WPC 2BVTZ 3|x)?xxx,wXx6X@DQX@HP LaserJet IIISiROOM 610HPLAIISI.WRSx  @,,,B!~X@2@ ZP @3|xHP LaserJet IIISiROOM 610HPLAIISI.WRSx  @,,,B!~X@"5@^;C\ccCCCcCCCCccccccccccCCDZY}}vCM}rk}CCCcccYcYcYCcc77c7ccccJM7ccccYYcYc;;!cccRcccYYYYYY}Y}Y}Y}YC7C7C7C7ccccccccc;cYcccccrccccYYc}c}c}cccccccccccccMc}7}Rccc;;JRkM;;N;ccCYQQcc;cccFcccFCC;;;;;;;;;;;;;CFtCnnyy2co6cQQnCzohbnonvyXzXshn~|yxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;C\ccCCCcCCCCccccccccccCCDZY}}vCM}rk}CCCcccYcYcYCcc77c7ccccJM7ccccYYcYc;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;CC;;;;;;;;;;;;;;CcccccccccQCcccFFcoc\cFcQY}}}}CCCCrcYYYYYYYYYYY7777cccccccccccccc2N@&hf@@ "5@^;C\ccCCCcCCCCccccccccccCCDZczM`zoǐCCCccccoYoYFco7Co7ocooYMCocccYcccc;;!cccRccocccccϐYYYYYM7M7M7M7occccoooo;ccocccczocccYYccccccccoocococcMo`o7Rooc;;YYoM;;N;ccCcUUcc;cccFcccFCC;;;;;;;;;;;;;CFtCnnyy2co6cUUnCzohbnonvyXzXshn~|yxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;C\ccCCCcCCCCccccccccccCCDZczM`zoǐCCCccccoYoYFco7Co7ocooYMCocccYcccc;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;CC;;;;;;;;;;;;;;CcccccccccUCcccFFcoccFcUcϐMMMMzoccccccYYYYY7777coccccccoooocoCourier New (TT)CG Times (WN)CG Times (WN) (Bold)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)"5@^2BRdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BB!BBPRBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdBdBBBdNdz8zRdddBRoNoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2Boddȧ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BB!BBPRBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNBNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldBddddddXx6X@DQX@8C;,X PjQXP< 7C;, VaX_ p QX!7PC2,5CXP\  P6QXP."7UC2,KXU4  pQX#W!0(,5߳h0\  P6QhPR&HHH,hH6X@DQh@.W!3(,Kh34  pQho start Help `` n Nn* ZWP IconicSymbolsA2 X0  ( X0#XP\  P6QCXP#4  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION xxFCC 97283  yxdddy (#XP\  P6QCXP# *Before the V FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  X0 Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  X0In re Applications of hh,R) MM DOCKET NO. 88400 q` `  hh,R)  Xv0GONZALES BROADCASTING, INC.,R) File No. BPH870707MJ q` `  hh,R)  XH0BOLTON BROADCASTING, LIMITED,R) File No. BPH870710MD q` `  hh,R)  X 0VOTH BROADCASTING COMPANY,R) File No. BPH870710MF q` `  hh,R)  X 0METROPOLITAN MANAGEMENT,R) File No. BPH870710MY  X 0 CORPORATION hh,R) q` `  hh,R)  X 0LORENZO JELKS hh,R) File No. BPH870710MZ q` `  hh,R)  Xy0QRW PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP R) File No. BPH870710NF q` `  hh,R)  XK0MABLETON COMMUNICATIONS, LIMITEDR) File No. BPH870710NQ q` `  hh,R)  X0For a Construction Permit for ahh,R)  X0New FM Station on Channel 273Ahh,R)  X0(102.5 MHz), Mableton, Georgiahh,R)  X0}  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă  X|0q` ` Adopted: August 7, 1997,R;ppwReleased:  #I  August 12, 1997 #I  By the Commission:  X 0J I. INTRODUCTION ă q1. This memorandum opinion and order grants a Joint Petition for Reconsideration, filed April 14, 1997, by Gonzales Broadcasting, Inc. (Gonzales), Bolton Broadcasting, Limited (Bolton), Voth Broadcasting Company (Voth), Metropolitan Management Corporation (MMC), QRW Partners Limited Partnership (QRW), and Mableton Communications Limited (MCL). These parties seek reconsideration of an order that declined to approve a settlement proposal on the grounds that it violated the provisions of 47 C.F.R.  73.3525(a)(3), which limits the reimbursement of applicants in a settlement agreement to their legitimate and  X:&0prudent expenses. Gonzales Broadcasting, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 4662 (OGC 1997) (OGC Order). Consistent with the recently enacted Balanced Budget Act of 1997, that limitation"#'0*o(o(qqP(" will be waived. As a related matter, this memorandum opinion and order denies an application for review by Lorenzo Jelks (Jelks) upon which the settlement is contingent.  X0g II. BACKGROUND ă q2. The parties listed above are the remaining competitors in this comparative proceeding for a new FM radio station in Mableton, Georgia. The Review Board granted  X_0Gonzales' application and denied those of Jelks and the others applicants. Mableton  XH0Broadcasting Company, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 7609 (Rev. Bd. 1993); Mableton Broadcasting  X10Company, Inc., 5 FCC Rcd 6314 (Rev. Bd. 1990). See also Mableton Broadcasting  X 0Company, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 4431 (ALJ 1992); Mableton Broadcasting Company, Inc., 5 FCC Rcd 2473 (ALJ 1990). The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's dismissal of Voth's application for failure to prosecute. It found that MMC, QRW, MCL, and Jelks were not financially qualified. As between the two remaining qualified applicants, Gonzales and Bolton, the Board found that Gonzales was entitled to credit for 100 percent integration of ownership into management and that Bolton was entitled to no integration credit. The parties' applications for review, filed November 22, 1993, and oppositions, filed December 7, 1993, are pending before the Commission. q3. On February 25, 1994, this case became subject to the freeze on comparative proceedings resulting from the action of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of  X0Columbia Circuit in Bechtel v. FCC, 10 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1993), which held that the  X0integration criterion was arbitrary and capricious and therefore unlawful. See Public Notice, 9 FCC Rcd 1055 (1994). The Commission modified its freeze policy to provide that if the parties to a proceeding reached a settlement that was contingent upon the resolution of specific basic qualifying issues, such issues would be adjudicated, and the settlement ruled on.  X0Public Notice, 9 FCC Rcd 6689 (1994). q4. Such a settlement, involving all of the parties except for Jelks, has now been proposed to resolve this case. The settlement is contingent on the disqualification of Jelks. The proposed settlement contemplates a hybrid arrangement calling for both the reimbursement of parties for dismissing their applications and also the formation of a new entity through merger. Under the terms of the settlement, Gonzales' application would be granted and the other applications would be dismissed. Gonzales and the dismissing applicants would receive reimbursement of their expenses. Following approval of the settlement, Gonzales would assign the construction permit to a new entity, called New Radio Broadcasters of Georgia, Inc. (New Radio). Gonzales and the other applicants would own New Radio's stock. q5. A nonparty called Mableton Investment Group (MIG) would also be involved in the settlement. MIG would loan New Radio funds, would receive the right to program the new station under a local management agreement, and would receive options to purchase the"Q%0*&&qqp&" other parties' interests in the station. If MIG does not execute its options, the applicants could require MIG to purchase their interests. q6. The Mass Media Bureau supported approval of the agreement with certain  X0conditions. The Bureau agreed with the parties that the settlement comports with the Commission's rules and that it does not violate the limits on reimbursement contained in the rules because 47 C.F.R.  73.3525(a)(3) exempts bona fide mergers from the general limit on reimbursement. The Bureau, however, objected to two aspects of the settlement, as discussed below.  X 0 III. MERGER ISSUE ă  X 0  X 0q7. OGC Order. The OGC order declined to approve the agreement, finding that the evidence did not support a finding that the proposed merger is bona fide and therefore exempt from the limits on reimbursement set forth in 47 C.F.R.  73.3525(a)(3). The Order found that provisions of the proposed merger involving options raised substantial questions as to whether the settlement in effect provided for a deferred cash payment in excess of the limits on reimbursement, as opposed to being a bona fide merger.  XK0q 8. Pleadings. In their petition, the parties argue that the OGC Order misapplied Commission policy. They contend that the proposed merger does not violate Commission policy because, whereas the policy was intended to deter the filing of abusive, speculative applications, they have vigorously prosecuted their applications for more than 10 years. In the absence of abuse, they assert that the overriding public interest lies in reducing litigation and expediting service to the public by approving the settlement. The parties also dispute the OGC Order's interpretation of the specific matters that led to disapproval of the settlement. q q9. The Mass Media Bureau supports reconsideration. The Bureau acknowledges that petitioners have not clearly shown any error or omission in the OGC Order. Mass Media Bureau's Comments on Joint Petition for Reconsideration, filed April 29, 1997 at 5. However, the Bureau submits that approval of the settlement would serve the public interest. The Bureau does not believe that the terms of the merger are impermissible. Moreover, the Bureau asserts that the applicants have prosecuted their applications in good faith for many years, indicating that applications were not abusive and that this proceeding may not be resolved in the foreseeable future absent a settlement.  X 0q10. Discussion. We find it unnecessary to reach the question of whether the  X!0proposed merger effectively provides for reimbursement in excess of the limitation imposed by 47 C.F.R.  73.3525(a)(3). Section 3002(a)(3) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 10533, 111 Stat. 251 (1997), added Section 309(l) to the Communications Act of 1934. Section 309(l) provides that, for a 180day period, the Commission "shall waive any provisions of its regulations necessary" to permit persons, who, before July 1, 1997, filed"Q%0*&&qqp&" competing applications for construction permits for new commercial radio or television stations, to enter an agreement to procure the removal of a conflict between their applications. In accordance with this mandate, we will waive the applicable limitation in this case. We will also waive the limit on reimbursement in other cases coming within the provisions of the statute. In addition to waiving regulations as required by the statute, we will look favorably on requests to waive certain other policies for cases designated for hearing where this would serve to facilitate settlement. For example, we would waive our policy that prevailing applicants in such settlements must adhere to divestiture proposals that had been submitted for  XH0consideration as part of the comparative process.RH Y @ԍ#Xw P7XP# Thus the Petition by Gene A. Bechtel for Partial Reconsideration, filed May 28,  Y 01996, seeking reconsideration of Settlements in Comparative Broadcast hearings, 11 FCC  Y 0Rcd 4748 ( 1997), is dismissed as moot.R  X 0(  IV. ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT ISSUES  X 0q 11. Because the waiver of the limits on reimbursement moots the basis upon which the OGC Order rejected the settlement, we now address the issues that the Order did not reach. As noted above, the Bureau raises two objections to the settlement. First, the Bureau argues that QRW and MMC, which were found by the ALJ to have committed misrepresentations and abuse of process, should not be permitted to acquire a stock interest in  Xy0the new licensee. The Bureau, relying on the Board's decision in Marr Broadcasting Co. Inc., 2 FCC Rcd 6596 (Rev. Bd. 1987), asserts that, although the interests of QRW and MMC would not be cognizable under the Commission's ownership attribution rules, the character qualifications of these two entities are nevertheless relevant because the Board found that "the Commission's 'noncognizable' interests policy did not extend to situations involving broadcastrelated character qualifications." Mass Media Bureau's Comments on Supplements to Joint Request for Approval of Settlement Agreement, filed November 19, 1996 at 2,  X0quoting Marr, 2 FCC Rcd at 6598  11. Second, the Bureau asserts that the Commission should not vacate the decisions below, as this is no longer routine judicial practice.  X0q 12. Contrary to the Bureau's view, we find no obstacle to the fact that QRW and MMC (which will not be actively involved in the station's affairs) will each acquire a 9.8 percent stock interest in New Radio. (The parties' stock interests are described at FCC 97I11 at  5.) These minority interests are not be cognizable under the Commission's ownership attribution rules, because Gonzales would have a 51 percent interest in New Radio and would  X 0therefore be a single majority stockholder. See 47 C.F.R.  73.3555 Note 2(b).  X0q13. We decline to follow the Review Board's suggestion in Marr that "the Commission has not extended t[he] policy of 'noncognizable interests' to situations involving  X 0broadcastrelated character qualifications." Marr, 2 FCC Rcd at 6598  11.  As we made" M0*&&qq!"  X0clear in RKO General, Inc. (KHJTV), 3 FCC Rcd 5057, 5066 n.19 (1988): "the character qualifications of owners whose interests are not attributable under the multiple ownership rules and who do not participate in station management are not considered." This result follows from the principle that the Commission's attribution rules define those interests having "that degree of influence or control over the licensee and its facilities as should subject it to  X0limitation . . . ." Attribution of Ownership Interests, 97 FCC 2d 997, 999  2 (1984). Thus, in the absence of active participation in station affairs, the holders of noncognizable interests are deemed inconsequential. q14. As an additional matter, we will vacate those findings and conclusions in the decisions below dealing with the dismissing applicants, as they request. Although we no  X 0longer routinely vacate decisions in connection with settlements (see U.S. Bancorp Mortgage  X 0Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 115 S.Ct. 386, 39192 (1994)), we have previously indicated that in the special circumstances surrounding settlements of cases subject  X 0to the Bechtel freeze, we would make an exception and vacate the findings below. See  X 0Crystal Communications, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 2149 (1997). q15. We now turn to the arguments by Jelks regarding Gonzales' qualifications. The issue raised regarding Gonzales concerns the bona fides of its ownership structure. Gonzales is a corporation of which Susan Polk is the 51 percent shareholder and president, and her husband, Lawrence Polk, is the 49 percent owner and vice president. 5 FCC Rcd at 2484  95. Both Polks propose fulltime integration into management. The ALJ denied Gonzales integration credit because he found that Gonzales' ownership structure was a "sham," that Mr. Polk actually controlled the applicant, and that Mrs. Polk could not be relied on to exercise  X0control or effectuate her integration proposal. Id. at 2485  116. The Board reversed the ALJ and awarded Gonzales 100 percent integration credit. Although the Board found evidence that Mr. Polk, rather than Mrs. Polk, would exercise control, the Board found it clear that the two would operate the station together and were thus entitled to full credit. 8 FCC Rcd at 761112  8. q16. Jelks contends that Gonzales should be disqualified or at least denied integration credit. Lorenzo Jelks Application for Review of Review Board Decision, filed November 22, 1993, at 2,3. Jelks relies on findings by the ALJ that Mrs. Polk's testimony was unreliable. For example, the ALJ found that Mrs. Polk's supposedly controlling interest in Gonzales was inconsistent with the Polks' usual practice of having major assets owned in Mr. Polk's name  X0alone. See 5 FCC Rcd at 2484  10004. He also found that although Mrs. Polk claimed Hispanic status for purposes of the Gonzales application, she did not usually do so otherwise.  X!0Id. at 2492  21419. q17. We find that this matter is moot. In view of the settlement and Jelks' disqualification, it is irrelevant whether Gonzales is entitled to comparative integration credit,  XQ%0even assuming that such a criterion survives the Bechtel decision. Moreover, there is no"Q%0*&&rrp&" question as to Gonzales' basic qualifications on this record. Despite his negative findings concerning Mrs. Polk's testimony and the reliability of the Gonzales proposal, the ALJ did not find a basis for adding an abuse of process or misrepresentation/lack of candor issue against  X0Gonzales. See Evansville Skywave, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 1699, 1700  1516 (1992) (a finding that a "sham" proposal is unreliable does not necessarily raise an issue of basic qualifications). He specifically indicated that he was not finding that Mrs. Polk deliberately lied in her testimony, and he found Gonzales basically qualified. 5 FCC Rcd at 2497  24, 2499 n.30. Jelks' gives us no reason to go beyond the ALJ's findings except to allege in a conclusory manner that the discrepancies in Mrs. Polk's testimony were more serious than  X10those found disqualifying in Richardson Broadcast Group, 7 FCC Rcd 1583 (1992). The  X 0disqualification in Richardson, however, resulted from a finding that the applicant's testimony  X 0was deliberately false and evasive. See Richardson, 7 FCC Rcd at 1585  9. As noted above, the ALJ in this case expressly declined to make such a finding with respect to Mrs. Polk and we credit his ruling in this regard. q18. In view of the foregoing, we find that the parties' Joint Request complies in all respects with the provisions of 47 U.S.C.  311(c) and the pertinent requirements of 47 C.F.R.  73.3525(a). The applicants have provided sworn statements that there is no other consideration for the dismissal of their applications, that their applications were not filed for the purpose of reaching or carrying out a settlement agreement, and that approval of the agreement will serve the public interest by facilitating the institution of new FM service to Mableton, Georgia, and by terminating this litigation. #I   X0 : V. JELKS' QUALIFICATIONS ă  X0q  #I   #I 19. Because we find that the settlement otherwise comports with the public interest, we turn to Jelks' qualifications, upon which the settlement is contingent. The Board found  X0that Jelks was financially unqualified. See 8 FCC Rcd at 761516  2021. In his application, Jelks certified that he lacked sufficient funds to construct and operate the  Xe0proposed station. Id. at 7615  20. He indicated that he would file a financial amendment  XN0relating to his financial qualifications "in the near future." Id. Nevertheless, for unknown reasons, the Hearing Designation Order in this proceeding did not specify a financial issue  X 0against Jelks. Id. at 761516  2021. Jelks did not seek to amend his application to  X 0indicate that he had sufficient funds as he represented he would. Id. at 7615  20. Ultimately, the ALJ granted a motion by Jelks' opponents and added a financial issue against  X0Jelks. Id. at 761516  2021. Jelks, however, still did not amend his financial proposal.  X 0Id. at 7615  20. q20. Jelks attempted to submit evidence that he had obtained a financial commitment from a bank during the exchange of hearing exhibits. 8 FCC Rcd at 7616  21. The ALJ rejected the evidence on the grounds that Jelks had not shown good cause to amend his  XQ%0application and disqualified Jelks for lack of financial qualifications. Id. The Board, finding"Q%0*&&rrp&" that Jelks had shown no justification for his lateness in obtaining a bank letter, affirmed Jelks' disqualification. q21. In his application for review, Jelks argues that he was not on notice that it was necessary for him to amend his application in order for him to demonstrate his financial qualifications at hearing. He claims that the Commission's policy has been routinely to permit applicants to introduce financial evidence at hearing without amending their applications. He  X_0contends that this policy was not changed until the decision in Edwin A. Berstein, 4 FCC Rcd  XH08420 (Rev. Bd. 1989), rev. denied, 5 FCC Rcd 2843 (1990), aff'd sub nom. Lefebvre v. FCC, 926 F.2d 1215 (D.C. Cir. 1991), which was released after the ALJ's ruling in this proceeding. Jelks asserts that his financial exhibits should now be accepted and that he should now be found financially qualified. He also asserts that his application about filing an amendment in the near future was not a misrepresentation. q22. We reject Jelks' contention that he lacked notice. We find no support for Jelks' assertion that Commission policy permitted an applicant to make a showing at hearing that directly contradicted a representation in the application, without showing good cause for amendment of the application. The principal is longestablished that an applicant's evidence at hearing must conform to the proposal contained in the application. As the Review Board  XK0stated in Neil N. Levitt, 33 FCC 720, 722  8 (Rev. Bd. 1962), cited by Jelks: XqX` ` All parties to a hearing have the right to prepare their cases on the basis of the proposals contained in an application. [Footnote omitted.] This right is adversely affected when applicants in hearing project proposals not of record.x`  X0q23. It may be true, as Jelks claims, that in Levitt and some other past cases the Commission has not always been strict in requiring applicants to file amendments to support their showing at hearing. The Commission's current policy, however, in effect at the time Jelks filed its application, is strict adherence to the requirement that applicants must demonstrate good cause to amend their proposals, where doing so is necessary to establish  X70their qualifications. The Commission stated in Chudy Broadcasting Corp., 58 RR 2d 133, 13435 n.7 (1985): XqX` ` We have recently undertaken to place greater emphasis on providing service to the public in the most efficient, expeditious manner possible. Temporizing with flawed proposals has in the past disserved the public interest by inordinately delaying the initiation of new service. x`  Xh$0 q24. Accordingly, Edwin A. Berstein, 4 FCC Rcd at 842122  67, accurately reflects preexisting Commission policy in holding that an applicant negatively certifying its financial"Q%0*&&rrp&" qualifications must amend its application and show good cause to substitute the representation  X0that it is qualified. See also Radio Associates, Inc., 6 FCC Rcd 2094, 2095  78 (Rev. Bd. 1991) (if an applicant knows its proposal is defective, it cannot expect to sit back and correct the defect at its leisure or convenience). Jelks acknowledged as much when he represented that he would amend his application "in the near future." His failure to do so in a timely fashion is fatal to his proposal. #I   X_0 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X10q  #I   #I 25. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That the Joint Petition for Reconsideration, filed April 14, 1997, by Gonzales Broadcasting, Inc., Bolton Broadcasting Limited, Voth Broadcasting Company, Metropolitan Management Corporation, QRW Partners Limited Partnership, and Mableton Communications, Limited IS GRANTED. q26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That (1) the Joint request for Approval of Settlement Agreement, filed August 28, 1996, by Gonzales Broadcasting, Inc., Bolton Broadcasting Limited, Voth Broadcasting Company, and Mableton Communications, Limited, (2) the Supplement to Joint Request for Approval of Settlement Agreement, filed October 10, 1996, by Gonzales Broadcasting, Inc. and Metropolitan Management Corporation, and (3) the Second Supplement to Joint Request for Approval of Settlement Agreement, filed November 6, 1996, by Gonzales Broadcasting, Inc. and QRW Partners Limited Partnership ARE GRANTED and the associated settlement agreement IS APPROVED. q27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That Lorenzo Jelks' Application for Review of Review Board Decision, filed November 22, 1993, IS DENIED; and that the Application for Review of the Review Board's Decision #FCC 93R53, filed November 22, 1993, by QRW Limited Partnership, the Application for Review of Metropolitan Management Corporation, filed November 22, 1993, the Application for Review of Mableton Communications, Ltd., filed November 22, 1993, the Application for Review, filed November 22, 1993, by Bolton Broadcasting Ltd., the Application for Review, filed November 22, 1993, by Voth Broadcasting Company, and the Contingent Application for Review, filed November 22, 1993, by Gonzales broadcasting, Inc. ARE DISMISSED as moot. q28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the decisions of the ALJ and the Review  X0Board: Mableton Broadcasting Company, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 7609 (Rev. Bd. 1993); Mableton  X0Broadcasting Company, Inc., 5 FCC Rcd 6314 (Rev. Bd. 1990); Mableton Broadcasting  X 0Company, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 4431 (ALJ 1992); Mableton Broadcasting Company, Inc., 5 FCC Rcd 2473 (ALJ 1990) ARE VACATED with respect to the findings and conclusions regarding Gonzales Broadcasting, Inc., Bolton Broadcasting Limited, Voth Broadcasting Company, Metropolitan Management Corporation, QRW Partners Limited Partnership, and Mableton Communications, Limited, but not with respect to the findings and conclusions regarding Lorenzo Jelks."Q%0*&&rrp&"Ԍq29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED. q30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, the Petition of Gene A. Bechtel for Partial Reconsideration, filed May 28, 1996, IS DISMISSED as moot. #I  q` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION q` `  hhWilliam F. Caton q` `  hhActing Secretary