Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-45
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of  
La Casa Dominicana de Hazleton, Inc.
Application for a New LPFM Station at
Hazleton, Pennsylvania
)
)
)
)
)
) 
File No. BNPL-20131114BBX
Facility ID No. 195125
      
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  April 12, 2016 Released: April 14, 2016
By the Commission: Commissioner Clyburn concurring and issuing a statement; Commissioner Pai 
issuing a separate statement.
1. The Commission has before it the Application for Review (AFR) filed by La Casa 
Dominicana de Hazleton, Inc. (Casa), on December 28, 2015.  Casa seeks review of a Media Bureau 
(Bureau) decision
1
that dismissed its above-captioned application for a construction permit for a new 
LPFM station at Hazleton, Pennsylvania (Application) on the basis that Casa had undergone a prohibited 
major of change of control in violation of Section 73.871(c)(3) of the FCC rules (Rules).
2
2. The Application as originally filed identified a board of seven members: Victor Perez, 
Robert Arias, Alejandrina de Leon, Fernando Diaz, Andrea Peña, Esmeralda Santiago, and Carlos 
Moldan, each with 14.3 percent of the board’s votes.
3
  On August 19, 2014, Casa submitted a letter
(August 2014 Letter) to the Bureau in which it stated that Arias, Moldan and Diaz had been removed 
from its board, and that its new board consisted of the remaining original members Perez, de Leon, Peña, 
Santiago, and new members Bryan Melendez, Melania Castillo, and Iris Marte.
4
  However, no 
amendment to the Application was filed to reflect this change in the Casa board, nor did the August 2014 
Letter identify the addresses or voting shares of the new board members, or provide updated certifications 
concerning the legal qualifications of the revised board.
5
  As will be explained in further detail below, in 
September of 2014 Casa again reconstituted its board by adding several new members, again without 
amending the Application as required by Section 1.65.  On November 6, 2014, the Bureau granted the 
Application and issued Casa a construction permit (Permit) for its proposed LPFM station. Because Casa 
had not amended the Application to reflect either the board changes referred to in the August 2014 Letter 
or those that occurred in September 2014, the Bureau granted the Application based on the understanding 
that the board had remained unchanged from the seven members specified in the Application then on file.
6
  
3. On February 13, 2015, the Bureau received a letter (February 2015 Letter) signed by 
Casa board members of record at the Commission Arias, Moldan, Diaz, and Peña, in which they stated 
                                                     
1
La Casa Dominica de Hazleton, Inc., Letter Order (MB Nov. 24, 2015) (Second Casa Letter); Letter Order (MB 
July 27, 2015) (First Casa Letter).
2
47 CFR § 73.871(c)(3); see Second Casa Letter at 2.
3
Application at Section II, Question 3.a.
4
August 2014 Letter at 1.  
5
Casa was required to amend the Application to report these changes and provide all required information to the 
Bureau. See 47 CFR § 1.65(a).
6
See First Casa Letter at 3 and 47 CFR § 1.65.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-45
2
that–as the majority of the board–they were requesting that the Permit be rescinded.
7
  On the basis of this 
letter, the Bureau considered the Permit surrendered.
8
  Casa filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) 
of this action on March 19, 2015, to seek reinstatement of the Permit and submitted a copy of the August 
2014 Letter to show that three of the four board members that had signed the February 2015 Letter had 
been dismissed from the board and did not have authority to surrender Casa’s Permit.
9
4. The Bureau granted the Petition in part on the basis that Arias, Moldan, Diaz and Peña 
were not in fact the “majority of the board” as they had claimed in the February 2015 Letter and thus were 
not authorized to surrender the Permit.
10
  However, the Bureau declined to reinstate the Permit due to 
Casa’s failure to have amended its Application to provide updated directors’ names, addresses, voting 
interests, and legal qualifications.
11
  The Bureau instead returned the Application to pending status so that 
Casa could provide such an amendment.
12
5. Casa submitted a responsive amendment on August 25, 2015 (August 2015 Amendment).  
That amendment did not specify the revised, seven-member board named in the August 2014 Letter but 
instead identified yet a different board of fourteen members, presenting a 79 percent change from the 
members of the original board.
13
  In the Second Casa Letter, the Bureau dismissed Casa’s Application, 
holding that the August 2015 Amendment specified a major change in Casa’s board, in violation of the 
Rules.
14
In the AFR, Casa states that it “was experimenting [sic] internal issues within its board” and it 
“took a vote in August 2014 to promote the change and expulsion of certain members [Arias, Diaz, and 
Moldan] who were the cause of these issues.”
15
  Casa further explains that Arias was expelled from the 
Casa board, which led to Arias submitting the February 2015 Letter.
16
  
                                                     
7
February 2015 Letter at 1-2.  In the letter, Arias, Moldan, Diaz and Peña accused Perez of mismanaging Casa, and 
also alleged that Perez had criminal records in both New Jersey and the Dominican Republic. 
8
See Broadcast Actions, Public Notice, Report No. 48431 (MB Feb. 23, 2015) (“CP cancelled and callsign deleted 
2/18/2015 per applicant’s request – no letter sent.”).
9
See Petition at 1-2.
10
First Casa Letter at 3.  
11
Id. at 3.  
12
The Bureau also instructed Casa to respond to the allegations raised in the February 2015 Letter that Perez held a 
criminal record in New Jersey and the Dominican Republican.  Casa denied these allegations and provided records 
from Pennsylvania purporting to show that Perez had no criminal record in that state.  Letter from Abraham J. 
Cepeda, Esq., to Peter H. Doyle, Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau (Aug. 28, 2015).  In the AFR, Casa also 
provided records from Passaic County in New Jersey and the Dominican Republic indicating that Perez has no 
criminal records in those jurisdictions.  AFR at Attach. J, K, and L.  However, because the Bureau did not base its 
dismissal of the Application on Perez’s alleged record, we need not address this issue further.
13
August 2015 Amendment at Section II, Question 3.a.  The new board retained Perez, de Leon, and Santiago, from 
the original Application, and Marte, Melendez and Castillo from the August 2014 Letter. The August 2015 
Amendment identified eight new board members that were not disclosed in either the Application or the August 
2014 Letter: Pablo Diaz, Altagracia Perez, Ashley Perez, Ingrid Martinez, Julian Pena, Yulissa Abreu, Carlos Disla, 
and Jose Arteiry.  Although Casa does not state when these board members took office, the record shows that Casa 
held a meeting to expand its board from seven to thirteen members on September 2, 2014, while the Application was 
still pending.  See AFR at Attach. A-1 and Attach. G.  
14
Second Casa Letter at 2, citing 47 CFR § 73.871(c)(3).
15
AFR at 2.
16
Id. at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-45
3
6. We uphold the Bureau’s determination in the Second Casa Letter that this major change 
in control of Casa is a fatal defect.
17
  Only 21 percent of the board’s votes remain with original parties to 
the Application (Perez, de Leon, and Santiago).  This constitutes a violation of Section 73.871(c)(3)
because more than 50 percent of the control of Casa has changed to individuals who were not original 
parties to the Application.
18
  Moreover, this was not a gradual change in the board, but rather a sudden 
addition of new members, allegedly as a result of a conflict within the organization.
19
  
7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 5(c)(5) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 1.115(c) and (g) of the FCC rules,
20
the 
Application for Review filed by La Casa Dominica de Hazleton, Inc., on December 28, 2015, IS 
DISMISSED, to the extent that it relies on questions of fact or law upon which the Media Bureau has 
been afforded no opportunity to pass, and is otherwise DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
                                                     
17
See, e.g., The KBOO Foundation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 16-10 (Feb. 2, 2016) (dismissing NCE 
application where applicant had undergone a greater than 50 percent change in control in less than a year).
18
47 CFR § 73.871(c)(3) (“Minor amendments are limited to . . . [c]hanges in ownership where the original party or 
parties to an application retain more than a 50 percent ownership interest in the application as originally filed”.  See 
also Creation of Low Power Radio Service, Second Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 8026, 8029, para. 7 (2001) 
(prohibition of major change in ownership is “consistent with the prohibition on the transfer of LPFM station 
construction permits and licenses” in 47 CFR § 73.865(d)).
19
Compare Center for Community Arts, Inc. Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 11164, 11165, para. 3
(2005) (waiving Section 73.871(c)(3) because the changes in the applicant’s board “occurred gradually, not as an 
outgrowth of any party's desire to gain control over a pending radio station application”). In its AFR, Casa indicates 
that it was “expecting that our counselor would explain all of the details about what exactly motivated the change in 
our board in the Dominican House.  Despite our claims, he didn’t.  We now take this opportunity to demonstrate 
step by step the reasons why we had to change our board….” In addition, for the first time, it claims that the Second 
Casa Letter “affects our civil rights” and is an unconstitutional infringement on its rights of association. AFR at 2.  
To the extent that the AFR presents such arguments for the first time, matters on which the Bureau has been 
afforded no opportunity to pass, we dismiss the AFR pursuant to Section 1.115(c) of the Rules, 47 CFR § 1.115(c).  
As a separate and independent ground for our action, regardless of Casa’s claimed justification for the post-filing 
window replacement of over 50 percent of its directors, for the reasons noted above, our rules mandate the dismissal 
of its Application.
20
47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5); 47 CFR §§ 1.115(c),(g).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-45
4
CONCURRING STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Re: La Casa Dominicana de Hazleton, Inc., Application for New LPFM Station at Hazleton, 
Pennsylvania, File No.: BNPL-20131114BBX, Facility ID No. 195125.
In voting to concur with this Order which upholds the Media Bureau’s dismissal of La Casa 
Dominicana de Hazleton, Inc.’s application, I do not dispute the fact that the company failed to follow 
Commission rules when it underwent a major change of control. At the same time, I am sympathetic to 
the internal challenges facing the organization made evident in its August 2015 amended application, 
where only three of the fourteen directors had a prior history of being party to the original application.   
I am also cognizant of the Commission’s goal in establishing LPFM radio service as a way to 
serve local and/or underrepresented groups within communities, without some of the financial 
commitments that exist when establishing a full-power station. With this in mind, La Casa’s application 
for a new LPFM station represented an opportunity to enhance viewpoint diversity that is so desperately 
needed in our country.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-45
5
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
Re: La Casa Dominicana de Hazleton, Inc., Application for New LPFM Station at Hazleton, 
Pennsylvania, File No.: BNPL-20131114BBX, Facility ID No. 195125.
I agree with the Commission that the Applicant underwent a prohibited major change of control 
in violation of section 73.871(c)(3) of the Commission’s rules.
1
  Specifically, the Applicant’s new 
fourteen-member board included only three members of its original board as a result of internal conflict 
and the expulsion of certain members.  Thus, the original board members retained far less than a majority 
ownership interest (21.4%) in the organization while its LPFM application was pending with the 
Commission.
Earlier this year, I expressed concern about our rule requiring dismissal of a nonprofit 
organization’s radio station application when a majority of a board’s membership changes hands.
2
  Board 
members, who are generally volunteers leading busy lives, decide to resign for a variety of reasons or 
their terms expire.  And if such routine turnover results in the majority of a board’s membership changing 
while an organization has an application pending with the Commission, that application should not be 
dismissed.  After all, it is not the Commission’s job to micromanage the day-to-day governance of 
nonprofit organizations.
Here, however, the change in the Applicant’s board membership was not the result of routine 
turnover.  And when there are such substantial changes to the board as the result of a battle for control of 
the organization, I believe that dismissing an applicant’s permit is not only mandated by the 
Commission’s rules, it is also the correct policy outcome.
                                                     
1
47 C.F.R. § 73.871(c)(3).
2
See NCE October 2007 Window MX Group 543 in re Application of the KBOO Foundation for a New NCE(FM) 
Station, Chehalis, Washington, Facility ID No. 173822, File No. BNPED-20071019ARU, Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, FCC 16-10, at 4 (Feb. 2, 2016) (Statement of Commissioner Ajit Pai).