Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-42
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of  
Legion of Christ College, Inc.
Application for a New NCE FM Station at
Wethersfield, Connecticut
and
Northeast Hartford Acorn
Application for a New NCE FM Station at
Manchester, Connecticut
                                            
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 
NCE MX Group No. 327
File No. BNPED-20071019AME
Facility I.D. No. 175802                      
File No. BNPED-20071019AMM
Facility ID No. 173376
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  April 15, 2014 Released: April 16, 2014
By the Commission:
1. The Commission has before it an Application for Review (“AFR”) filed by Northeast 
Hartford Acorn (“NHA”) on December 20, 2010.  In the AFR, NHA seeks review of a Media Bureau
(“Bureau”) decision
1
that denied NHA’s Petition to Deny (“Petition”) the captioned application of Legion 
of Christ College, Inc. (“LCC”) for a new noncommercial (“NCE”) FM Station at Wethersfield, 
Connecticut (“LCC Application”), dismissed the captioned application of NHA for a new NCE FM 
station at Manchester, Connecticut, and granted the LCC Application.
2
  For the reasons set forth below, 
we dismiss the AFR. 
2. LCC and NHA filed their respective applications during a filing window opened by the 
Commission in October 2007.
3
  Subsequently, the Commission determined that the applications were 
mutually exclusive and identified them as part of MX Group 327.
4
  The Commission identified the LCC 
                                                     
1
NCE MX Group 327, Letter, Ref. 1800B3-VMM (MB Nov. 18, 2010) (“Staff Decision”).  See also Broadcast 
Actions, Report No. 47368 (MB Nov. 23, 2010).
2
LCC filed an Opposition on January 24, 2011 (“AFR Opposition”).  NHA filed a Reply on February 1, 2011 
(“AFR Reply”).  NHA argues in the AFR Reply that the AFR Opposition is defective because the Certificate of 
Service did not indicate that a copy had been provided to the Office of the Secretary, but rather only to NHA and the 
Bureau.  See AFR Reply at 2.  Contrary to NHA’s assertions, Commission records confirm that the AFR Opposition 
was properly filed with the Office of the Secretary on January 24, 2011.    
3
Media Bureau Announces NCE FM New Station and Major Modification Application Filing Window for New and 
Certain Pending Proposals; Window to Open on October 12, 2007, Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 6726 (MB 2007).
4
Media Bureau Announces Groups of Mutually Exclusive Applications Submitted in the October 2007 Filing 
Window for Noncommercial Educational FM Stations, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 95084 (MB 2008).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-42
2
Application as the tentative selectee of MX Group 327, accepted the LCC Application for filing, and 
announced a 30-day period for filing petitions to deny the LCC Application.
5
  
3. NHA filed the Petition on June 28, 2010.
6
  It argued that LCC lacked reasonable 
assurance of site availability at the tower site identified in the LCC Application.
7
NHA explained that one 
of its representatives contacted SBA Communications (“SBA”), the current owner of the tower site, and 
the SBA representative was unable to confirm that LCC had obtained permission to use the proposed 
tower.
8
  In the Opposition, LCC noted the proposed tower site was, in October of 2007, owned by 
Optasite Tower, LLC (“Optasite”),  and provided e-mails dated October 16, 2007, between Stephen 
Gajdosik, LCC’s engineer,  and Kevin Gallagher, a representative of Optasite.
9
  The emails showed that 
Gallagher had informed Gajdosik that LCC could use the proposed tower.
10
  The Bureau determined that 
these emails demonstrated that LCC had obtained reasonable assurance prior to filing the LCC
application.
11
  
4. NHA seeks review of the Staff Decision.  It now argues that LCC lacked reasonable 
assurance of site availability because the proposed tower did not exist at the time LCC filed its application 
and that in fact Optasite had apparently cancelled its plans to construct the proposed tower in March of 
2007.
12
  NHA makes this argument for the first time in the AFR.
5. Upon review of the AFR and the entire record, we conclude that NHA’s argument must 
fail because NHA never presented it to the Bureau.  Section 5(c)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended, and Section 1.115(c) of the Commission’s Rules bar applications for review that rely “on 
questions of fact or law upon which the [designated authority issuing the decision] has been afforded no 
opportunity to pass.”
13
  We will therefore dismiss the AFR.
14
  
                                                     
5
See Comparative Consideration of 52 Groups of Mutually Exclusive Applications for Permits to Construct New or 
Modified Noncommercial Educational FM Stations filed in the October 2007 Filing Window, Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 8793, 8811, 8840 (2010).
6
LCC filed an Opposition on August 26, 2010 (“Opposition”).  NHA filed a Reply on February 2, 2011.
7
LCC Application at Section VII, Question 3.  The Staff Decision incorrectly stated that LCC proposed to mount its 
antenna on an existing tower.  LCC never made such a representation in its application or subsequent pleadings.
8
Petition at 2.  As noted by the Bureau in the Staff Decision, NHA failed to provide the name of its representative or 
that of the SBA representative with whom he or she spoke, much less an affidavit of an individual with first-hand 
knowledge of such a conversation attesting to NHA’s allegations.  See 47 USC § 309(d)(1).
9
Opposition at 3 and Attachment 1.
10
Id. at Attachment 1.
11
Staff Decision at 2-3.
12
AFR at 2-3.
13
See 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5); 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(c); BDPCS, Inc. v. FCC, 351 F.3d 1177, 1184 (D.C. Cir. 2003) 
(upholding Commission’s order dismissing arguments under Section 1.115(c) because that rule does not allow the 
Commission to grant an application for review if it relies upon arguments that were not presented below).
14
In any event, were we to consider NHA’s new argument, we would deny the AFR.  Even if Optasite did not intend 
to construct the proposed tower, its agent nonetheless indicated that the site was available for LCC’s proposed 
station.  That is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of reasonable assurance of site availability.  The Commission 
has held that applicants who misplace their reliance on someone who lacks authority have still obtained reasonable 
assurance.  See, e.g., Millard V. Oakley, Opinion, 42 RR 2d 1495 (1978) (holding that the recipient of a construction 
permit for an AM station, whose real estate broker erroneously informed him that a site was available, had obtained 
reasonable assurance of site availability). Additionally, there is no requirement that an applicant propose using an 
existing tower at the time it files its application.  See, e.g., NCE Reserved Allotment Group 7, Letter, 27 FCC Rcd 
11218, 11221-23 (MB 2012) (finding that applicant had reasonable assurance of site availability where land owner 
had agreed to allow it to construct a new tower on the specified site).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-42
3
6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 5(c)(5) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
15
and Section 1.115(c) of the Commission’s Rules,
16
the 
Application for Review filed by Northeast Hartford Acorn IS DISMISSED.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
                                                     
15
47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5).
16
47 C.F.R. § 1.115(g).