WPC  2EB;U@Z3|xT) yO-#C\  P6QP#"5@^.7O]]x(77Aa.7..]]]]]]]]]]77aaafxxxxofx.]xfxoxofxooof7.7a]7]f]f]7ff..].ffffA]7f]]]SA/Aa.7777CE7\fx]x]x]x]x]x]o]o]o]o]........xfffffxfxfxfxfo]x]xfffo]xfofx]x]x]x]x]x]o]o]o]ffffxfxfCf7f77.f]x]f.fExfxffxAxEo]o]N:.]]7f]]]]]>=]7{{]7..SS]77]].S77t7\[[\aee*C`a.wR]]n[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}.7O]]x(77Aa.7..]]]]]]]]]]77aaafxxxxofx.]xfxoxofxooof7.7a]7]f]f]7ff..].ffffA]7f]]]SA/Aa}}}.]S]]7o7}}}}..SS:]7]7}}o.7]]]]/]7{>]a7{\C\777`].77=]fxxxxxxxoooo....xxaxxxxoof]]]]]]]]]]]....fffffff\fffff]fHP LaserJet 4/4MtScript ROOM 224HPLAS4.WRSSP2p NQ,,P2s ;w)@X yO-#C\  P6QP#Arial (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (TT)"5@^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSS>e'P8.XP2p NQy.C8*XC\  P6QP&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&2D  Z   + 3|xHP LaserJet 4/4MtScript ROOM 224HPLAS4.WRSSx  @,,PX@Courier New (TT)Courier New (Bold) (TT)2Xv R ?xxxX/Xx6X@DQX@6?xxxXXx `NQXR&HHHX,hH6X@DQh@ hB@;S(p@u ?<Dة@$//Central Florida Comm. Grp. MM 90633 FCC 94338//$ $/1.106 Petitions for reconsideration/$ ///newjob/// $///FCC 94338 123094///$ ,Before the  ?<0  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ă Washington, D.C. 20554 FCC 94338  ?<In re Applications ofhh@h)ppMM Docket No. 90633 x` `  hh@h)  ?<CENTRAL FLORIDAhh@h)ppFile No. BPH880505MS  ?` <COMMUNICATIONS hh@h)  ?( <GROUP, INC. hh@h) x` `  hh@h)  ? <MICHELLE N. TERZYNSKIhh@h)ppFile No. BPH880505PL x` `  hh@h)  ?H <For Construction Permit for@h)  ?<New FM Station on Channel 277Ah)  ?<Holly Hill, Floridahh@h)  ?0<= ORDER ă  ?<x ` ` xAdopted: December 22, 1994; Released: January 6 %R , 1995 By the Commission:  ?p< I. BACKGROUND ă x1. This order dismisses in part and denies in part a Petition for Reconsideration, filed January 12, 1994, by Central  ?<Florida Communications Group, Inc. (CFCG).( u ?<ԍ Also before the Commission are: (1) an opposition, filed January 26, 1994, by Michelle N. Terzynski, and a reply, filed February 4, 1994, by CFCG; (2) a Petition to Rescind Construction Permit, filed March 29, 1994, by CFCG, an opposition, filed April 11, 1994, by Terzynski, and a reply filed April 21, 1994, by CFCG. In its petition to rescind, CFCG asks the Commission, pending resolution of CFCG's petition for reconsideration, to rescind a construction permit issued to Terzynski. Alternatively, CFCG asks the Commission to condition the construction permit on the resolution of CFCG's petition for reconsideration. Because we are now disposing of the petition for reconsideration, the petition to rescind is moot and will be dismissed. CFCG seeks reconsideration of a Commission order that denied review of a Review Board decision denying CFCG's application for a new FM radio station in Holly Hill, Florida and granting the mutually  ?<exclusive application of Michelle N. Terzynski. Central Florida" 0*0*0*#"  ?<Communications Group, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 4128 (Rev. Bd. 1993), rev.  ?<denied, 8 FCC Rcd 8725 (1993). x2. The Board found that CFCG did not demonstrate that it was financially qualified at the time it filed its application because it did not show the availability of sufficient assets to meet its estimated costs. 8 FCC Rcd at 412931  811. The Board faulted a financial statement submitted by CFCG as inadequately documenting liquid assets relied on. The Board also rejected CFCG's reliance on real estate as not supported by valid appraisals. Because CFCG did not demonstrate its qualifications at the time it filed its application, the Board did not permit CFCG to rely on a bank letter obtained subsequently. The Commission denied review without comment.  ? <0  II. PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION ă x3. In its petition for reconsideration, CFCG reiterates its arguments that: (1) its financial statement adequately demonstrated the availability of sufficient liquid assets; (2) there is no reason to doubt the adequacy of its nonliquid assets to meet its costs; and (3) the Commission should have taken into account CFCG's bank loan. x4. Additionally, CFCG contends that changed circumstances have occurred warranting reconsideration. CFCG observes that the United States Court of Appeals recently held that the Commission's integration criterion, used in comparative  ?<proceedings, was arbitrary and capricious. Bechtel v. FCC, 10 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1993). CFCG argues that the Commission's financial qualifications policy is also arbitrary and capricious,  ?<especially as applied to minorities, and that Bechtel therefore dictates further review of this case.  ?X<,  III. DISCUSSION ă x5. CFCG has shown no basis for reconsideration. To the extent that CFCG merely repeats arguments concerning its financial qualifications previously made to the Commission, its petition for reconsideration is repetitious and subject to summary rejection. The provisions of 47 C.F.R.  1.106(b)(2) and 1.115(g) provide that the Commission will entertain a petition for reconsideration of a ruling which denies an application for review only if the petition relies on newly  ?(#<discovered facts or changed circumstances.   ?$<x6. The only changed circumstance noted by CFCG is Bechtel. That case, however, concerned the validity of the Commission's integration criterion and not financial qualifications. Additionally, CFCG did not timely challenge the facial validity of the Commission's financial qualifications policy. CFCG did"'0*((@@/" not at any stage of this proceeding argue with specificity that the financial standards were arbitary and capricious on their face. Rather, it previously argued that it demonstrated its  ?X<financial qualifications consistent with those standards. Only  ? <now in light of Bechtel does CFCG argue, in a conclusory fashion, that the financial standards used in comparative proceedings are arbitrary and capricious. We see nothing in  ?x<Bechtel that would require us to entertain an untimely and conclusory challenge to the facial validity of a Commission policy unrelated to integration, as CFCG now seeks to make.  ?<' IV. ORDER ă x8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That the Petition for Reconsideration, filed January 12, 1994, by Central Florida Communications Group, Inc. IS DISMISSED in part and otherwise IS DENIED. x9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the Petition to Rescind, filed March 29, 1994, by Central Florida Communications Group, Inc. IS DISMISSED as moot. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton x` `  hhActing Secretary