*Pages 1--3 from  Microsoft Word - 7519.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  69 
 Before  the 
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  re  Application  of  ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 NBC  SUBSIDIARY  (WMAQ-  TV),  INC.  )  File  No.  BRCT-  970731KQ 
 )  Facilit  y  ID  No.  47905 
 ) 
 ) 
 For  Renewal  of  License  for  Station  ) 
 WMAQ-  TV,  Chicago,  Illinois  ) 


 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  February  22,  2001  Released:  March  15,  2001 
 By  the  Commission:  Commissioner  Furchtgott-  Roth  concurring  and  issuing  a  statement. 
 1.  The  Commission  has  before  it  a  timely  application  for  review  filed  by  Cezary  Glebocki, 
 seeking  reversal  of  a  December  16,  1999,  letter  ruling  by  the  Chief,  Video  Services  Division,  Mass 
 Media  Bureau,  which  denied  his  petition  to  deny.  1  In  that  letter  ruling,  the  Division  Chief  also  granted 
 the  license  renewal  application  for  station  WMAQ-  TV,  Channel  5  (NBC),  Chicago,  Illinois. 


 2.  In  his  petition  to  deny,  Glebocki  had  alleged  that  the  employment  practices  of 
 WMAQ-  TV  violated  the  Commission’s  Equal  Employment  Opportunity  ("  EEO")  standards  and 
 that  the  station  failed  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  Polish-  American  community  in  Chicago.  The  staff 
 found  that  Glebocki  failed  to  raise  any  substantial  and  material  question  of  fact  which  showed  that 
 a  renewal  of  WMAQ-  TV’s  application  would  be  contrary  to  the  public  interest,  convenience  and 
 necessity. 


 3.  Glebocki  has  not  specified,  as  required  by  our  rules,  any  factors  that  warrant 
 Commission  review.  See  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.115(  b)(  2).  We  have  reviewed  the  Division’s  disposition 
 of  the  petition  to  deny  and  find  that  its  ruling  was  correct  and  that  no  basis  exists  to  warrant 
 reversal.  See  WAMC,  Inc.,  10  FCC  Rcd  12219  (1995)  (denying  application  for  review  raising 
 essentially  the  same  arguments  as  in  the  petition  for  reconsideration).  2 


 1  Letter  to  Cezary  Glebocki  and  Richard  Cotton,  Esq.,  et  al,  from  Barbara  A.  Kreisman,  Chief,  Video  Services 
 Division  (Dec.  16,  1999). 
 2  We  note  that  on  February  2,  2000,  the  Commission  released  new  broadcast  EEO  rules  and  policies,  which 
 became  effective  on  April  17,  2000.  See  Review  of  the  Commission’s  Broadcast  and  Cable  Equal  Employment 
 Opportunity  Rules  and  Policies  and  Termination  of  the  EEO  Streamlining  Proceeding,  FCC  00-  20,  15  FCC  Rcd 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  69 
 2 
 4.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that  the  application  for  review  filed  by  Cezary 
 Glebocki,  IS  HEREBY  DENIED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Magalie  Roman  Salas 
 Secretary 


 2329  (2000).  As  such,  the  new  rules  were  not  applicable  to  WMAQ-  TV’s  performance  during  the  period  in 
 question.  These  rules  were  vacated  on  January  16,  2001  by  the  United  States  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  District  of 
 Columbia  Circuit  Court,  MD/  DC/  DE  Broadcasters  Association  v.  Federal  Communications  Commission,  236  F.  3d 
 13  (D.  C.  Cir.  2001),  petitions  for  rehearing  pending.  On  January  31,  2001,  the  Commission  suspended  Section 
 73.2080  (b)  through  (j)  of  the  broadcast  EEO  Rule.  See  Suspension  of  the  Broadcast  and  Cable  Equal 
 Employment  Opportunity  Outreach  Program  Requirements,  FCC  01-  34  (released  January  31,  2001). 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  69 
 Concurring  Statement  of  Commissioner  Harold  W.  Furchtgott-  Roth 
 Application  for  Renewal  of  License,  WMAQ-  TV,  Channel  5  (NBC),  Chicago,  Illinois: 
 Application  for  Review 


 I  concur  with  the  decision  the  Commission  has  reached  in  this  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order. 
 However,  I  once  again  note  that  the  Commission  may  not  consider  at  all  rules  that  were 
 eventually  struck  down  as  unconstitutional.  This  entire  proceeding  was  unnecessary  because  no 
 set  of  facts  pertaining  to  the  licensee  could  have  permitted  the  Commission  to  take  action  based 
 on  unconstitutional  rules  vacated  by  a  court. 
3