Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
November 21, 2017
In Reply Refer To:
1 8OOB3ATS
Dennis J. Kelly, Esq.
Law Office of Dennis 3. Kelly
P.O. Box 41177
Washington, DC 20018
David H. Solomon, Esq.
3. Wade Lindsay, Esq.
Danielle K. Thumann, Esq.
Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP
1800 M Street N.W., Suite 800N
Washington, DC 20036
Jane B. Mago, Esq.
Special Counsel
Entercom Communications Corp.
4154 Cortland Way
Naples, FL 34119
Steven A. Lerman, Esq.
Lerman Senter PLLC
2001 L Street, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
In re: Entercom Sacramento License, LLC
KUDL(FM) (formerly KBZC(FM),
Sacramento, CA
Facility ID No. 57889
File No. BRH-20050728ATP
File No. BRH-20130730ANC
KRXQ(FM), Sacramento, CA
Facility ID No. 20354
File No. BRH-20050728AUQ
File No. BRH-20130730AN1
KSEG(FM), Sacramento, CA
Facility ID No. 11281
File No. BRH-20050728ATX
File No. BRH-20130730ANK
KKDO(FM), Fair Oaks, CA
Facility ID No. 6810
File No. BRH-20130730AND

KIFM(AM) (formerly KCTC(AM)),
Sacramento, CA
Facility ID No. 67848
File No. BR-20130730ANG
Petition for Reconsideration
Dear Counsel:
The Media Bureau (Bureau) has before it a Petition for Reconsideration (Second Petition) filed on
October 11, 2017, by Edward R. Stolz II (Stolz), seeking reconsideration of the Bureau's decision that
dismissed his prior Petition for Reconsideration (First Petition) and affirmed a Bureau decision granting
the above-referenced applications (Renewal Applications) filed by Entercom License, LLC (Entercom) to
renew its licenses for various stations in the Sacramento area (Sacramento Stations).' For the reasons set
forth below, we dismiss the Second Petition.
Background. In the First Petition, Stolz challenged the staff's determination in the Letter
Decision that he lacked standing to file a petition to deny by reasserting his claim of listener standing, and
asserting for the first time that he has an "economic interest in this matter," citing pending litigation in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in which Stolz is attempting to recoup
Station KUDL from Entercom.2 Stolz urged the Renewal Applications be designated for hearing upon
issues stemming from the designation of a different Entercom Sacramento station renewal application for
hearing.3
The Reconsideration Decision dismissed4 the First Petition on the basis that Stolz lacked standing
to file a petition for reconsideration, stating that the filing of an informal objection5 does not confer party
status upon the objector.6 The Reconsideration Decision considered and rejected multiple arguments
raised by Stolz to claim standing to seek reconsideration, specifically holding that: 1) although Stolz
owned a residence in the Sacramento Stations' service area, he was not a regular listener of the stations;
and 2) although Stolz was attempting to reacquire KUDL, he was not currently a competitor of the
Sacramento Stations and is thus not an aggrieved party, and his economic standing argument was in any
1 Entercom Sacramento License, LLC, Letter Order, 32 FCC Rcd 6880 (MB 2017) (Reconsideration Decision);
Entercom Sacramento License, LLC, Letter Order, 1 800B3-JM (Jan. 18, 2017) (Letter Decision). Entercom filed an
Opposition on October 25, 2017. Stolz filed a Reply on November 3, 2017.

2 First Petition at 6-7 (citing Stolz v. FCC, Case No. 16-1248 (D.C. Cir. 2016)).
Id. at 7; see also Entercom License, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 32 FCC Red 7149, 7151-52, 7154,
paras. 10-11, 16 (2017) (KDND Order), petit. for recon. pending (Commission affirms Stolz' lack of standing in that
hearing proceeding).

Stolz and Entercom both incorrectly state in the Second Petition and the Opposition, respectively, that the Bureau
denied the First Petition. In fact, the Bureau dismissed the First Petition on the basis that Stolz lacked standing to
file it. Reconsideration Decision, 32 FCC Red at 6681, 6683, 6684 ("we dismiss the [First] Petition"; "we will
dismiss the [First] Petition"; "IT IS ORDERED, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed on February 17, 2017, by
Edward Stolz II, IS DISMISSED.").
The Letter Decision treated Stolz' procedurally defective petition to deny as an informal objection. See Letter
Decision at 3-4 (fmding that Stolz lacked standing to file a petition to deny because, although he owned a residence
in Sacramento, he was not a regular listener of the Sacramento Stations).
6Reconsideration Decision at 6683 (citing Montgomery County Broad. Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 65
FCC 2d 876, 877 n.2 (1977).

2

case untimely.7 The Reconsideration Decision further held that, even if the Bureau were to consider the
merits of the First Petition, it would deny the petition because Section 3 09(k)( 1) of the Communication
Act of 1934, as amended, limits the scope of the "violations" listed in Section 309(k)(1) to the station for
which license renewal is being considered, and the Bureau is thus barred from considering the conduct at
KDND when reviewing license renewal applications for other stations.8
In the Second Petition, Stolz states that although he intends to appeal the issue of standing to the
full Commission, he is filing the Second Petition in order to present to the Commission an argument not
previously presented to the Bureau.9 Specifically, Stolz seeks to preserve the argument that the KDND
Order did not consider the issue of "whether Entercom was in fact 'willingly accepting the severest
penalty in a renewal case" and that the Commission should consider how severe a sanction this is for
Entercom in light of its then-pending merger with CBS Radio, which would require Entercom to divest
several of its stations to come into compliance with the ownership limits of Section 73.3555(a) of the
FCC Rules.'° Stolz further disagrees with the Bureau's interpretation of Section 309(k)(1) "that the
Commission is expressly barred from considering licensees conduct with respect to one of its stations in
the context of another of the same licensee's license renewal applications," and thus avers that the
conduct at KDND should be considered in the current proceeding involving the Renewal Application for
the Sacramento Stations.11
Discussion. The Commission will consider a petition for reconsideration only when the petitioner
shows either a material error in the Commission's original order, or raises additional facts, not known or
existing at the time of the petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters.'2 If the petitioner is not a
party to the proceeding, it must state with particularity the manner in which its interests are adversely
affected and show good reason why it was not possible to participate in the earlier stages of the
proceeding.'3
Stolz has not demonstrated that the Reconsideration Decision erred in dismissing the First
Petition for lack of standing in this proceeding. Accordingly, we will dismiss the subject Second Petition
for the same reasons that we dismissed the First Petition-as an informal objector in this proceeding,
Stolz does not have standing to file a petition for reconsideration because he has not demonstrated that he
is a regular listener of the Sacramento Stations, and he has failed to show that he is an aggrieved party.'4
' Reconsideration Decision, 32 FCC Rcd at 6683 (citing William L. Fox, eta!., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17
FCC 2d 876, 877, para. 3 (1969) (Arguments for competitor or "economic" standing require an "actual state of
competition, not the future prospect thereof."); 47 CFR § 1.106(c) (requiring that the petition rely on facts or
arguments unknown to petitioner until after his last opportunity to present them)).
8Reconsideration Decision, 32 FCC Rcd at 6683 (citing Sagittarius Broad. Corp., Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 18 FCC Rcd 22551, 22555, para. 8 (2003)). We note that the Commission specifically held that the conduct
at KDND would be examined under Section 309(k)'s public interest standard, not as a matter of character
qualifications. Entercom License, LLC, Hearing Designation Order and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, 31 FCC
Rcd 12196, at 12209, para. 30 and n.122 (2016).

Second Petition at 2.
101d. at 3-4.
'11d. at 4-6.
1247 CFR § l.106(c),(d); see also WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 685, 686, para. 2
(1964), affd sub nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 967 (1966).
1347 CFR § l.106(b)(1).
14 Reconsideration Decision, 32 FCC Rcd at 6683.

3

Conclusion/Actions. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed
on October 11, 2017, by Edward R. Stolz II, IS DISMISSED.

Sincerely,

Peter H. Doyl
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau

4