WPCK* 2B-J Z CourierCourierTimes New Roman BoldTimes New RomanX@HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@26 FPZ3|xCourierTimes New Roman Boldoman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (TT)HP LaserJet 4/4MtScript ROOM 224HPLAS4.WRSSx  @,,PX@2v!pkkra8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 28vt*a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2 j    `a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2w G    a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2  yTech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2vga2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2.3a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:dYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^(1<" Thomas' payment of $7,500 to Hooper exceeded Hooper's documented outofpocket expenses by almost $1,777, the amount of the payment was consistent with that disclosed to the Commission in the settlement agreement originally submitted for Commission approval. We will therefore deny Petitioners' application for review with respect to the foregoing questions  X-presented.eN  X-ԍ#XP\  P6QLXP# Although Petitioners' petition to deny contained hearsay evidence that Thomas had paid Hooper $12,000, a contention that the staff found to be unsupported, Petitioners have not presented any evidence in the instant appeal that the payment from Thomas to Hooper exceeded $7,500.e In order to avoid future confusion on the part of competing applicants for broadcast facilities as appears to have occurred in this case, we want to make clear that when  Xv-dismissing an application for construction permit for a broadcast station , the Commission  X_- must affirmatively approve or disapprove a pending request for approval of settlement agreement filed pursuant to Section 311(c)(1) of the Act if the settlement agreement has a continuing effect on the rights of the parties after the dismissal.  X -x6. Radio Ownership Rules. Petitioners also allege that Thomas Development's acquisition of the subject stations constitutes excessive concentration of control in violation of the local radio ownership rules, 47 C.F.R. Sec. 73.3555. In this regard, the staff found that Thomas Development had demonstrated that there are more than 15 commercial radio stations in the relevant market defined by the area encompassed by principal community contours of KCQL(AM), KKFGFM, KRZE(AM) and KRAZFM, the stations Thomas Development proposed to acquire. Additionally, the staff determined that the combined audience share of the four station combination was 11.3 percent, and thus that Thomas Development's  XK-ownership of the combination was permissible under the local ownership rules.QK  X%-ԍ #Xj\  P6G;LXP#The local ownership rules provide that, in markets with 15 or more stations, a single entity may own up to two AM and two FM stations, provided that the combined audience share of those stations does not exceed 25 percent. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 73.3555(a)(1)(ii).Q Petitioners"K=0*((" acknowledge that there are thirteen radio stations whose principal community contours intersect the principal community contours of the stations Thomas Development seeks to acquire, and thus that there are seventeen stations counted in the market when the contour overlap standard is applied. Furthermore, the Petitioners concede that the combined audience share of the stations is less than 25 percent. However, Petitioners argue that the relevant market is comprised of fewer than 15 stations and thus that the staff failed to adequately address their argument that ownership of this combination will nevertheless result in excessive concentration of control. Specifically, Petitioners contend that there are, at most, eight stations that will actually compete with the four stations that Thomas Development proposes to coown. Consequently, Petitioners urge the Commission to find that the common  X -ownership of four stations in a 12 station market is impermissible.   X -ԍ #Xj\  P6G;LXP#In this regard, we note that in radio markets with 14 or fewer commercial radio stations, a party is limited to the ownership of three commercial radio stations, no more than two of which are in the same service, provided that the combination represents less than 50 percent of the stations in the market. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 73.3555(a)(1)(i).X01Í ÍX01Í Í x7. Petitioners assert that it is appropriate to count as stations in the market only stations whose principal community contours provide coverage to at least 92.5 percent of the population within the area encompassed by the principal community contours of the stations proposed for coownership. Using this method, Petitioners contend there are 12 stations in the market, including the four stations Thomas Development proposes to coown. Moreover, Petitioners apparently argue in the alternative that it would also be appropriate to define the market as San Juan county, and that eleven stations serve this market 10 "local" stations and a class C FM station licensed to Cortez, Colorado. Petitioners claim that their method for determining the number of stations in the market more accurately reflects the actual competition facing the proposed coowned stations. In this regard, Petitioners assert that audience share data corroborates their assertion that it is appropriate to exclude from the market defined by the contour overlap standard stations which fail to serve at least 92.5 percent of the population within the principal community contours of the proposed coowned stations. Petitioners argue that these stations either receive no audience share in San Juan county or only a small share of the San Juan county audience. x8. Petitioners' argument concerning the number of stations to be counted in the market is essentially an untimely request for reconsideration of the radio ownership rulemaking proceeding. When the local ownership rules were amended, the Commission rejected the use of geographic definitions, including the county in which the stations proposed for coownership are located, to determine the relevant radio market. Additionally, the Commission declined to determine the number of stations in a market by counting only those stations licensed to communities within the area encompassed by the principal community contours of the proposed coowned stations. Instead, the Commission decided to use a contour overlap  X -standard to determine the number of stations in a radio market. See In re Revision of Radio  X!-Rules and Policies, 7 FCC Rcd 2755 ("Report and Order"); recon. granted in part and denied"!4 0*(( "  X-in part, 7 FCC Rcd 6387 (1992) ("Recon. Order"). In this connection, the Commission concluded that: XxThis count will be made with reference to a contour overlaps standard in all situations . . . . Specifically, we will define the radio market as that area encompassed by the principal community contours . . . of the mutually overlapping stations proposing to have common ownership. The number of stations in the market will be determined based on the principal community contours of all commercial stations whose principal community contours overlap or intersect the principal community contours of the commonlyowned and mutually overlapping stations . . . .   X -Recon. Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 6395.  The Commission found that the contour overlap standard addresses the core concerns of diversity and competition while reflecting the actual options available to listeners as well as the market conditions facing the particular stations in  X -question. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 6395. Moreover, the Commission also noted that this standard for market definition is likely to be conservative because listeners in rural areas where there are few operating station, and thus low levels of daytime interference, may be able to receive signals beyond the predicted principal  XK-community contour. See Patteson Brothers , Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 7595, 7596, citing  Report and  X4-Order,  7 FCC Rcd 2755, 2779. Although Petitioners argue that some of the stations counted in the market under the contour overlap standard receive little or no audience share in San Juan county, the audience share of a station is sensitive to many factors, including the  X-programming offered on the station. See Recon. Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 6395. Consequently, the Commission has already determined that the contour overlap standard, and not market  X-share, should be used to determine the number of stations in a given market. Id. x9. Thus, the Commission has already considered and rejected Petitioners alternative arguments that the number of stations in market should be determined by counting the stations serving the area within the principal community contours of the proposed coowned stations  XN-or the county in which the proposed coowned stations are located. See Patteson Brothers, 8 FCC Rcd at 7596. The contour overlap standard is embodied in 47 C.F.R. Sec.  X -73.3555(a)(3)(ii). Under these circumstances, the staff's application of the contour overlap standard, and thus its determination, pursuant to Section 73.3555(a)(3)(ii), that there are more  X-than 15 stations in the market, was not, as Petitioners allege, arbitrary and capricious. See  X-Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. FPC, 506 F.2d 33, 38 (D.C. Cir. 1974)(Agency entitled to apply  X -properly adopted rule without entertaining challenge to policy underlying rule). Petitioners do not challenge the staff's finding that the combined audience share of the stations Thomas Development proposes to coown is less than 25 percent, and have not otherwise demonstrated an anomaly in the audience share data used to calculate the stations' combined  Xh$-audience share. See Eads Broadcasting Corporation, 9 FCC Rcd 2859 (1994). We therefore affirm the staff's finding that grant of the assignment of the stations to Thomas Development is permissible under the multiple ownership rules.  X#'-x"#' 0*((%"Ԍ qY x10. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, that the motion to set aside grant of the abovecaptioned applications IS DENIED, and that, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.115, the application for review filed by Basin Broadcasting, Kennland Broadcasting, and Dewey Matthew Runnels IS DENIED. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@William F. Caton  X -x` `  hh@Acting Secretary