II. DISCUSSION
4. Upon review of the AFR and the entire record, we conclude that Applicants have not demonstrated that either OMD or the Bureau erred. Applicants sought reconsideration of the Assignment Applications’ dismissal, inter alia, on the ground that they did not receive the Red Light Letters which, they assert, were incorrectly addressed. Upon denial of these challenges, Applicants again filed petitions for reconsideration asserting the same grounds. The Bureau correctly dismissed these petitions as repetitious.16
5. Even if we were to consider Applicants’ argument on the merits, as an alternative and independent basis for our decision, we find it to be unpersuasive. As the staff noted in the Reinstatement Decisions, “Red light notices are mailed to the address recorded in the Commission Registration System.”17 In the AFR Applicants state, albeit not supported by affidavit, declaration, or otherwise under penalty of perjury, that the addresses on the Red Light Letters were “partial and incomplete.”18 However, nowhere in the AFR or in any of the prior-filed pleadings do any of the Applicants indicate that they provided their correct addresses to the Commission Registration System (“CORES”). It is incumbent upon registrants to keep their information current, either by updating the information online at the CORES link on the Commission’s main Web page, or by filing FCC Form 161.19 Thus, while Applicants contend that the addresses on the Red Light Letters were incorrect, they have not established that they provided the correct addresses to CORES in a timely manner so that the Commission could communicate
11 Because Applicants had not yet received the staff’s January 19, 2006, denials of their request for deferment of the outstanding fees pending consummation of the station sales, they also argued that reconsideration should be granted because those requests remained outstanding and had not been addressed in the December 21, 2005, decision.
12 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(k)(3).
13 See, e.g., Charles Reinstatement Decision at 1 (“This is in response to your February 10, 2005 request on behalf of Estate of H.L. Charles . . . for reconsideration of the action of January 7, 2005, dismissing the application for assignment of KZPE(FM) . . . because of failure to pay unpaid delinquent debts owed to the Commission.”).
14 Ware Reconsideration Decision at 3; Charles Reconsideration Decision at 3; Zawila Reconsideration Decision at 3.
15 AFR at 2-6. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1910 – 1.1911.
16 “Absent extraordinary circumstances, ‘
f the “tacking” of petitions were permitted, Commission actions might never become final and the rule would become nugatory.’” Great Lakes Broadcast Academy, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 11655, 11656 (2004) (citing Brainerd Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 R.R. 297, 298 (1963) (“Brainerd”)). See also Iola Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 439, 439 (1966) (“t is not in the interests of orderly procedure to permit repeated petitions for reconsideration.”) (also citing Brainerd).
17 Reinstatement Decisions at 1. 18 AFR at 2-3.
19 47 C.F.R. § 1.8002(b)(2) (“Information provided when registering for an [FCC Registration Number] must be kept current by registrants either by updating the information on-line at the CORES link at www.fcc.gov or by filing FCC Form 161 (CORES Update/Change Form).”).
3
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-197
with them.20 Absent such evidence, we reject Applicants’ argument that the Assignment Applications must be reinstated. 21 Were we to hold otherwise, registrants could avoid operation of the red light rule simply by providing erroneous or incomplete addresses to the Commission through CORES.
6. Upon review of the AFR and the entire record, we conclude that Applicants failed to demonstrate that either the Bureau or OMD erred. The Bureau, in its October 5, 2010, orders, properly decided the matters raised, and we uphold its decision for the reasons stated therein.
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the Application for Review filed jointly by the Estate of Linda Ware, Cynthia Ramage, Executor, the Estate of H.L. Charles, Robert Willing, Executor, and William L. Zawila, IS DENIED.