Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-161
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
LPFM MX Group 304
NAACP Social Justice Law Project
Application for a Construction Permit for a New 
LPFM Station at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Nueva Esperanza, Inc.
Application for a Construction Permit for a New 
LPFM Station at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
G-Town Radio
Application for a Construction Permit for a New 
LPFM Station at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Germantown United Community Development 
Corporation
Application for a Construction Permit for a New 
LPFM Station at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Germantown Life Enrichment Center
Application for a Construction Permit for a New 
LPFM Station at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Historic Germantown Preserved
Application for a Construction Permit for a New 
LPFM Station at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
South Philadelphia Rainbow Committee 
Community Center, Inc.
Application for a Construction Permit for a New 
LPFM Station at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. BNPL-20131112BWB
Facility ID No. 195646
File No. BNPL-20131113BLG
Facility ID No. 193022
File No. BNPL-20131114AKY
Facility ID No. 192746
File No. BNPL-20131114AMB
Facility ID No. 195118
File No. BNPL-20131114AMR
Facility ID No. 195802
File No. BNPL-20131114ANP
Facility ID No. 196209
File No. BNPL-20131114BLI
Facility ID No. 196383
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  December 1, 2015 Released: December 3, 2015
By the Commission:
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-161
2
1. We have before us the Application for Review (“AFR”)
1
filed by Nueva Esperanza, Inc. 
(“NEI”), seeking Commission review of a Media Bureau decision
2
that denied reconsideration and 
affirmed the grant of the applications filed by G-Town Radio, Germantown United Community 
Development Corporation, Germantown Life Enrichment Center (collectively, “Germantown 
Applicants”), and South Philadelphia Rainbow Committee Community Center, Inc. (collectively, “Time-
Share Applicants”), for construction permits for new LPFM stations serving Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 
and the dismissal of the applications filed by NEI, NAACP Social Justice Law Project, and Historic 
Germantown Preserved, also for construction permits for a new LPFM station at Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania.  These seven applications were mutually exclusive, identified as LPFM MX Group 304,
3
and were tentatively selected to receive a construction permit on a time-share basis.
4
  Pursuant to the 
Commission’s Rules (“Rules”), the Time-Share Applicants filed a time-share agreement in which they 
aggregated their comparative points to break the seven-way tie in LPFM MX Group 304 in their favor.
5
2. The AFR raises the same argument that the Bureau rejected in the Staff Decision and the 
Reconsideration Decision: that the Germantown Applicants were prohibited from agreeing to aggregate 
their comparative points at the time that they filed their applications, but were instead required to wait 
until after the Commission issued the September Public Notice which declared those applicants tied under 
the Commission’s LPFM point system.
6
  NEI again cites to a blog entry on the Commission’s website in 
support of this argument.
7
  The Staff Decision and Reconsideration decision held that NEI misinterpreted 
the LPFM Blog Post and that pre-filing aggregating agreements were in fact not prohibited by the Rules.
8
  
3. We deny the AFR for the reasons stated in the Staff Decision and the Reconsideration 
Decision.  Neither the Rules nor the LPFM Blog Post prevented the Germantown Applicants from 
agreeing to aggregate their comparative points prior to filing their applications.
9
Moreover, as the Bureau 
noted, the LPFM Blog Post is informal staff advice and not authoritative. Accordingly, we deny the 
AFR.
10
                                                     
1
The AFR was filed on August 17, 2015.  The Germantown Applicants filed an Opposition on August 31, 2015.  A 
Reply was filed by NEI on September 14, 2015.
2
LPFM MX Group 304, Letter, Ref 1800B3-IB (MB July 16, 2015) (“Reconsideration Decision”) (denying Petition 
for Reconsideration filed by NEI); Letter, Ref 1800B3-ATS (MB Jan. 15, 2015) (“Staff Decision”) (denying Petition 
to Deny filed by NEI).
3
Media Bureau Identifies Mutually Exclusive Applications Filed in the LPFM Window and Announces 60-Day 
Settlement Period; CDBS Is Now Accepting Form 318 Amendments, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 16713 (MB 2013).
4
Commission Identifies Tentative Selectees in 111 Groups of Mutually Exclusive Applications Filed in the LPFM 
Window; Announces a 30-Day Petition to Deny Period and a 90-Day Period to File Voluntary Time-Share 
Proposals and Major Change Amendments, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 10847 (2014) (“September Public Notice”).
5
47 C.F.R. § 73.872(c).
6
AFR at 6-7.
7
Bill Lake, The Low Power FM Application Windows is Fast Approaching, Official FCC Blog, Sept. 19, 2013, 
15:58 EST, http://www.fcc.gov/blog/low-power-fm-application-window-fast-approaching (“LPFM Blog Post”).
8
Staff Decision at 4-5; Reconsideration Decision at 4-5.  The Staff Decision and the Reconsideration Decision
further held that the LPFM Blog Post is not authoritative because it is informal staff advice.  See Staff Decision at 4 
n.21; Reconsideration Decision at 4 n.16.
9
Compare Section 1.2105(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.2105(c), which prohibits certain collusive communications 
between auction bidders, which was adopted by notice and comment rulemaking.  See Implementation of Section 
309(j) of the Communications Act-Competitive Bidding, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2348 (1994) ¶¶ 221-
226.
10
NEI also argues that “in deciding that there was no policy that prohibited pre-application agreements to aggregate 
points and share time, the Bureau answered a question of law or policy that had not previously been resolved by the 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-161
3
4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Application for Review filed by Nueva 
Esperanza, Inc., on August 17, 2015, IS DENIED, pursuant to Section 5(c)(5) of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.115(g) of the Commission’s Rules.
11
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Commission” and therefore “exceeded its authority” in the Staff Decision and Reconsideration Decision.  AFR at 4-
5.  This argument is moot because we are affirming Bureau’s reasoning in the Staff Decision and the 
Reconsideration Decision. In any event, we note that, among the areas of authority delegated to the Media Bureau 
is that it “develops, recommends and administers the policy and licensing programs for the regulation of media, 
including cable television, broadcast television and radio, and satellite services in the United States and its 
territories.” See 47 C.F.R. §.0.61.  Included in that delegated authority is that the Bureau may “[p]rocess 
applications for authorization…of media services,” “administer and enforce rules and policies regarding…[r]adio 
and television broadcast industry service” and “[p]rocess and act on all applications for authorization….” See 47 
C.F.R. §.0.61(a), (f)(1) and (h). The Bureau’s determination that the applicable rules do not prohibit the subject 
agreement between the Germantown Applicants fell squarely within that authority.  
11
47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5); 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(g).