for dismissal of all but the above-referenced application and the 
application was immediately grantable upon deletion of a matter(s) specified in the designation order 
and requiring resolution (§l.llll(b)(4)).
A check, made payable to the maker of the original check and drawn in the amount of $6,760, will be sent to you at the 
earliest practicable time. If you have any questions concerning this refund, please contact the Chief, Fee Section at (202) 
418-1995.
Sincerely, . *._, . /
Marilyn J. McDermett Associate Managing Director 
for Operations
6758
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554
May 18, 1995
Gary S. Smithwick, Esquire Smithwick & Belerxdiuk, B.C. 
1990 M Street, IT.W. Washington, D.C. 2003?
Re: Visitor Information Radio of Florida, 
Inc.For a FM station at St. Augustine 
Beach, FloridaRequest far a hearing fee refund 
Fee Control No. 9302253170421003
Dear Mr. Smithwick:
This is in response to your request for refund of the fee submitted in the above-referenced matter.
Your request is granted. We have reviewed the facts surrounding your filing and have concluded that a refund is warranted 
pursuant to Section l.llii of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. § l.lll. The subsection checked below is specifically applicable 
co your request.
____ No fee is required for the above-referenced submission (§ L.lll(a) (1)} .
____ An insufficient fee has been submitted with the application/filing (§1.111(a) 
(2)) .
____ The applicant cannot fulfill the prescribed age requirement (§1.1111(a)(4)).
____ The Commission had adopted a new rule that has nullified the application after its acceptance 
for filing (§l.llll(a)(4)}.
____ A new law or treaty has rendered useless a grant or other aositive disposition of the aoplication 
(Sl.llll(a)(4)}.
____ The application was not timely filed in accordance with the filing window as established 
by the Commission (Sl.lllKa) (6) ) .
____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, theapplication was granted without 
being designate'* 
for hearing (§1.1111(b)(1)).
6759
- 2 -
X In the case of a broadcast applicant, theapplication was dismissed prior to designation for 
hearing or in the order designating the case for hearing (§l.llll(b) (2) ) .
____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, theapplication was dismissed for failure to file a 
Notice of Appearance (§1.1111 (b) (2) ).
____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, the applicant was the only applicant in the proceeding to file a 
Notice of Appearance and the application was immediately gran table (§l.llll(b) (3)) .
____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, the applicant was the only applicant in the proceeding who filed a 
Notice of Appearance and the application was immediately gran table upon deletion of a matter (s) 
specified in the designation order and requiring resolution ( §1 . 1111 (b) ) .
____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, a settlement agreement filed with the presiding judge by the 
Notice of Appearance deadline provided for the dismissal of all but the above -referenced 
application, and the application was immediately gran table (§1.1111 (b) (4) ).
____ In the case of a broadcast applicant, a settlement agreement filed with the presiding judge by the 
Notice of Appearance deadline provided for dismissal of all but the above -referenced application and the 
application was immediately grantable upon deletion of a matter(s) specified in the designation order 
and requiring resolution (§1.1111 (b) (4) ).
A check, made payable to the maker of the original check and drawn in the amount of $6,760, will be sent to you at the 
earliest practicable time. If you have any questions concerning this refund, please contact the Chief, Fee Section at (202) 
418-1995.
Sincerely,
Marilyn J. McDermett Associate Managing Director 
for Operations
6760
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D. C. 20554
OFFICE OF 
MANAGING DIRECTOR
Dennis F. Begley, Esq.
Reddy, Begley, Martin & McCormick
1001 22nd Street, N.W.
Suite 350
Washington, D.C. 20037-1803
Dear Mr. Begley:
Re: Fee Control # 9409308190089010
This will respond to your request for refund of the filing fee submitted on behalf of WHOT, Inc. 
("WHOT"), in connection with its application for an extension of time to construct its facilities 
for a new broadcast station at Youngstown, Ohio.
You state that on the date WHOT filed its extension application, the Commission modified its 
construction permit and extended its construction period by an additional 18 months. Thus, you 
state that WHOT's extension application was rendered moot.
Under the circumstances, since WHOT was not required to file the extension application, refund 
of the filing fee is warranted. See 47 C.F.R. §1.1112(a). Accordingly, your request is 
granted. A check, made payable to the maker of the original check and drawn in the amount 
of $230.00, will be sent to you at the earliest practicable time. If you have any questions 
concerning this refund, please contact the Chief, Fee Section at (202) 418-1995.
Sincerely,
Marilyn J. Mcbermett 
Associate Managing Director 
for Operations
6761