Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-14
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Golden Gulf Coast Broadcasting, Inc.,
Assignor
and
Capstar TX Limited Partnership,
Assignee
Application for Assignment of License of
WQYZ(FM), Ocean Springs, Mississippi
Golden Gulf Coast Broadcasting, Inc.
Application for Renewal of License of
WQYZ(FM), Ocean Springs, Mississippi
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. BALH-20031125ALX
Facility ID No. 24513
File No. BRH-20040202AHI
Facility ID No. 24513
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  February 20, 2014 Released: February 20, 2014
By the Commission:
1. The Commission has before it an Application for Review filed by WJZD, Inc. (“WJZD”).  
WJZD seeks review of a March 12, 2007, action by the Media Bureau (“Bureau”) (“Reconsideration 
Decision”)
1
dismissing WJZD’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Bureau’s May 26, 2005, grant of the 
above-captioned applications (“Applications”) filed by Golden Gulf Coast Broadcasting, Inc. (“Golden”) 
for assignment and renewal of the license for station WQYZ(FM), Ocean Springs, Mississippi.
2
  In the 
Reconsideration Decision, the Bureau affirmed its prior finding that WJZD had failed to raise a 
substantial or material question of fact whether Golden and the assignee, Capstar TX Limited Partnership 
(“Capstar”), had engaged in an unauthorized transfer of control of station WQYZ(FM).
3
  The Bureau 
found on reconsideration that it had applied the correct legal standard by looking beyond the contractual 
terms of the parties’ local marketing agreement and examining which party had exercised actual 
operational control over the personnel, programming, and finances of the station, concluding that Golden 
had properly done so.  
2. In the Staff Decision and Reconsideration Decision, the Bureau thoroughly addressed 
each of WJZD’s factual allegations regarding de facto control, including the relocation of the station’s 
                                                     
1
Lawrence E. Steelman, Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 4866 (MB 2007).
2
WJZD, Inc., Letter, 20 FCC Rcd 9941 (MB 2005) (“Staff Decision”).  To the extent that the Application for 
Review purports to seek review of the Staff Decision, it is untimely and is hereby dismissed.  See 47 C.F.R. §§ 
1.115(d), 1.4(b)(2); Application for Review at 1-2. 
3
See 47 U.S.C. § 310(d).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-14
2
main studio, understaffing of its main studio, identity of its program director, its use of an unauthorized 
studio transmitter link and ex parte rule violations.  The Bureau held that these various allegations, taken 
together with all the facts on record, did not raise a substantial and material question of fact such as would 
require an evidentiary hearing.
4
  In so holding, the Bureau rejected WJZD’s contention that the Staff 
Decision was deficient because the Bureau did not distinguish the instant facts from those present in the 
cases string-cited by WJZD in its Petition to Deny, noting that, applying the Commission’s appropriate 
analysis regarding transfer of control allegations, WJZD had failed to demonstrate that Capstar had 
ultimate control over WQYZ’s programming, finances or personnel.
5
We agree with the Bureau’s 
analysis.
6
   
3. We also agree with the Bureau’s rejection of WJZD’s allegation that, WJZD having 
raised the issue of whether Clear Channel Communications and its subsidiaries, including Capstar, have 
the requisite character to become Commission licensees as a result of their alleged broadcast of indecent 
material, Clear Channel violated the ex parte rules in subsequently negotiating a consent decree with the 
Commission resolving those matters without allowing WJZD to be present.
7
  In rejecting that contention, 
the Bureau noted that the communications at issue had been requested by the Commission for the purpose 
of resolving settlement issues and therefore were exempt from the general prohibition on ex parte
communications.
8
  
4. Upon review of the Application for Review and the entire record, we conclude that 
WJZD has not demonstrated that the Bureau erred.  The Bureau, in the Reconsideration Decision, 
properly decided the matters raised, and we uphold its decision for the reasons stated therein.
5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 5(c)(5) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
9
and Section 1.115(g) of the Commission’s rules,
10
the 
Application for Review IS DISMISSED for the reasons stated in note 2 above and IS otherwise DENIED.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch  
                    Secretary
                                                     
4
The Bureau did, however, propose a forfeiture, which Golden has paid, for Golden’s failure to maintain a 
“meaningful presence” at the main studio, including managerial and staff level employees, in violation of 47 C.F.R. 
§ 73.1125.  The Bureau determined that, contrary to WJDZ’s contention, this violation did not establish that an 
unauthorized transfer of control of the station had occurred. Reconsideration Decision, 22 FCC Rcd at 4870.  We 
agree with this conclusion.
5
Reconsideration Decision, 22 FCC Rcd at 4869.
6
WJZD failed to discuss the operative facts in any of those cases, much less demonstrate that the precedent 
mandates designation for hearing here, falling far short of the requirement that it “specify, with particularity,” why 
the Bureau’s grant of the applications was in conflict with that precedent.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(b)(2)(i).
7
Application for Review at 13-15.
8
Reconsideration Decision, 22 FCC Rcd at 4871 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.1204(a)(10)).
9
47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5).
10
47 C.F.R. § 1.115(g).