Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-106
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL P. O'RIELLY
Re:   Application of Radioactive, LLC For Renewal of License, Station WRAX(FM), Lake Isabella, MI, 
MB Docket No. 17-198.
Let me start by stating that I make no comments about the particular case raised by the item 
before us.  Instead, I just want to take a moment to discuss the process outlined in the Hearing 
Designation Order.  Specifically, the Commission is creating a mechanism for the Commission to conduct 
the necessary hearings, pursuant to statutory requirements, for certain broadcast license renewals.  In 
effect, the item is establishing an alternative to the current Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) procedures, 
which I have targeted for reform.  
Just last month, I proposed, in part, that the Commission, in cooperation with our Congressional 
oversight committees, review and consider ways to eliminate or significantly modify our existing ALJ 
process.  My idea raised the ire of a number of outside detractors for one reason or another.  These 
criticisms often ignored the simple fact that cases have been stuck within the ALJ for multiple years.  In 
last month’s item, the case had been pending for six years.  And, it is my understanding that there are 
cases stuck within various levels of the ALJ process for well over a decade.  
Think about that for a moment.  An individual or company raised a complaint or perhaps a set of 
facts triggered a hearing under our rules or the law, and the Commission’s ALJ procedures has delayed 
resolution for over a decade.  That is beyond negligence and borders on misconduct.  Don’t try to tell me 
there are difficult cases with no clear outcome as I find that empty excuse not worthy of the role asked of 
us by the American people.  We make difficult decisions all the time.  Sometimes I agree and sometimes I 
do not but we don’t sweep the issue under the rug for a decade, hoping the case will be withdrawn or 
resolve itself in the meantime.  
At the same time, the Commission has been forced to overturn decisions resulting from the ALJ 
process that were simply not logical or justifiable.  In essence, this is creating double the work for the 
Commission staff and delaying resolution even longer.  The better question in my mind is why – knowing 
what we know – would we continue to allow this process to continue under the status quo?  The good 
news is that Chairman Pai, whether heeding my comments or otherwise, is charting a new course and is 
not stuck in the old and broken adage of “well, we’ve always done it this way.”  
Today’s item creates “paper” hearings for license renewals applications without issues of material 
fact.  In doing so, we bypass the need for our traditional extensive and time consuming evidentiary 
discovery and hearings procedures.  This seems like a logical first step that we should be able to expand 
upon in the future.
In the end, maybe the functions of the ALJ should be to just conduct evidentiary hearings when 
there are complex factual issues that, for some reason, can’t be handled by staff and then let the 
Commission resolve any pending cases.  Then again, maybe after a little more review we can remove the 
need for an ALJ altogether.  I certainly hope the structure we create today will expedite resolution for this 
case and serve as a model for other instances within the broadcast sphere and elsewhere.