WPC 2BVTZ 3|x)?xxx,YXx6X@DQX@HP LaserJet IIISiROOM 610HPLAIISI.WRSx  @,,,B!~X@2@ ZP @3|xHP LaserJet IIISiROOM 610HPLAIISI.WRSx  @,,,B!~X@"5@^2BRdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BB!BBPRBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdBdBBBdNdz8zRdddBRoNoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd2SS&@y@Z Courier New (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)CG Times (WN)"5@^2Boddȧ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BB!BBPRBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNBNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldBddddddXx6X@DQX@7PC2,CXP\  P6QXP.7UC2,(XU4  pQX8C;,EX PjQXPR&HHH,hH6X@DQh@W!0(,߳h0\  P6QhP       2@R"5@^(1<X@##XP\  P6QCXP#1055 (1994), and  X%0  Modification of FCC Comparative Proceedings Freeze Policy, 9 FCC Rcd 6689 (1994); see also  X&0  Bechtel v. FCC, 10 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1993), which held that integration of ownership into"&0*o(o(&"   0 management, one of the principal criteria used for resolving comparative proceedings, is arbitrary and capricious and therefore unlawful.  and that, in light of the adoption of the Telecommunications""K0*o(o(qq#"  X0    Act of 1996, K  X@ԍ` ` #XP\  P6QCXP#Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). #Xx6X@DQ>X@#ѩ which eliminated the right of challengers to file applications for new facilities   pagainst an incumbent licensee's renewal application for applications filed after May 1, 1995, the   Commission's limitation on the amount to be paid to such a competing applicant in order to deter   0 nonbona fide filings no longer serves any public interest purpose. In Comments filed November   21, 1996, the Mass Media Bureau asserts that the public interest supports a grant of the requested   waiver in light of the fact that the limitations specified in Section 73.3523, which was intended   to deter the filing of competing applications by applicants seeking private enrichment rather than   the vindication of the public interest, are no longer necessary. The Bureau also states that there    is no reason to believe that Allegheny filed its application for the purpose of obtaining monetary   Pgain because that filing did not take place until after the rule's restriction on payments to dismissing applicants had been adopted.  X 0 x3.` ` We agree with the parties that the requested waiver of the restrictions of Section   73.3523 on settlement agreements is appropriate. We agree with the Bureau that, given the   timing of the filing of the applications here and the statutory change in the broadcast renewal   process, it serves the public interest to waive compliance with the limitations on the payment to   be made to a dismissing applicant in connection with the settlement of a comparative renewal   pproceeding. Under special circumstances involving comparative renewal proceedings, as here,   we believe that the requested waiver will not undercut the purpose of the rule and that it will   further the public interest. We thus direct the presiding ALJ to grant the applicants' request for   waiver of the provisions of Section 73.3523 and to proceed with his consideration of the   settlement agreement filed by the applicants on November 12, 1996. Other requests involving similar comparative renewal proceedings will be considered under this precedent.  X0  x4.` ` ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That the question certified to the Commission   IS ANSWERED affirmatively and that the presiding ALJ IS DIRECTED to proceed in accordance with paragraph 3, above. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@hWilliam F. Caton  X 0x` `  hh@hActing Secretary#Xx6X@DQ>X@#