For~H. Ieagers and $0 1 O but Nothing That Ties You Dawn There Or 12 1 A~Ything of That Sort Right Now? 13 a 1 Have No Family 0'" Friends There Ather Than 1

--11 / 1

1 they disagreed with either your fath~r·. or your awn 1 Is that corroct? religiOUS belief5. 2 1 didn't say anything of the kind. 1 , No, sir. JUDGE LUTON: That's fine. Stop. 1 1 BV MR. ALPERT; Do yoU have a~y ties 1 Q whatsoever to Blackfoot, Id~ho currentlY? 1 1 A What do you mean by ties? 1 Q Family, friends, property, anything? • 1 • A 1 v lsited there.. .,et sa.,e peap1e, ca,•.,unit y 1 for~h. ieaGers and $0 1 o But nothing that ties you dawn there or 12 1 a~ything of that sort right now? 13 A 1 have no faMily 0'" friends there ather than 1

1 the people t'v. Met when t visited. 1ft ,. o Okay. ASSUMing you get thiS grant do you have 1 any plans right now to only own this property for a 1

finite period of time? 1 .8 A No, 1 have no plans to sell it if that's what tt 1 yoU lRe.n. 1 That'. what 1 meant. 21 Q 1 you say that yOU in..-r,d to establish a dOMicile in 1 Blackfoot. Is that correct? 23 1 A Yes. o. Do you intend to .,aintain any other residences 1

1 25 1 1 "," 1 78

• anywhere else in the country at the time that you have your domicile in 91ackfoot?

J No, I intend to live in Blackfoot. • Q No oth&r residence~ anywhere else? s No.

, Q And it's your intention to,

7 and purposes, for the foreseeable future to live there

• forevel''? • MR. FRIEDMAN: Objection, Your Honor. Forever ·10 is irrelevant.

11 MR. ALPc:nT:

12 the Commission's policy is that integration proposals

13 should be on a permanent basis. Permanent is equated, I

,. believe, to forever.

3UDGE LUTON: I think an indefinite period of I' time would be enough. I don't think he should commit t7 himself to forever living in anyone place.

11 to ask the witness whether he intends to stay in I' Blackfoot for an indefinite tim., that'. okay_ 20 BY MR. ALPERT:

21 Q Do you intend to live in Blackfoot for an 22 indefinite period of time?

23 Yes.

2' Q Can you foresee any circu~stances uncer which 2S you would leave? For in$ta~ce, buying an~ther broadcast

,I ," ., /

ATTACHMENT 6 /

Richard P. Bott, II MM Docket No. 87-223 File No. BPH-850711MM Bott Exhibit No. 4

BIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENT OF RICHARD P. BOTT, II

My name is Richard P. Bott, II. I am currently a Vice President and a director of Bott Broadcasting Company, Independence, Missouri. I hold similar positions with the related companies of Victory Communications, Inc. and Bott Communications, Inc•• I am a citizen of the United states and I have lived at 8603 Buckingham Lane, Kansas City, Missouri, for approximately the past four years. If my application is granted, I will move to and make Blackfoot, Idaho my domicile. I will serve, on a full-time basis of at least 40 hours per week, as General Manager of my proposed station. I graduated with honors from Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina, in 1977. I received a Bachelor of Science Degree. I majored in Business Management and minored in Radio and Television. In 1981, I received a Masters Degree in Business Administration from the Graduate School of Business Administration of Harvard University in Ca.bridge, Massachusetts. During my MBA studies, I undertook a research project concerning the radio broadcasting business. My broadcast experience dates back to my high school days. -From 1970-73, I worked afternoons at Station KCCV(AM), Independence, Missouri, as an announcer and program producer. I /

Bott Exhibit No. 4 Page 2

was producer of the weekly radio program "Teen Tempo." At Bob Jones University, I worked at campus Station WBJU(~? from 1974-77. At the station, I was in cbarge of promotions, programming, and advertising. For two years, from 1977-79, I was General Manager of Media Management Associates, an advertising agency in South Carolina. After spending the next two years at Harvard University, I returned to radio as General Manager for Station WFCV(AM}, Fort Wayne, Indiana, for approximately a six-month period in 1981 an~ 1982. In 1982, I joined Bott Broadcasting Company ("BBC") as Vice President for Sales and Marketing. In 1984, I became Vice President of BBC. I work on a full-time basis of at least 40 hours per week at BBC handling administrative matters for BBC and its associated companies' radio stations. My principal responsibility has been to ensure that the day-to-day activities of the stations are carried out in an effective and profitable manner. My managerial duties include a broad range of areas that I am personally in charge of and aleo some .atters that I share with the President of BBC. The duties that tend to be my principal ones are in supervising the activities of the individual station general managers, handling the sale of national advertising time on the stations, monitoring the financial conditions of the corporation and its stations, and ensuring that our business plan is met. , * / /

Bott Exhibit No. 4 Page 3

I am involved in the Independence, Missouri Chan,ber of Commerce as well as church groups and other community and civic organizations. The chance to build, nurture, and develop my own radio station business is one that I have sought since my business school days. While I wiil remain an officer and director of BBC and its associated companies, as well as ownin,g the Central Valley station, I will treat them as matters of secondary importance. I expect that BBC will hire someone to handle the duties I have been responsible for and that my only contact with EBC will be occasional board of directors meetings. As for the Central Valley station, I will employ a general manager for all day-to-day activities and will limit my involvement to reviewing his work from my Blackfoot home and office. The FM station at Blackfoot will, as a result, be my principal endeavor. 4· / /

Richard P. Bott, II MM Docket No. 87-223 File No.BPH·8S071IMM 'Bott Exhibit No.4 Page 4

DECLARATION

I, Richard P. Bott, II, declare under penalty of perjury, that the information contained in the foregoing exhibit is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Further Executed at I on the ci1t/g day of November, 1987.

~ :. Rlcnard P. Bott, 11

31 /

ATTACHMENT 7

---./ 32 ,* /

DPOUft.

WAlBDlOTOM. D. Co ....

In re Applications of ) MM Docket No. 87-223 ) RICHARD P. Barr, II ) Fi1. No. BPH-8S07llMM ) RADIO REPRESENTATIVES, INC. ) File No. BPH-8S07l~ ) CLARE MARIE FERGUSON ) File No. BPH-850712MS ) For Construction Per.it for ) a New FM Station in ) Blackfoot, Idaho ) ) To: Honorable Edward Luton Administrative Law Judge

PROPOSED FtNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OF RICHARD P. BOTT, 11

Barry A. Pri~n MieMe1 Drayer .I~ ~ SCHEINER Suite 300 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 861-7800

February 8, 1988

'----..-" 33 /

-33-

quantitative participation. see Alexander S. Klein, Jr., .upra, '---.-.-' 86 FCC2d at 424-25, Jarad Broadca.ting COllpany, Inc., .upra, 1 FCC Rcd. 181. (1) Richard P. Bott, II

70. Richard P. Bott, II, will be perunently integrated into the day-to-day operation .nd ••nagement of hi. proposed atation on a full-tiM basi. of at leaat 40 hour. per week. Fdgs. '11. Bott will serve •• General Manager of his propo.ed station. Id. General Manager is the highest-level ..nageMnt position, with a substantial policy-making component, and i. specifically cited by the Commission a. a position placed at the highest level of int;egration credit. Policy Stat_nt, .upra, 1 FCC2d at 395. Having specified that the .ole principal of the

~' applicant will be the station's general manager, Bott must receive this level of integration credit. !!! Alexander s. Klein, Jr., supra, 86 FCC2d at 432 n. 41. Accordingly, Bott should receive 100\ quantitative integration credit. 71. Bott's 100' quantitative credit is entitled to qualitative enhanc..ent for his proposed relocation to Blackfoot and hi. sub8tantial broadca.t experience. Bott ha••tated that if his application is granted, he will MOve to Blackfoot. Fdgs. I 12. Thu., Bott ia entitled to a slight local residence enhancement credit for this future local residence. See Vacationland Broadcasting Company, Inc., 97 FCC2d 485, 495 (Rev. Bd. 1984) • Furthermore, although broadcast experience is a factor of lesser enhancement value, Bott is entitled to enhancement for bis extensive broadcast experience, which 34 +

ATTACHMENT 8

35 /

WITHDRAWN FROM. ORAL ARGUMENT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 13 (i) UHITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT COURT

RADIO REPRESEN'l'ATIVES.,- INC. , * '. * Petitioner, * No. 90-1227 * vs. * * FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION * * Respondent, * * RICHARD P. BO'rl', II, * * Intervenor. * RESPONSB .'M MOTIOft TO REIWID 1'0 RIOPIIf TIlE RECORD Richard P. Bott, II ("Bott"), Intervenor in the above referenced appeal, by his attorneys and pursuant to Local Rule 7 (d), hereby responds to the Motion to Remand to Reopen the Record filed herein by Radio Representatives, Inc. ("RRI") , Appellant. In support hereof, Bott states as follows: 1. In presenting its Motion, RRI argues to this Court that it has calle upon new evidence that undercuts the integration credit heretofore awarded Bott by the Federal co_unications Commission ("FCC"), thereby requiring a further evidentiary hearing. The evidence allegedly arises from the Initial Decision of an FCC Administrative Law Judge in a comparative hearing in which Bott was neither a party nor a witness. Raymond J. and Jean-Marie Strong, FCC 910-3, released January 31, 1991 ("Strong"). From evidence related to the application to the FCC of Bott·s father, Richard Batt, Sr., to build a new FM radio • / /

station at Bartlett, Tennessee, RRI constructs a theory that Batt will not carry through on the integration pledges Bott has made '----- to the FCC in the instant case. .l/ This claim is wide of the mark. 2. In the first place, RRI's Motion is untimely filed and must be dismissed. As RRI admits, the standard for reopening a trial-type hearing is that the movant must have acted with due diligence to locate and submit its claims. omaha TV 15, Inc., 4 FCC Rcd 730 (1988). RRI is seriously deficient in this regard. 3• The hearings in the strong proceeding were conducted over the period from JUly 9 to 16, 1990. Raymond J. and Jean Marie Strong, supra at 12. RRI has had seven months to study the transcripts of the hearings, draw its conclusions, and file a motion raising its allegations. It did not act expeditiously

~-" and, only now, with briefing completed and court action expected in this case, does it submit its Motion. In failing to act with due diligence, RRI has waived its right to bring this Motion, frivolous as it may be. 4. Even assuming the Motion is entertained as timely tiled, it relates to an issue that RRI did- not pursue and is, therefore, moot. In neither its Exceptions to the FCC'sReview Board, its Application for Review to the FCC (Joint Appendix at 262), or its appeal to this Court, did RRI raise any questions in

1Interestingly, since Bott, Sr. did not receive the construction penait, he will not be moving to Bartlett and requiring a replacement for his present position. That eliminates any question that Bott has a restriction on his ability to relocate to Blackfoot. 2 31 *' / /

regard to the validity of Bott's integration commitment. It is a fundamental tenet of administrative and jUdicial review that an argument that is not pursued is waived. Rogers Radio Communications Services, Inc. v, Federal Communications commission, 751 F.24 408, 413 n.14 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Fidelity Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications commission, 515 F.2d 684, 696 (D.C. cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 926 (1975). Having waived its claims on this matter, by failing to pursue them below, RRI leaves no issue for the Commission to reopen. Thus, the Motion should be dismissed based on a waiver of the argument being made. 5. As for the substance of RRI's claim, it suffers from a fundamental flaw. The arguments made by RRI concerning Bott do not contain any evidence, either direct or hearsay, that directly involve Bott. Bott was not a witness in the strong case and no witness in strong claims to have spoken to Bott or attempted to describe his plans or intentions. RRI accuses Batt of not being truthful in his integration claims through testimony that does not even deal with what Bott has said or done. This is hardly the type of convincinq, dispositive evidence that is required by the Commission to reopen its record. omaha TV 15. Inc., supra. It is insufficient for any purpose other than to be rejected. 6. Appended hereto are the pages of the transcript of the strong hearing that bear any relation to Batt. These transcript pages evidence a record far different from that presented by RRI. No question is asked of Bott, Sr. as to Batt's plans for

3 .. / /

Blackfoot. No question is asked of the witness whether he has

';/, consulted with Batt in regard to Bott's plans to be integrated '''''f'' :;; ~- into the management of the Blackfoot station or other broadcast management positions. In fact, when the testimony tumed to another application filed by Bott, for a new radio station at Olathe, Kansas,Y Bott, Sr. testified that he was not aware of his son's plans (Tr. 1812):

Q. Well, let me ask you this first. Are you aware that your son Rich had applied for a new station in Olathe, Kansas? I'm not sure of the pronunciation, o-~-a-t-h-. e. .. ". .;: ...... A. Olathe. Q. I'm unclear on what happened to the application. A. I think it's still pending. Q. It's still pending. Do you know if he plans to run that station as its General Manager? A. I cannot speak for him. I honestly don't know. Lastly, no question is asked whether any claims being made

by Bott, Sr. are conditioned on Bott's Blackfoot plans.lI In the absence of such questions, RRI is reduced to speculation, which

2Thi. application was filed .ub.equ.~t to the Blackfoot application and 4i4 not include an inteqration comaittaent. Bott dismissed the application at the time it was designated for comparative hearing.

3We submit that had testimony been elicited on this specific subject, that Batt, Sr. would have indicated that he was testifying as to his son's role in management only as of the time of the hearing. He would not have said that Bott's involvement would continue if and when the instant case reaches finality and Bott can construct the Blackfoot facility.

4 3'1 • /

should not be permitted. 7. RRI cites (Motion, p.S) one portion of the Judge's decision as being dispositive of its claim. Therein, RRI provides emphasis to the JUdge's statement that Bott will take over the family's business. However, the following colloquy from the trial transcript hardly supports such a conclusion (Tn. 1776): Judge Kuhlmann: "But how are (you] going to leave all that behind and get off to Bartlett, Tennessee and do it?" The Witness: "1 think that he is ready now and would __ 11

8. It is painfully obvious that RRI has presented this Court with conjecture and surmise, not evidence as to any alteration in Bott's representations to the FCC. There simply is no record evidence that Batt's father offered any testimony undermining Batt's integration pledge in this case. In fact, no questions were raised in the strong proceeding as to Blackfoot. All there is involves vague testimony as to Bott, Sr.'s plans. Nothing at all deals with the plans or intentions of Bott. A record devoid of this is not one on which to construct any conclusions, especially those that would continue a proceeding that started almost six years ago. 9. In order for a hearing to be held on any matter, there must be more than a mere factual dispute. The matter must, as RRI noted, be sufficient to affect the ultimate disposition of this case. Omaha TV 15, Inc., supra. Nothing presented by RRI rises to that level. As is obvious from the transcript, the

'--- 5 '-10 evidence presented by RRI raises no questions as to the truth and veracity of Bott. Rather, RRI's failure to introduce the transcript in connection with its Motion raises questions concerninq an intention to delay resolution of this case. In that Bott has not wavered from his inteqration pledqe and reaains committed to move to Blackfoot and carry out his plan to construct and operate the new Blackfoot station, while RRI has failed to offer any evidence to the contrary, there is absolutely no basis for a reaand. On the contrary, a decision affirming the Commission's action should issue at the earliest possible tiae. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Motion to Remand to Reopen the Record be denied. RespectfUlly Submitted, :~~U:~ Barry A.\Friedman 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)822-8250 Attorney for Richard P. Bott, II Dated: February 19, 1991

6 41 .. , Transcript of p'oceedings lefORE T 1JTeberal ([nmmuniratf us (ltDmmissiDU

In the Matter of: Docket No. 89-606 BARtLETT. TENNESSEE

DATE: July 16. 1990 VOLUME: 7

PACES. 1700 - 11S0

Capital Hill R porting i oglt:lAt d(&~O U t 182,!J( ~"'d, .tlv. 42. '. : tW~lIaston, ~. /1!th?) 466- * 15:19':' . REDDY. BEGLEY I'lI;'(T IN I 1112

1 BY MS. MAHONEY: I Hr. Bott, g01n9 b~Ck to yuux statement In youl 2 Q. ~ou'~e ~eml-r.tlrp.d, 3 1ntegration statement that currently do you teeal1 belnq asked, ~, when 41~ you become fteml- I

5 retlr~d? I h~s 6 A. That has been an ;evQlvlng process. There

,.. not been a t1ate OJ: a time, itt ha~ jU%Jt taken place. I I 8 Q. And when dId thdq evolving process bogin? I A. Agoln thls answe~ is not txadltlonal, but maybe i 10 when 1 was 30 year~ uld It:ha~ been an evolutlan.

11 Q. So you started t~e retlrement pJ:oce~. when you 1 12 were 301

13 A. That's why the ttrm 1. a little non-standard and

14 alfferent In many times D ~elson wuuld use th~t term. I lS y. Could you -- 16 JUDGE KUHLMANN: IWell, 1s this because HI. Botl, 11 that you wouldn't have to ~ork at all 1£ you dIdn't want 18 to? YOU wouldn't have t.u .bo anythlJICJ7 19 THE WITNESS: YO~J:: Honor, t have a little s1gn I 20 where I shave every mornin~ that says when your work 1s

21 work, you're in the wrong ~ind o( work. I I 22 JUOGE KUHLMANN: ! No, my question is much more I functionally, you see, an1 less ethereal. If you declded that you didn't want to d1 anyth1nq for Butt Broodeaotln9 today, to~rrow or ever a~aln, could you do ~h~t 1£ you

CAPIT~L MILd REPORTING, iNC. LJ~ --- - -= 1113

0 1 wanted to? Would the company 9 right on?

That.' uoulA"~ be a matter of opln10n. 2 THE WITNERS:

v 3 I suppo:;e within QUI faml1 " " wouldn't it. JUDGE KUflLHANN: ~ don't know, that's what 1'.

5 asking you.

6 THE W1TNESS: In qy opinion, 1 think I contrl-

l' bute a lot ~nd hopefully I ~o

KUHLHA~N; 8 JUDGE 'ut, If you call up your son.

RIchard tomollow, you ~al~ took, Rlcha~d 1:5 it Rlcha~d I to· that kln~ of run~thln9S -- and you ~ald to him 1 'rn not I 11 gOing to bt able: to do thl:5; anymore, I'm g01n9 to :5pend

12 ~ost of my t1me tak1ng trip. to Disneyland, would you d 13 then, could you do that 1f ~ou wanted Lu?

14 THE WITNESS: He ha~ d HDlvara N8A and would I he 15 pxob3bly .. 16 JUDGE ICUHLHAtfN: iSO ht: could take over If he

17 want~4 to and you could te~l hi. that if you wanted to• . 18 THE WITNESS: Th~t Could be interpreted, yes, l' that would be.

I 20 JUDGE KUHLI1At<1N: IYou ::St:~, we: have to have :lome .. I 21 thing fa illy ~peclflc to d~al with on the record here. Go 22 ahead, MS. Mahoney.

23 DY 1'1S. HAIlOtlI:Y:

24 g. H%. Bott, do youJ recall at your de~~altlon you ;

2S were asked to :~~~:~~ bO~_~b:_pr:eess that 90~ you fEo. i/l/ ~ ," /

1715

te~llmony h 1 in thla ptoceedinq 1s in paragraph thxoU9 Batt &ubSldlalie~ 2 nroadcd!tlnq Company and its I contlol and • you h·d uunted to be the 3 theu you 1 iot ttIe s·.tatlons••I ... yo full-tlm~ Manaqe~ 4 General rlt anyone of those st.ations 1n

S the la~t ten year~, you coul~ have been, couldn't you?

6 A. It woulO have been diffieult to have been the

1" full-tIme General Manaqe~ dt a station considerably apart

o from ~y residence.

9 Q. well, the~~ were atationa that you contxolled

10 rIght 1n the same community ~s your residenee, were there

11 not; at least one?

12 A. It would have been Impo~sible to have been the

13 full-time Genel:al HanaCler of the stat10n whc:tt: I have a

14 residence and continued to 4evote the time: ~o Batt Broad- 15 c:astinq Company as a whole that. I have done.

16 o. But your son Rlchaiu could have taken on some of 11 those 4utles1

18 A. As a matter of evolutlon.~y process elao, h.-s a

19 very younq man and this has ~8pp~ned a1&0 over a pexiod of

20 years, his 8bllity to do that. I wuulu say now he coul~

21 much more easily than he could have up until recently.

22 JUDGE KUHLMANN: . W~ll, when do you thln~ he was

ready to take over whal. he doe:5 now ox what you think he

could do 1I0W? .' '-15 THB WITNESS: I think the business of radio· h.··~D;::= .~~~~;,~ . ~:.: z;;.-. .,.It ,... .. '"~ ------_ .. - '-".'-~~~ • * / 1776

1 does very well, I'm not sute the phl1090phy, the nature of

2 radIo, the tOea of communications and interaction with the

3 community. The service of %adl0 15 somethl ft9 I think only a person only really has a taste for through experience

5 and 401n9 it, little by little.

6 JUDGE KUHLMANN: And only you could do that? THE WITNESS: That's been the thin9 that 90t me

8 1nvolveo In r~~10 in the fl%8t place and the thing that

, I've lovAd r19ht along.

10 JUUUE KUHLMANN; Dut how are goin9 to leave all 11 that behInd and go off to Baxtlett, Tennessee and do it?

12 THE Wl~NESS: I think that he 15 ready now and

13 he would

14 JUDGE KUHLMANN: Oh, tie would eSo both now?

15 THE WITNESS: Yes.

16 JUOO£ KUHLMANN: Okay, ~o 1f you wanted to

17 tomorrow mornlng yuu could 90 over to the Oberlin park

18 at~tlon, for example, and start lat:lil9 the Oene:al Managee . l' there? tn fact you're lookln9 for somebody r19ht there

21 THE WITNESS; Yes, si%.

22 JUDGE KUHLMANN: You could do th~t 1f you want~d

23 to.

24 THE WITNESS: Xf I wanted to continue living in

25 Kanaaa City.

CAPITAL HILL REPOR7INO, INC. lS:~ REDDY. BEGLE'( N+; I ! N .... .---.- - 1111

1 O. Does he lec~lve any kind of salery from you

2 pexsonally?

3 A. No.

of Q. NOW, when he dId the Inquiry as to the cost

5 e~timates for your personal station, he did that as your , employee; is that correct?

"J A. Yes. "'. 8 Q. So basically he cUeS that as an employee of Batt

9 DIOBdca~tln9 com~any?

10 A. I would say he probably did that as my son. He

11 was not paid fox that and h1s notes were handwr:ltten ona

12 piece of paper. ~ CI 13 Q. lId l1ke to direct y.our attent10n to your depo- 14 zltlon test1mony at page 123. startln9 at line two you

lS were asked, 1n the preparation of your applIcation for

16 sartlett, did you receive any a"l~tance from any members

17 of your family and what was youx r:e~ponae1

18 A. Yea.

1~ Q. And then you were asked, okay, which .e~ers and

20 what form of u,sl~tance. Could you read your re~ponse, 21 plea:"e7

22 A. 1 asked Rich to do some inItial InQulxy a~ to

23 equipment need~ a~ my employee, someone undex my employ

24 an4 h4:1 cUd so.

-J 25 Q. Ino:::T:: ::::d::::R::N:~~: N:~Pl'lCat10n 4~r,j ~".~' 1112

* fl····A~e ~.ware 1 Well, let me ~s k yo U thl w ~~~. ~ you that your 1 1 m 2 90n Rich had applied for a station 1n Olathe, Kanaas? 3 not sure of the pronunciation, O-l-a-t-h-e.

4 A. Olathe.

5 Q. I'm unclear on what happened to that appllca~ 6 tion. "1 ... A. t think it's still pendln9. 8 Q. It'~ 8tl1l pending. Do you know If he plana to

9 run that stdtlon as its General Hana9~t?

10 A. I cannot speAK for h1m, I honestly don't know.

11 Q. IOU don't know. But he 1:s.r19ht now vice

12 presl0ent ana General Manager of Bott Broadc~Dtln97

13 A. Yes.

14 Q, Do you have any -- I just want to make the 15 record clear. You saId you were not sure whether you . . 16 continue to retain a salary at Bott BroadcastIng Company.

17 Is It falr to say that you have no plans at this point to

18 stop youx ~al~ry at lott Bzoa4casttng Company?

19 A. No plans at wha~ point.

20 Q. At this ~ulnl, tOday.

21 A. No, it's. faIr to say I have no plQns to do that.

7.2 Q. When C11C1 you dec1de l.o u~~ume integrated full

23 time at your proposed ~artlett station an~ move tu

24 Bartlett 1£ your appllcatlun WdS granted? .' 2S A.. I think In our own .104, my mln4 an4

CAPITAL HILL REPORTING, I"C. r?t'l" 4~I:-Qc;nn *' /

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

.---. I, Barry A. Friedman, do hereby certify that I mailed this /1:!- day of r"/J1I.1/1!1e V , 1991, a copy at the foreqoinq 7 "Response to Motion to Remand to Reopen the Record- by first- class mail, postage pre-paid, to the following: David Silberman, Esquire Federal Communications Commission Office of the General Counsel Room 614 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Dan J. Alpert, Esquire Ginsburg, Feldman and Bress, Chartered 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036