Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-195
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
JNE Investments, Inc.
Application for New AM Station at Bethel, MN
and
Langer Broadcasting Group, LLC
Application for New AM Station at Chanhassen, 
MN
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. BNP-20040128APK
Facility ID No. 160772
File Nos. BNP-20040130BJT
BNP-20071228AAE
Facility ID No. 161523
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: December 10, 2014 Released:  December 11, 2014
By the Commission:
1. The Commission has before it an Application for Review by JNE Investments, Inc. 
(“JNE”), applicant for a new AM broadcast station at Bethel, Minnesota.  JNE seeks review of a Media 
Bureau (“Bureau”) decision which denied reconsideration of the dismissal of JNE’s application and of the 
grant of a mutually exclusive application by Langer Broadcasting Group, LLC (“Langer”) for a new AM 
station at Chanhassen, Minnesota.
1
  For the reasons below, we dismiss the Application for Review.
2. An application for review must be filed within 30 days of public notice of the action at 
issue, as defined by Section 1.4(b) of the Commission’s Rules.
2
  The Bureau gave public notice of the 
Decision on November 14, 2011,
3
and JNE’s April 5, 2012 submission is thus late by about four months.  
JNE argues, however, that its filing should be considered because it “is being filed within thirty days of 
the date of mailing of the Audio Division’s letter,” referring to a Commission envelope bearing the 
postmark date of March 7, 2012, provided as Exhibit A to the Application for Review.
4
3. We cannot determine any reason that the Decision mailed to counsel was allegedly not 
postmarked until almost four months after its release.  Nevertheless, the Bureau released a timely public 
                                                
1
Christopher D. Imlay, Esq., Letter (MB Nov. 8, 2011) (“Decision”).  The Bureau based its analysis of these AM 
Auction 84 applications on procedures in effect prior to Rural Radio, aiming to fairly distribute radio service among 
communities pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.  See 47 U.S.C. § 307(b);
Policies to Promote Rural Radio Service and to Streamline Allotment and Assignment Procedures, Second Report 
and Order, First Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 2672, 
2575 (2011) (exempting Auction 84 applicants from revised procedures) (“Rural Radio”).    Under the applicable 
priorities, the Bureau determined that JNE and Langer each qualified for a preference under Priority 3 (each 
providing a first local transmission service) but that Chanhassen with a population approximately 50 times larger 
than that of Bethel was entitled to a preference under the population-based tie-breaker component of Priority 3.   See 
Decision at 4, n.21, citing Royce International Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 
5880, 5889, n. (2009).  On review, JNE argues that the respective proposals were alike through Priority 3 and should 
have been resolved under Priority 4 (other public interest benefits).
2
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.4(b) and 1.115(d).
3
See Broadcast Applications, Public Notice, Report No. 27612, 2011 WL 5519417 (Nov. 14, 2011).
4
See Application for Review at 1-2, and Appendix A.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-195
2
notice of the decision and, in this situation, Section 1.4(b) of the Rules computes filing deadlines from the 
date of the issuance of the public notice, not from the date of mailing of the Commission document taking 
the action at issue.
5
  Lack of actual service can nevertheless be grounds for waiver of the filing deadline 
if, as described in the Gardner case, Commission action made it impossible for a party to meet the
deadline.
6
To establish this causal connection, petitioners have the burden to show: (a) when and how 
they received notice in fact, (b) that the time remaining was inadequate to allow them reasonably to meet 
the 30-day requirement from date of issuance, and (c) that they moved for reconsideration promptly on 
receiving actual notice.
7
Because parties typically become aware of decisions in a variety of ways before 
an official letter arrives from the agency, “it will be an extraordinary case . . . where a petitioner can meet 
that burden.”
8
  
4. JNE’s application for review fails to meet this burden.  Its argument consists of a one-
sentence statement that “[a]s this Application for Review is being filed within thirty days of the date of 
the mailing of the [Bureau’s] letter, this Application for Review should be considered timely filed 
pursuant to Section 1.115(d) of the Commission’s Rules.”
9
  JNE fails to present any information relating 
to the three Gardner criteria.  It has utterly failed to demonstrate, as required by Gardner, that the alleged 
late mailing of the Decision made it impossible for it to have timely filed its Application for Review.  
Accordingly, we find insufficient grounds for waiver and will dismiss JNE’s filing as untimely.
5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 5(c)(5) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended,
10
and Section 1.115(g) of the Commission’s Rules,
11
the Application for Review 
filed by JNE Investments, Inc. IS DISMISSED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
                                                
5
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.4(b)(4) and (5).  
6
See Gardner v. FCC, 530 F.2d 1086, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (“Gardner”).
7
Id. at 1092, n.24.
8
Id.
9
Application for Review at 1-2.
10
47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5).
11
47 C.F.R. § 1.115(g).