In re Application of WTRF-TV, INC.
(ASSIGNOR) AND FORWARD TELE-PRODUCTIONS, INC. (ASSIGNEE) For Consent to the
Assignment of Licenses of Stations WTRF-TV and WTRF-FM, Wheeling, W. Va.
BALCT-361 BALH-1137
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
16 F.C.C.2d 782 (1969); 15 Rad. Reg.
2d (P & F) 819
RELEASE-NUMBER: FCC 69-190
February 28, 1969 Adopted
BY THE
COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER BARTLEY DISSENTING; COMMISSIONER
JOHNSON DISSENTING AND ISSUING A STATEMENT.
OPINION:
[*782]
We have before us for consideration the above entitled application for
the assignment of the licenses of stations WTRF-TV and WTRF-FM from WTRF-TV,
Inc., to Forward Tele-Productions, Inc.
The application contains a request for a waiver of the interim
processing procedures contained in our notice of proposed rulemaking (multiple
ownership rules) docket No. 18110, released March 28, 1968.
1. On March 28, 1968, we issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking (docket 19110) which proposed inter alia "No license
for an FM broadcast station shall be granted to a party if such party already
owns or controls * * * a television station in the market applied for." We
also stated: "* * * Applications filed during the pendency of this rulemaking
will not be acted on until the Commission has determined the action to be taken
on the proposed rule." However, the Commission also anticipated an
expedited proceeding.
2. On August 12, 1968, the applicants filed an
application requesting the Commission's consent to the assignment of the
licenses of WTRF-TV and WTRF-FM to Forward Tele-Productions, Inc. The parties requested that the Commission
waive its interim processing procedures supra and grant the application.
3. It appears that termination of the proceeding
in the very near future is not possible.
Not to act on this pending application until the Commission has
determined the action to be taken would, in effect, be imposing the proposed
rule before it becomes finalized, in a situation where grant of the application
will not increase concentration in the face of the proposal. A grant of the application would simply
continue an existing joint operation.
We have, therefore, decided to consider the application on its merits.
[*783]
4. The assignee is qualified in
all respects. With regard to docket No.
18110, the assignee has presented two alternatives to the Commission. One is to make the grant subject to the
immediate surrender of the FM license.
We do not believe this course, which would deprive
5. In view of the above, we conclude that a
grant of the above application would serve the public interest, convenience and
necessity. Therefore, It is ordered,
That the above application for the assignment of the licenses of stations
WTRF-TV and WTRF-FM from WTRF-TV, Inc., to Forward Tele-Productions, Inc., Is
granted, subject to the condition that if the acquisition by the assignee of
licenses for stations WTRF-TV and WTRF-FM is inconsistent with the resolution
of the rulemaking proceeding in docket No. 18110, the licensee will surrender
or dispose of one of such licenses upon notification by the Commission.
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, BEN F. WAPLE, Secretary.
DISSENTING OPINION OF COMMISSIONER NICHOLAS JOHNSON
WTRF-TV
and WTRF-FM, Wheeling, W.
I
dissent.
I have
previously outlined my concerns to our waiving the interim policy, and will not
repeat them here in full (see, Coos County Broad-casting, F.C.C. 69-121
(1969)). Final action on this
rulemaking has been prevented by the Commission's unnecessary accession to the
delaying tactics of those who oppose it.
The majority's action and discussion today constitute substantial
prejudice to the outcome of that rulemaking.
Its fear
of loss of radio service to the
[*784]
And while this grant is made "subject to" the outcome of the
one-to-a-market rulemaking, the majority by its discussion indicates its
position on how FM stations are to be handled in any one-to-a-market
rules. The majority states:
One is to make the grant subject to the immediate surrender
of the FM license. We cannot make a
grant subject to such a condition.
WTRF-FM is presently serving the needs of
The
relationship of this statement to the one-to-a-market rulemaking is
obvious. Finally, the refusal to hold a
hearing to determine the public interest benefits of this transaction, and the
lack of a majority opinion outlining compelling reasons for granting of these
applications, coupled with the open violation of the proposed rules, flies in
the face of a recent Court opinion reversing this Commission's disposition of
another case affected by this very rulemaking.
Joseph v. FCC, 13 P & F R.R. 2116 (D.C. Cir. 1968).
Productions
is already a powerful media owner in another State,
No
reasons are presented as to how the public interest -- nationally or in
I
dissent.