[BC] Found this on an LPFM Application

[Radiofldude@aol.com]

ORIGINALLY, THIS APPLICATION FOR NEW HAVEN, WAS 'ELIMINATED' BY  THIRD
CHANNEL PROTECTION PROGRAM. EVENTUALLY, BUT FOLLOWING SUBMISSION  OF
APPLICATION BNPL-20010615ANI, A WINDOW WAS OPENED FOR  POSSIBLE
RESUBMISSION FOR CONNECTICUT APPLICANTS SO AFFECTED BY THE  THIRD-
ADJACENT CHANNEL RULE. APPLICANT STATES THAT THE RULES WITH  RESPECT
TO ATTRIBUTABLE INTERESTS ARE IN CONFLICT, AND THAT, UNDER THE  RULES
(73.860(B, AND RULE 73.871(C)(4)), IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO  AMEND,
WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SINCE THE APPLICANT IS IN APPARENT  
CONFLICT,IT SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO VALID PARTICIPATION FOR  EACH
APPLICATION. THIS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING PROVISOS:
(A) IF  APPLICANT SHOULD RECEIVE A CP FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION,
IT WILL EITHER  (I) DIVEST OF THE CONFLICTING APPLICATION; OR (II)
DECLARE THAT THE CURRENT  DIRECTOR SHALL HAVE NO PART IN THE AFFAIRS
OF THE OTHER APPLICANT. THE OTHER  APPLICANT WILL SUPPLY THE NAMES
OF ADDITIONAL DIRECTORS AT THE APPROPRIATE  TIME.
THIS APPLICANT POINTS OUT THAT, UNLIKE SEVERAL OTHERS, IT IS  NOT
APPLYING FOR 'DOZENS' OR 'HUNDREDS' OF APPLICATIONS.
FURTHER,  APPLICANT WISHES TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE RULES ARE AMBIGUOUS.
FOR EXAMPLE: THE  FCC WEBSITE FOR LPFM (LPFM NOTES), CLEARLY STATES:
'IN GENERAL, LPFM  APPLICANTS MAY APPLY FOR ONLY A SINGLE STATION'
WHILE THIS IS NOT  DISPOSITIVE, ANOTHER STATEMENTDA-01-904 (10APRIL
2001) SPCIFICALLY SAYS: 'NON  PROFIT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND
ORGANIZATION MAY NOT APPLY FOR MORE THAN  ONE APPLICATION IN THIS WINDOW. THE 
APPLICANT DID NOT APPLY FOR MORE THAN ONE  STATION IN THIS
WINDOW. FURTHER, THE SO-CALLED (5) STATION LIMITATION ON  OWNERSHIP
MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. HOW CAN ONE ENTITY OWN (5) STATIONS  UNDER
THE RULES AS YOU PROPOSE THEM? AND WITH ALL THE TALK ABOUT THE  MEGA
STATION OWNERS AND HOW MANY THOUSAND STATIONS THEY CAN OR CAN  NOT
OWN, ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO SPEND YOUR TIME THROWING OUT FOLKS
WHO  HAVE A LEGITIMATE QUESTION BASED ON YOUR CONVOLUTED RULES THAT
NO ONE CAN  UNDERSTAND?
THIS APPLICANT AGAIN STATES THAT UNDER THE RULES, IT WILL  EITHER
DIVEST, OR RECUSE THE MANAGMENT AS YOU REQUIRE. AFTER (3) YEARS
OF  WAITING, IT IS A WONDER THAT ANY OF YOUR APPLICANTS ARE STILL
INTERESTED.  SHAME ON THIS PROGRAM!


PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT (1). APPLICANT, FOLLOWING DENIAL BASED ON  3RD
ADJACENT RULE, FILED FOR AN ADDITION LOCATION. THEN, THE WINDOW
OPENED  FOR 'CORRECTION' TO ORIGINAL APPLICATION. AS STATED, APPLICANT
WILL EITHER  (I) DIVEST OF ANY OTHER LPFM INTEREST PRIOR TO COMMENCING
OPERATIONS OR  (II)RECUSE AS DIRECTOR, AND NOT TAKE PART IN AFFAIRS
OF MANAGMENT, ADDITIONAL  DIRECTORS NAMES WILL BE SUPPLIED AT THAT
TIME, OR AT THIS TIME IF REQUESTED.  KINDLY GIVE US THE CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT....NONE OF US ARE GRETTING ANY  YOUNGER, AND IT HAS BEEN (3)
YEARS! PLEASE HELP  US!