Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-176
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Little Rock Hispanic Education Family Fundation
Bakersfield Hispanic Education Family Fundation
South Omaha Hispanic Education Family 
Fundation
South Lawton Hispanic Education Family 
Fundation
South El Paso Hispanic Education Family 
Fundation
North Eagle Pass Hispanic Education Family 
Fundation
South Corpus Christi Hispanic Education Family 
Fundation
North Laredo Hispanic Education Family 
Fundation
North Odessa Hispanic Education Family 
Fundation
North Victoria Hispanic Education Family 
Fundation
North Amarillo Hispanic Education Family 
Fundation
South Brownsville Hispanic Education Family 
Fundation
South Tyler Hispanic Education Family Fundation
Hazler Hispanic Community Radio
Norfolk Community Radio
Pittsburgh Community Radio
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. BNPL-20131114AQI
Facility ID 196053
File No. BNPL-20131114AQA
Facility ID 196038
File No. BNPL-20131115AOZ
Facility ID 197574
File No. BNPL-20131115AGJ
Facility ID 197539
File No. BNPL-20131115AEU
Facility ID 196408
File No. BNPL-20131115AEX
Facility ID 196423
File No. BNPL-20131115AFE
Facility ID 197525
File No. BNPL-20131115AFH
Facility ID 196431
File No. BNPL-20131115AFV
Facility ID 197531
File No. BNPL-20131115AGD
Facility ID 197536
File No. BNPL-20131115AGF
Facility ID 197535
File No. BNPL-20131115AGN
Facility ID 197545
File No. BNPL-20131115AHZ
Facility ID 197547
File No. BNPL-20131112AGC
Facility ID 194082
File No. BNPL-20131112AGS
Facility ID 194526
File No. BNPL-20131112AHW
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-176
2
Salt Lake City Community Radio
Abilene Hispanic Community Radio
Family Christian Radio of Wichita
Wichita Falls Cesar Chavez Foundation
Temple of Power
Balch Springs Radio de la Comunidad
Mesquite African American Community
North Fort Worth Hispanic Community Church
Cadena Radial Remanente
Cadena Radial Mision y Vision
Laredo Hispanic Community Church
Fundacion Esperanza Viva
North San Antonio Community Radio
South McAllen Hispanic Education Family 
Fundation
South Jacksonville Community Radio
Gary Hispanic Community Radio
North Longview Hispanic Education Family 
Fundation
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Facility ID 194566
File No. BNPL-20131112ALQ
Facility ID 194237
File No. BNPL-20131114AOX
Facility ID 195643
File No. BNPL-20131114AOZ
Facility ID 195653
File No. BNPL-20131114APE
Facility ID 195680
File No. BNPL-20131112ASB
Facility ID 194050
File No. BNPL-20131112ACT
Facility ID 193782
File No. BNPL-20131112AGL
Facility ID 194457
File No. BNPL-20131112AGY
Facility ID 194534
File No. BNPL-20131113ABE
Facility ID 195343
File No. BNPL-20131113ABF
Facility ID 195336
File No. BNPL-20131114BUD
Facility ID 196849
File No. BNPL-20131115ALQ
Facility ID 197143
File No. BNPL-20131112AHO
Facility ID 194556
File No. BNPL-20131115AFM
Facility ID 197533
File No. BNPL-20131112BDZ
Facility ID 194268
File No. BNPL-20131112AFY
Facility ID 193842
File No. BNPL-20131115ANA
Facility ID 197552
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-176
3
Wichita Falls Hispanic American Family Fundation
South Victoria Hispanic Education Family 
Fundation
North Tampa Community Radio
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. BNPL-20131114APB
Facility ID 195666
File No. BNPL-20131115AIB
Facility ID 197550
File No. BNPL-20131112AHQ
Facility ID 194557
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  December 15, 2016 Released:  December 15, 2016
By the Commission:
1. We have before us the Application for Review (AFR) filed by REC Networks (REC) on 
September 22, 2016, seeking review of three Media Bureau decisions (collectively, Staff Decisions).1 In 
the Staff Decisions the Bureau denied an Informal Objection (Objection) filed by REC against the above-
captioned singleton applications (collectively, Applications) of various applicants (collectively, 
Applicants) for construction permits for new low-power FM (LPFM) stations filed during the 2013 LPFM 
filing window and granted the Applications.2  
2. Under Section 5 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), and Section 
1.115(a) of the FCC’s Rules (Rules) an applicant for review must be a “person aggrieved” by an action 
taken pursuant to delegated authority.3 REC states that it is “an advocate for the promotion of a 
community-based LPFM service” and its “goal is to assure integrity in the licensing process for LPFM 
stations and the actions of [the Applicants] have hampered our efforts as well as others who support 
community-based LPFM Stations” and thus is an aggrieved party under Section 5 of the Act.4  
3. We reject REC’s argument that it is “aggrieved” by the Staff Decisions and therefore has 
standing to file the AFR.  To show that it is “aggrieved” by an action, an applicant for review must 
demonstrate a direct causal link between the challenged action and the alleged injury to the applicant, and 
show that the injury would be prevented or redressed by the relief requested.5 In the broadcast regulatory 
  
1 Little Rock Hispanic Education Family Fundation, Letter Order, 1800B3-ATS (MB Aug. 23, 2016); North San 
Antonio Community Radio, Letter Order, 1800B3-ATS (MB Aug. 24, 2016); North Tampa Community Radio, Letter 
Order, 1800B3-ATS (MB Sep. 19, 2016) (NTCR Decision).  The Staff Decisions also denied a Petition to Deny filed 
by Common Frequency against several of the Applications.  Common Frequency has not sought reconsideration or 
review of the Staff Decisions.  With the exception of the application of North Tampa Community Radio (NTCR 
Application), no other objections or petitions to deny were filed against the Applications.  The NTCR Decision 
denied an informal objection to the NTCR Application filed by Tampa Radio Group (TRG).  TRG has not sought 
reconsideration or review of the NTCR Decision.  
2 The Applicants filed an unopposed request for an extension of time in which to file an Opposition on October 11, 
2016, and jointly filed an Opposition to the AFR on October 17, 2016.  REC filed a Reply on October 27, 2016.
3 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(4); 47 CFR § 1.115(a) (“Any person aggrieved by any action taken pursuant to delegated 
authority may file an application requesting review of that action by the Commission . . . Any application for review 
which fails to make an adequate showing in this respect will be dismissed.”).
4 AFR at n.1.
5 See, e.g., AT&T Inc. and Deutsche Telecom, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 4423, 4425, para. 8 
(2012); WINV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 2032, 2033-34, para. 3 (1998).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-176
4
context, standing is generally shown in one of three ways: (1) as a competitor in the market subject to 
signal interference; (2) as a competitor in the market subject to economic harm; or (3) as a resident of the 
station's service area or regular listener of the station.6 REC has not met any of these requirements, nor 
has REC even asserted that it has met them.  Accordingly, we will dismiss the AFR because REC lacks 
standing to file it.7  
4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 5(c)(5) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,8 and Sections 1.115(a) and 1.115(c) of the Commission’s 
Rules,9 the Application for Review filed by REC Networks, on September 22, 2016, IS DISMISSED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
  
6 See Clarke Broad. Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 3057, 3057, para. 3 (1996) (holding that 
where there is no nexus between the challenged application and an applicant for review, the applicant is not 
“aggrieved” for purposes of 47 CFR § 1.115(a)); Chet-5 Broad., L.P., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC 
Rcd 13041, 13042, para. 3 (1999) (“[W]e will accord party-in-interest status to a petitioner who demonstrates either 
residence in the station's service area or that the petitioner listens to or views the station regularly, and that such 
listening or viewing is not the result of transient contacts with the station”); Office of Comm. of the United Church of 
Christ v. FCC, 359 F.2d 994, 1000-06 (D.C. Cir. 1966) (expanding standing from traditional categories of electrical 
interference or economic injury to station listeners).
7 See, e.g., Chapin Enter., LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 4250, 4252-53, para. 7 (2014) 
(dismissing application for review filed by informal objector that did not demonstrate he was aggrieved by Bureau 
action); Urban Radio I, L.L.C., Debtor-in-Possession, and YMF Media, New York Licensee LLC, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6389, 6389-90, para 2 (2014) (dismissing application for review where applicants 
did not show competitive harm or signal interference, do not claim to be listeners of the stations, or show any causal 
link between any claimed injury and grants at issue).  Additionally, the AFR raises several arguments that were not 
previously presented to the Bureau, specifically that the application of Gary Community Radio (File No. BNPL-
20131112AFY) should have been dismissed for violating Section 73.871(c) of the Rules, and 2) that the Applicants’ 
engineer, Antonio Cesar Guel, may have violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001.  AFR at 9 and 12.  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.”  See 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5); 47 CFR § 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).  This serves as a separate and independent basis for dismissing the AFR to the extent it relies on 
these arguments.
8 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5).
9 47 CFR § 1.115(a), (c).