S

Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
October 20, 2014

In Reply Refer to:
1 800B3-PPD
Ms. Michelle Bradley
REC Networks
11541 Riverton Wharf Road
Mardela Springs, MD 21837
The Church in Anaheim
2528 West La Palma Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92801
Long Beach Community Television
and Media Corporation
1906 East Anaheim Street
Long Beach, CA 90813
Glendale Humane Society
717 W. Ivy Street
Glendale, CA 91204
Historic Downtown Los Angeles
Business Improvement District
453 South Spring Street
Suite 1116
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Edgewood High School
1301 Trojan Way
West Covina, CA 91790

In Re:

Application for Construction Permit
for a Low Power FM Broadcast
Station
New-LP, Anaheim, CA
Facility ID Number: 195397
The Church in Anaheim
File Number: BNPL-2013 1 1O8ADF
New-LP, Long Beach, CA
Facility ID Number: 195312
Long Beach Community Television and
Media Corporation
File Number: BNPL-20131 1 12BDU

New-LP, Glendale, CA
Facility ID Number: 193636
Glendale Humane Society
File Number: BNPL-20131 1 12BLD
New-LP, Los Angeles, CA
Facility ID Number: 196909
Historic Downtown Los Angeles
Business Improvement District
File Number: BNPL-20131 1 14BGG
New-LP, West Covina, CA
Facility ID Number: 197426
Edgewood High School
File Number: BNPL-20 13111 5AAB
Dear Ms. Bradley and Applicants:
This letter concerns Ms. Bradley's e-mail to Chairman Tom Wheeler, Commissioners Mignon
Clyburn, Jessica Rosenworcel, Ajit Pai, and Michael O'Rielly, and Media Bureau staff Tom Hutton and
Parul P. Desai dated October 9, 2014 ("October E-mail"). We have determined that the October E-mail
was an improper exparte presentation and admonish Ms. Bradley, The Church in Anaheim, Long Beach
Community Television and Media Corporation, Glendale Humane Society, Historic Downtown Los
Angeles Business Improvement District, and Edgewood High School (collectively, "Applicants") for their
violation of the exparte provisions of the Commission's rules ("Rules").
Background. On July 9, 2014, the Commission released a Public Notice identifying tentative
selectees in 79 groups of mutually exclusive ("MX") applications filed in the October 2013, low power
FM window.' The Applicants are part of MX Group 27, which was included in the July PN. The
Commission gave the MX groups with ,nultiple tentative selectees, such as MX Group 27, the option of•
aggregating comparative points and proposing a time-share agreement for the use of the frequency.2 The
Commission stated that the time-share proposals were to be submitted "within 90-days of the release of
[the July PN]
Because the July PN was released on July 9, 2014, time-share proposals were due by
October 7, 2014.
The July PN also established a deadline for MX applicants to file major amendments to remove
technical conflicts among the MX applicants.4 The Commission stated: "Starting July 10, 2014, at 12:01
a.m. EDT, the first business day after the date of release of [the July RN], we open a 90-day period to
permit the MX applicants . . .to file major amendments.... This 90-day period for filing major change
amendments ends October 8, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. EDT."5 Notwithstanding specific guidance to the
contrary, Ms. Bradley and the Applicants erroneously concluded that the October 8, 2014, deadline
applied to time-share agreements. Accordingly, Applicants submitted their time-share proposals on
October 8, 2014, rather than October 7, 2014.

'See FCC Names Tentative Selectees of Mutually Exclusive LPFMApplications, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 8665
(MB 2014) ("July PlY").
2

Id. at 8670.

3

Id. at 8671.
5

2

Subsequently, on October 9, 2014, Ms. Bradley sent the October E-mail seeking an extension of
the October 7, 2014, deadline for time-share proposals.6 Ms. Bradley believed the July PN caused
confusion among some applicant. Moreover, according to Ms. Bradley, an extension was warranted
because, "there were 12 amendments for aggregation agreements impacting Los Angeles, Portland,
Vallejo and Omaha" that were filed on October 8. Ms. Bradley did not serve the October E-mail on
competing applicants.
Discussion. The purpose of the Commission's exparte rules is to ensure that the Commission's
decisions are fair and impartial and based on a public record free of influence from non-record
communications between decision-makers and outside persons.8 Consequently, exparte presentations are
prohibited in restricted proceedings, which include proceedings involving mutually exclusive
applications.9 This prohibition applies to any presentation "directed to the merits or outcome of a
proceeding," including compliance with procedural requirements, made to or from decision-making
personnel.'° Ex parte presentations include e-mail communications not served on other rt'
The Applicants, represented by Ms. Bradley, are involved in a restricted proceeding because they
all have pending MX applications with other applicants in MX Group 27.12 The October E-mail is a
presentation under the Rules because Ms. Bradley's communication disputes the filing date for time-share
proposals,13 and the October E-mail was addressed to officials with the authority to rule on the procedural
issue raised by Ms. Bradley. Thus, the October E-mail did not comply with ex parte requirements
applicable to this restricted proceeding.'4
Conclusion. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Michelle Bradley, The Church in Anaheim,
Long Beach Community Television and Media Corporation, Glendale Humane Society, Historic
Downtown Los Angeles Business Improvement District, and Edgewood High School are HEREBY
ADMONISHED for their violation of 47 C.F.R. § 1.1208. We caution Michelle Bradley, The Church in
Anaheim, Long Beach Community Television and Media Corporation, Glendale Humane Society,
Historic Downtown Los Angeles Business Improvement District, and Edgewood High School to be and
remain more diligent in the future regarding compliance with the Rules.

6See Attachment A.
' October E-mail.
8 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1200;

Ex Parte Communications, Report and Order, 2 FCC Red 3011, 3012 (1987).

947 C.F.R. § 1.1208.

'°47C.F.R. § 1.1202(a), 1.1208.
47 C.F.R. §1.1202(b) and note to paragraph (b), 1.1208.
12 Staff has attempted to identify all affected MX applicants that should have been served with the October E-mail,
including applicants in MX groups in which Ms. Bradley served as a consultant to one or more applicants. Staff was
able to only identify MX Group 27 as including applicants represented by Ms. Bradley and will serve the October E mail to the applicants in MX Group 27 listed in Attachment B. We direct Ms. Bradley to serve the October E-mail
on any other affected applicants in other MX groups that the staff was not able to identify, including the MX
applicants in Portland, Oregon; Vallejo, California; and Omaha, Nebraska that were alluded to in the October E mail.
' 47 C.F.R. § 1.1202(a) (although the rule allows for presentations regarding noncontroversial procedural
requirements, Ms. Bradley's October E-mail brought those requirements into controversy).
14 To ensure fairness, the Commission ultimately extended the deadline for time-share proposals from October 7,
2014 to October 8, 2014, 6 p.m. EDT. See Media Bureau Extends The Filing Date For Time-Shares Submitted In
Response To The July 9, 2014, Public Notice Identi5ing Tentative Selectees In 79 Groups Of Mutually Exclusive
Applications, Public Notice, DA 14-1513 (October 20, 2014). Nonetheless, this admonishment is required because
it is imperative that parties adhere to the Commission's exparte requirements.
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michelle Bradley will serve the October E-mail on any
affected MX applicant not listed in Attachment B as discussed in footnote 12.

Sincerely,

il/h,,

Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau

4

ATTACHMENT A
OCTOBER E-MAIL
Parut Desal
Sent:
To
Subject

Mfrhi Ey,
@rcnetcom
Thtirday October 09 2014 10:35 PM
Partil Oes Torn Huttor. Tom Wheer Mignon Clybirn Jesica Rcsenworc&, Ajit P r
Mike OPJel4y
Low Power FM MX Fhi 1Mndow costency

Parul, Torn and Comnthsloners:
am writing to inquire about the deadlines for the first Low Power FM Mutuafl Exclusive (MX) seftiement (gregatin
time-thare) and major charige window that just tooi< place [FCC 14 9)
I am hearirig twQ thfterent answers for the deadirnes lam hearing Irorn Some who feel that the deadline was October 8
at 6PM for afi filings (aggregaton arid major cbenge) I am hearing others who are saying that there were actually two
deadlines: October 7 at 11:59 PM for aggregation agreements and October 8 at 6:00 PM for major change amendments.
If the fatter is correct, 4 have some serious issues here.
When the FCC created LPFM under William erinard, it was Intended as a 'ppI&s' radio seMce, LPFM was originady
designed so the average person with not much broadcast knowledge and the legal orengineerirg resources could file an
application, When LPFM first came out, you culd still file on paper
if you review the public notice in question, it states on the first page:
arid a 90 day period for thc filing of voluntar time-share proposals pomt aggregation request} ind major change
amend men ts'
There is no indication that the deadlines are differe*rt. The average
(non-attorneyj wnuld read this and see that there Is a 90 day petiod
Aswe move forward to page G we see that voluntary time-sharing/point aggregation may,.
upropose to share use of the frequency by filing, within 90-days of th release of this public notice, a time share
proposaL"
M Cr the non-attorney is thinking, OK,. 90 days.
Then I read on page? the part about the major amendments where it states
This 90 day period for filing major change amendments ends October 8
2014 at 6:00 PM EDT"
OX so now that is my 90 daysi Or is it
Th fact here is that because of h this public notice was written, there were 12 amendments for aggregation
agreements Impacting Los Angeles, Portland, Valhejo and Omaha. Most of them came from nooattornes.
These are filings by people who do not possess law degrees and have do riot have legal calendars or applications that
immediately show the dead lines Th also don't count out the days on the cale ndar to determke what is really 90 days
away (especially considering that some months have 30 or3i days)- They depend on the public notices forthose dates
and the only date that they see is October 8, 2014 at 6:PM 0T and as a rasult, people filed based on that
information.

am asking the Media Bureau legal staff and the Commission, are we goingto accept those fllins that were made on
October S prior to 6PM EDT based on the wording of the public notice or was there really two de lines, in 2O(17 the
Commission recognized that LPFM applicants were small oranLatinns with limited resources and llreited ctess to
professional engineers thus JustIflng the need to extend the MX settlement period to 9Odays (22 FCC Rod Z112 para
27}, years later this Is still the case.
am asking first what was the deadline for these agtegation ageemerns that the Commission was planning on? (end of
day October 7 or 6:COPM October ). if it was end-of-day October 7, then I am asking, based on the information that I
presented that tha Commission grant a blanlet waiver of §73,872(c to extend the deadline of this filing window for a
peied of 18 hours to October 8, 2014 at 6:GOPM EDT in order to be consistent with the data on the public notice The
date that is otherwise considered as the '9O-day" period, Such a request wiil assure a lull and complete record in the
impacted MX groups and therefore would be In the public interest, ( feel that this smpte request meets the
requirements ofL925(b)(3)(ii) due to the unique factual circumstatces of the Instant ease that inequitable [as it
knpacts nonattorneys] is unduly burdensome [due to two deadlines and no specific disclosure of such based on the
wording of the public notice 4eferences to 90 days
and equating that to a date and time written in the notice,] and contrary to the public interest tassures that all
citi/onsumers have acce.s to FCC benefits}.
I would also suggest that aswe move forward with LPFM, public notices should b clear with the dates (similar to
rulemaking proceedings} and if there are two different dates ortimes this should be disclosed,
Where it comes to IPFM, it is more likely that a member of the general public and not a licensed attoney will be filing
and they are more likelyto look for a date on a notice and not manually count days on a calendar,
Thank you veiy much for your time and cons*deratlon
II you have any questons. please call me at
323431-101S or on my cell phone: 415 407'6221
Michelle Bradley
founder; REC Networks

ATTACHMENT B
MX GROUP 27 SERVICE LIST
Cathedral De Alabanza
7056 Milwood Avenue
Canoga Park, CA 91303
Dan J. Alpert, Esq.
Law Office of Dan J. Alpert
Counsel for Cathedral De Alabanza
2120 2lS Road

Arlington, VA 22201
City of Industry
15625 E. Stafford Street
Suite 100
City of Industry, CA 91744
G Final Cut Inc.
20531 Campaign Drive
Carson, CA 90746
Iglesias De Restauracion Filial South Bay
16826 S. Orchard Avenue
Gardena, CA 90247
The Emperor's Circle of Shen Yun
9550 Flair Drive
#315
El Monte, CA 91731
Catalyst Long Beach Inc.
820 Redondo Avenue
Unit #204
Long Beach, CA 90805
Boyle Heights Arts Conservatory
2708 East Cesar Chavez Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90033-9998
Michael Couzens, Esq.
Michael Couzens Law Office
Counsel for Boyle Heights Arts Conservatory
and Ballet Folklorico Ollin
P.O. Box 3642
Oakland, CA 94609
Craft & Folk Art Museum
5814 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90036

Echo Park Film Center
1200 N. Alvarado Street
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Future Roots, Inc.
4519 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90029
Donald Martin, Esq.
Donald Martin, P.C.
Counsel for Future Roots, Inc.
P.O. Box 8433
Falls Church, VA 22041
Los Angeles Academy of Arts and Enterprise
600 5 La Fayette Park Place
Los Angeles, CA 90057
Machine Project
1200 N Alvarado Street, #D
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Materials & Applications
1619 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Milken Community Schools
15800 Zeldins' Way @ Mulholland Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Mr. Jason Bennett
FM Expansion Group, LLC
Consultant for Milken Community Schools
7107 South Yale #444
Tulsa, OK 74136
The Eagle Rock Community Cultural Association
2225 Colorado Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90041
Ballet Folklorico Ohm
9015 Kester Avenue
Panorama City, CA 91042
National Hispanic Media Coalition
55 South Grand Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91105
Prism Church of Los Angeles
P0 Box 70677
Pasadena, CA 91117

A. Wray Fitch III, Esq.
Gammon & Grange, P.C.
Counsel for Prism Church of Los Angeles
8280 Greensboro Drive
7th
Floor
McLean, VA 22102
One Source Inc.
13321 Alondra Boulevard
Suite C
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Leo Ashcrafi, Esq.
Nexus Broadcast, LLC
Counsel for One Source Inc.
P.O. Box 1096
Mount Vernon, TX 75457
Oriental Culture Center
1341 S. Azusa Avenue
West Covina, CA 91791