*Pages 1--2 from  Fcc00058.PDF*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  58 
 Before  the 
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  re  Applications  of  ) 
 ) 
 OLE  BROOK  BROADCASTING,  INC.  )  File  No.  BPH-  950511MI 
 ) 
 and  ) 
 ) 
 LEOLA  D.  DICKEY  )  File  No.  BPH-  950503MC 
 ) 
 For  Construction  Permit  for  a  New  FM  ) 
 Station,  Channel  282C3  ) 
 Bude,  Mississippi  ) 


 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  February  17,  2000  Released:  February  23,  2000 
 By  the  Commission: 
 1.  The  Commission  has  before  it  a  Petition  for  Review  (“  Petition”)  filed  February  11,  1999  by 
 Evan  Doss,  Jr.  (“  Doss”),  as  well  as  an  Opposition  to  the  Petition  for  Review  filed  March  24,  1999  by  Ole 
 Brook  Broadcasting,  Inc.  (“  Ole  Brook”).  Doss  requests  review  of  a  January  25,  1999  order  by  the  Chief, 
 Audio  Services  Division,  Mass  Media  Bureau  (“  Bureau”),  granting  the  Joint  Request  of  Ole  Brook  and 
 Leola  D.  Dickey  (“  Dickey”)  for  Approval  of  Settlement  Agreement,  dismissing  Dickey’s  application  for  a 
 construction  permit  for  a  new  FM  station  in  Bude,  Mississippi,  1  granting  Ole  Brook’s  application  for  a 
 construction  permit  in  Bude,  2  and  denying  Doss’s  informal  objections  to  those  actions.  3  For  the  reasons 
 discussed  below,  the  Application  for  Review  is  denied. 


 2.  In  his  Petition,  Doss  does  little  more  than  cite  the  statutory  provisions  which  give  him  the  right 
 to  file  his  petition  and  set  forth  the  standards  under  which  such  petitions  are  to  be  decided.  He  does  not, 
 however,  state  how  those  provisions  apply  to  the  fact  situation  before  us,  nor  does  he  specify  with 
 particularity  the  errors  which  he  claims  the  Bureau  made  in  deciding  this  matter  as  it  did.  Pursuant  to  47 
 C.  F.  R.  §1.115(  b)(  1),  a  party  seeking  Commission  review  of  an  action  taken  pursuant  to  delegated 
 authority  “shall  concisely  and  plainly  state  the  questions  presented  for  review  with  reference,  where 
 appropriate,  to  the  findings  of  fact  or  conclusions  of  law.”  Additionally,  under  47  C.  F.  R.  §1.115(  b)(  2), 
 the  party  seeking  review  “shall  specify  with  particularity  .  .  .  the  factor(  s)  which  warrant  Commission 
 consideration  of  the  questions  presented,”  from  among  the  five  categories  enumerated  in  that  subsection. 
 Doss  has  failed  to  specify  such  factors,  and  gives  us  no  guidance  as  to  the  questions  presented  for  review 
 or  his  contentions  regarding  any  alleged  error  in  the  Bureau’s  decision.  See  Application  of  Sparkling  City 
 Communications,  Inc.,  10  FCC  Rcd  12220  (1995)  (mere  statement  that  “the  Commission  has  misapplied 


 1  File  No.  BPH-  950503MC. 
 2  File  No.  BPH-  950511MI. 
 3  See  Letter  from  Linda  Blair,  Chief,  Audio  Services  Division,  Mass  Media  Bureau,  to  Evan  Doss,  Jr.,  Frank  R. 


 Jazzo,  Esq.,  and  Leola  D.  Dickey,  Ref.  1800B3-  JWR  (January  25,  1999). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  58 
 2 
 Commission  policy  and  precedent,”  along  with  reiteration  of  earlier  arguments,  did  not  specify  factors 
 mandating  review  with  required  particularity). 


 3.  Moreover,  having  reviewed  the  Bureau’s  decision,  we  find  that  it  was  correct  and  that  there  is 
 no  basis  which  warrants  reversal. 


 4.  Accordingly,  in  light  of  the  above  discussion,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that  the  Petition  for  Review 
 filed  February  11,  1999  by  Evan  Doss,  Jr.,  IS  DENIED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Magalie  Román  Salas 
 Secretary 
2