*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 8020.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  117 
 Before  the 
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  re  Application  of  ) 
 ) 
 ANCHOR  BROADCASTING  LIMITED  )  File  No.  BPH-  860917MD 
 PARTNERSHIP  ) 
 ) 
 For  a  Construction  Permit  for  a  New  FM  Station  )  Facility  ID  No.  2200 
 at  Selbyville,  Delaware  ) 


 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  March  29,  2001  Released:  April  5,  2001 


 By  the  Commission: 
 1.  We  have  before  us  a  “Petition  for  Review”  filed  June  22,  2000  by  Anchor  Broadcasting 
 Limited  Partnership  (“  Anchor”),  in  which  Anchor  seeks  review  of  the  Mass  Media  Bureau’s  (“  Bureau”) 
 denial  of  Anchor’s  petition  for  reconsideration  1  of  the  Bureau’s  earlier  denial  of  a  Motion  for  Declaratory 
 Ruling  (“  Motion”).  2 


 2.  Background:  Anchor  submitted  the  winning  bid  in  Closed  Broadcast  Auction  No.  25  for  an 
 FM  broadcast  station  at  Selbyville,  Delaware.  In  the  Motion,  Anchor  sought  a  declaration  that  it  is 
 exempt  from  paying  the  balance  due  on  its  winning  bid.  It  notes  that  Susan  Bechtel  has  pending  court 
 challenges  to  Commission  orders  determining  qualified  bidders  for  the  Selbyville  construction  permit  and 
 establishing  competitive  bidding  procedures.  Bechtel  v.  F.  C.  C.,  No.  99-  1212  (D.  C.  Cir.  filed  June  8, 
 1999);  Bechtel  v.  F.  C.  C.,  No.  98-  1444  (D.  C.  Cir.  filed  Sept.  21,  1998),  both  consolidated  with  Orion 
 Communications  Ltd.  v.  F.  C.  C.,  No.  98-  1424  (D.  C.  Cir.  filed  Sept.  15,  1998).  It  argues  that  should 
 Bechtel  prevail  in  either  case,  the  grant  of  the  Selbyville  construction  permit  to  Anchor  could  be 
 overturned.  Thus,  it  contends  that  the  rule  exempting  winning  bidders  from  making  final  payments  when 
 petitions  to  deny  are  pending  should  apply  in  these  circumstances 


 3.  Discussion:  We  dismiss  Anchor’s  petition  for  review  as  moot.  The  U.  S.  Court  of  Appeals  for 
 the  District  of  Columbia  Circuit  denied  these  appeals  on  June  13,  2000,  and  denied  a  petition  for 
 rehearing  on  August  22,  2000.  3  These  orders  are  now  final.  Moreover,  Anchor  made  its  final  payment  of 
 $109,200  for  the  Selbyville  permit  on  December  27,  2000. 


 1  Letter  to  Anchor  Broadcasting  Limited  Partnership  and  Galaxy  Communications,  Inc.,  Ref.  No.  1800B3-  TSN 
 (Audio  Services  Division,  May  23,  2000). 


 2  Letter  to  Anchor  Broadcasting  Limited  Partnership  and  Galaxy  Communications,  Inc.,  Ref.  No.  1800B3-  TSN 
 (Audio  Services  Division,  March  9,  2000). 


 3  On  June  13,  2000  the  Court  of  Appeals  issued  two  opinions  in  this  case.  In  an  unpublished  opinion,  Orion 
 Communications  Ltd.  v.  F.  C.  C.,  221  F.  3d  196  (D.  C.  Cir.  2000)  (Table),  reh'g  denied  mem.  (D.  C.  Cir.  August  22, 
 2000),  it  denied  Bechtel's  two  petitions  for  review  and  all  but  one  of  the  consolidated  appeals.  The  court  denied  the 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  117 
 2 
 4.  Accordingly,  Anchor’s  Petition  for  Review  IS  DISMISSED  AS  MOOT. 
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Magalie  Román  Salas 
 Secretary 


 petition  for  review  in  Case  No.  99-  1188,  which  did  not  relate  to  the  Selbyville  proceeding,  in  a  separate  published 
 opinion,  Orion  Communications  Ltd.  v.  F.  C.  C.,  213  F.  3d  761  (D.  C.  Cir.  2000). 
2