Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-75
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In re Applications of
ESTATE OF LINDA WARE, CYNTHIA 
RAMAGE, EXECUTOR, Assignor
To Assign the License of Broadcast Station 
KZPO(FM), Lindsay, California
ESTATE OF H.L. CHARLES, ROBERT 
WILLING, EXECUTOR, Assignor
To Assign the Construction Permit of Broadcast 
Station KZPE(FM), Ford City, California
WILLIAM L. ZAWILA, Assignor
To Assign the Construction Permit of Broadcast 
Station KNGS(FM), Coalinga, California
AVENAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., 
Assignor
To Assign the Construction Permit of 
Broadcast Station KAAX(FM), Avenal, California
CENTRAL VALLEY EDUCATIONAL 
SERVICES, INC., Assignor
To Assign the Construction Permit of
Broadcast Station KYAF(FM), Firebaugh, 
California
BIG RADIO PRO, INC., Assignee
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. BALH-20150318AAY
Facility ID No. 37725
File No. BAPH-20150320AAT
Facility ID No. 22030
File No. BAPH-20150320AAP
Facility ID No. 72672
File No. BAPED-20150403ABF
Facility ID No. 3365
File No. BAPED-20150403ABD
Facility ID No. 9993
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  June 16, 2016 Released:  June 17, 2016
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order we deny the Application for Review to the 
Commission (AFR) filed April 7, 2016, by the Estate of Linda Ware, Cynthia Ramage, Executor (Ware 
Estate); the Estate of H.L. Charles, Robert Willing, Executor (Charles Estate); William L. Zawila 
(Zawila); Avenal Educational Services, Inc. (AES); and Central Valley Educational Services, Inc. 
(CVES) (collectively “Applicants”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-75
2
2. Applicants Charles Estate, Zawila, AES, and CVES are the permittees, and Ware Estate 
is the licensee, of five broadcast radio stations in California,
1
all of which were designated for revocation 
hearing by the Commission in order to resolve, inter alia, issues of lack of candor, misrepresentation, 
unauthorized transfer of control, and other violations of the Commission’s rules.
2
  In 2003, the hearing 
proceeding was stayed to allow the Applicants to pursue a minority distress sale of the Stations.
3
  
Applications for approval to assign the Stations’ authorizations to Lazer Broadcasting Corporation 
(Lazer) pursuant to that policy were filed on February 17, 2004.
4
  Three of the 2004 Applications were 
dismissed because the proposed assignors had failed to pay regulatory fees for KZPE(FM), KZPO(FM), 
and KNGS(FM),
5
and the applications were thus subject to dismissal under Commission rules 
implementing the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.
6
  Zawila, Charles Estate, and Ware Estate 
attempted to seek waiver of the outstanding regulatory fees,
7
or to postpone payment until after the 
proposed assignments were consummated, but these requests were denied.
8
  Applicants did not appeal 
these denials or re-file applications for Commission approval to assign the authorizations to Lazer.
3. Instead, in March and April 2015, Applicants filed the new applications captioned above 
(Applications) to assign the Station authorizations to Big Radio Pro, Inc., claiming to do so under the 
minority distress sale policy.  Counsel for AES and CVES filed a petition to deny the Applications, which 
was granted in part by the Media Bureau (Bureau).
9
  The Bureau held that the minority distress sale policy 
had been discontinued following the Supreme Court’s decision in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena.
10
  
It further held that application of the minority distress sale policy’s replacement, a policy allowing 
distress sales to “eligible entities,”
11
had been suspended after the court of appeals vacated the eligible 
                                                     
1
The stations are KZPO(FM), Lindsay, California (Ware Estate); KZPE(FM), Ford City, California (Charles 
Estate); KNGS(FM), Coalinga, California (Zawila); KAAX(FM), Avenal, California (AES); and KYAF(FM), 
Firebaugh, California (CVES) (collectively “Stations”).
2
William L. Zawila, et al., Order to Show Cause, Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, and Hearing Designation 
Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14938 (2003) (Zawila HDO).  The hearing proceeding, EB Docket No. 03-152, remains pending 
before Chief Administrative Law Judge Richard L. Sippel.
3
William L. Zawila, et al., Order, FCC 03M-39, EB Docket No. 03-152 (ALJ Sept. 10, 2003).
4
File Nos. BAPH-20040217AEF (KNGS(FM)); BAPH-20040217AEI (KZPE(FM)); BALH-20040217AEJ 
(KZPO(FM)); BAPED-20040217AEH (KYAF(FM)); and BAPED-20040217AEG (KAAX(FM)) (the “2004 
Applications”).
5
KYAF(FM) and KAAX(FM) were permitted as noncommercial educational (NCE) stations, and thus did not owe 
regulatory fees.  However, the proposed sales transaction was for all five Stations.
6
47 CFR § 1.1910(b)(2).  See also Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1358 (1996); Amendment of Parts 0 and 1 
of the Commission’s Rules–Implementation of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and Adoption of Rules 
Governing Applications or Requests for Benefits by Delinquent Debtors, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 6540 
(2004).
7
The 2004 Applications to assign the KZPO(FM) license and the KZPE(FM) permit were further defective, insofar 
as both were initially filed in the names of, respectively, Linda Ware and H.L. Charles as assignors, and both were 
deceased at the time of filing.  The applications could not be reinstated until grant of applications assigning the 
authorizations to the executors of the applicants’ estates.  See File Nos. BALH-20040520AJH, BAPH-20040520AJI.
8
See generally Estate of Linda Ware, Cynthia Ramage, Executor, et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 29 FCC 
Rcd 15061 (2014) (Ware MO&O).
9
William L. Zawila, Esq. and Michael Couzens, Esq., Letter Decision, Ref. No. 1800B3-TSN (MB Sept. 17, 2015) 
(Staff Decision).
10
515 U.S. 200 (1995) (Adarand).
11
Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcast Services, Report and Order and Third Further Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making, 23 FCC Rcd 5922, 5939 para. 39 (2008) (Diversity Order).  In the Applications, Big Radio 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-75
3
entity definition, remanding to the Commission those provisions of the Diversity Order that relied on that 
definition.
12
  Applicants petitioned for reconsideration, arguing as they had below that the minority 
distress sale policy was the “law of the case,” that the Commission had acknowledged this, and that 
therefore the Applications should be processed.  The Bureau denied the petition for reconsideration by 
letter dated March 9, 2016.
13
  Applicants timely filed the AFR seeking Commission review of that letter.
II. DISCUSSION
4. In their AFR, Applicants argue that the Bureau erred by failing to recognize the 
applicability of the minority distress sale policy to them and the Applications; by failing to recognize the 
minority distress sale policy as the “law of the case” in the hearing proceeding; by refusing to process the 
Applications under the minority distress sale policy; and by acting beyond its delegated authority by 
making policy determinations more properly made by the full Commission.
14
  Applicants persist in their 
assertion that the minority distress sale policy, even if no longer generally in effect, still applies to them.  
We disagree, and deny the AFR for the reasons set forth in the Staff Decision and Reconsideration 
Decision.
5. The Bureau, in its decisions, accurately summarized the current status of the 
Commission’s distress sale policies.  The minority distress sale policy, and the subsequent eligible entity 
distress sale policy, were exceptions to the general rule that a licensee or permittee may not assign its 
authorization when character issues are pending against the proposed assignor.
15
  In a distress sale, an 
authorization subject to a hearing on character issues could be assigned, for less than the facility’s 
appraised value, to a qualified entity in order to promote broadcast ownership diversity.
16
  After the 
Supreme Court in Adarand specifically overruled its previous decision upholding the minority distress 
sale policy’s constitutionality,
17
the Commission replaced that race-based policy with the revenue-based 
eligible entity distress sale policy.
18
  The eligible entity standard was vacated in Prometheus II,
19
however, 
and the Bureau accordingly suspended all rules and policies using that standard, including the distress sale
policy.
20
  In its actions below, the Bureau therefore correctly assessed that the distress sale policy is 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Pro, Inc., the proposed assignee, claims to be both minority owned and an eligible entity.  See, e.g., File No. BAPH-
20150320AAT, Exhs. 7, 20.
12
Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 652 F.3d 431 (3d Cir. 2011) (Prometheus II).  See Staff Decision at 3-4. 
13
William L. Zawila, Esq. and Michael Couzens, Esq., Letter Decision, Ref. No. 1800B3-TSN (MB Mar. 9, 2016) 
(Reconsideration Decision).
14
AFR at 5.
15
See Jefferson Radio Corp. v. FCC, 340 F.2d 781, 783 (D.C. Cir. 1964) (Jefferson Radio), holding that, “[i]t is the 
recognized policy of the Commission that assignment of broadcast authorization will not be considered until the 
Commission has determined that the assignor has not forfeited the authorization.”).
16
Statement of Policy on Minority Ownership of Broadcasting Facilities, Public Notice, 68 F.C.C.2d 979, 983, 
clarified, 44 R.R.2d 479 (1978) (minority distress sale policy); Diversity Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 5939 para. 39 
(eligible entity distress sale policy).  
17
Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547, 600-01 (1990) (overruled by Adarand, supra note 10, 515 U.S. at 
225-27).
18
Diversity Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 5939 para. 39.
19
Prometheus II, 652 F.3d at 471-72.
20
Media Bureau Provides Notice of Suspension of Eligible Entity Rule Changes and Guidance on the Assignment of 
Broadcast Station Construction Permits to Eligible Entities, Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 10370, 10370 (MB 2011).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-75
4
currently suspended, thus precluding the filing and processing of applications such as Applicants’ that 
rely on that policy.
21
6. We likewise agree with the Bureau that Applicants’ reliance on their “law of the case” 
theory is misguided.  Applicants claim that an administrative law judge’s 2003 order allowing them to 
pursue a minority distress sale applies to them in perpetuity, notwithstanding (1) the Supreme Court’s 
overruling its own precedent that had upheld the minority distress sale policy’s constitutionality; (2) the 
Commission’s replacement of the minority distress sale policy with the eligible entity distress sale policy; 
(3) the court of appeals’s vacation of the eligible entity standard; and (4) the Bureau’s subsequent 
suspension of all policies relying on the vacated eligible entity definition.  The logical conclusion of 
Applicants’ argument is that an administrative law judge’s order takes priority over not only later 
Commission orders, but decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the 
United States Supreme Court.  This is clearly a meritless position.  In any event, the Bureau correctly 
pointed out that “law of the case” does not apply where, as here, there have been intervening changes in 
applicable law.
22
  We thus reject Applicants’ contention that the ALJ’s characterization seven years ago of 
his predecessor presiding judge’s rulings as to the “law of the case” compels us to allow them to pursue a 
minority distress sale notwithstanding the aforementioned developments in the law.
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSE
7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, for the foregoing reasons and pursuant to Section 
5(c)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.115(g) of the Commission’s 
rules,
23
the Application for Review filed by the Applicants IS DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
                                                     
21
See also 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review — Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and 
Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Further Notice of Proposed 
Rule Making and Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 4371, 4480 para. 246 (2014) (“Although the Commission and 
Congress previously made available race- and gender-conscious measures intended specifically to assist minorities 
and women in their efforts to acquire broadcast properties, such as tax certificates and distress sale policies, those 
policies and programs were discontinued following the Supreme Court’s 1995 decision in [Adarand].”).  In any 
event, this decision affirming the Bureau’s actions moots the Applicants’ contention that the Bureau has exceeded its 
“delegated authority and jurisdiction.”  AFR at 5.
22
See, e.g., Kimberlin v. Quinlan, 199 F.3d 496, 500 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (law of the case may be revisited only if there 
is an intervening change in the law or if the previous decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest 
injustice); McKesson Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 52 F.3d 346, 350 (D.C. Cir. 1995).  Additionally, with 
regard to Applicants’ continued assertion that we “recognized” the minority distress sale policy’s validity in the 
Ware MO&O (AFR at 7), we concur with the Bureau that our statement in that order that the 2004 Applications 
were filed under the minority distress sale policy was descriptive only, not determinative.  See Reconsideration 
Decision at 4-5; Ware MO&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 15061 para.1.  We also note, as we did in the Ware MO&O, that 
Applicants could have availed themselves of the eligible entity distress sale policy before it was suspended, but 
chose not to.  Id. at 15064 n.21; see supra note 6.
23
47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5); 47 CFR § 1.115(g).