[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28512-28515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13403]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


United States v. Capstar Broadcasting Corporation and Triathlon 
Broadcasting Company; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact 
Statement

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and 
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 16(b) through (h), that a proposed 
Final Judgment, Stipulation and Competitive Impact Statement have been 
filed with the United States District Court for the District of 
Columbia in United States of America v. Capstar Broadcasting 
Corporation and Triathlon Broadcasting Company, Civil Action No. 99-
CV00993. On April 21, 1999, the United States filed a Complaint 
alleging that the proposed acquisition by Capstar Broadcasting 
Corporation (``Capstar'') of the radio assets of Triathlon Broadcasting 
Company (``Triathlon'') in Wichita, Kansas, would violate Section 7 of 
the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 18. The proposed Final Judgment, filed 
the same time as the Complaint, requires Capstar to divest five radio 
stations in Wichita pursuant to the Final Judgment. Copies of the 
Complaint, proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement are 
available for inspection at the Department of Justice in Washington, 
D.C. in Room 215, 325 Seventh Street, N.W., and at the Office of the 
Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of the 
District of Columbia.
    Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this 
notice. Such comments, and responses thereto, will be published in the 
Federal Register and filed with the Court. Comments should be directed 
to Craig W. Conrath, Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, 
Department of Justice, 1401 H St. N.W., Suite 4000, Washington, D.C. 
20530 (telephone: (202) 307-0001).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations & Merger Enforcement.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

    United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Capstar Broadcasting 
Corporation, and Triathlon Broadcasting Company, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 99-CV-00993 (Judge Oberdorfer).

Competitive Impact Statement

    The United States, pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust 
Procedures and Penalties Act (``APPA''), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 16(b)-(h), 
files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final 
Judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.

I. Nature and Purpose of the Proceeding

    The plaintiff filed a civil antitrust Complaint on April 21, 1999, 
alleging that Capstar Broadcasting Corporation's (``Capstar'') proposed 
acquisition of Triathlon Broadcasting Company (``Triathlon'') would 
violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 18. 
The Compliant alleges that Capstar and Triathlon both own and operate 
radio stations throughout the United States, and that they each own and 
operate radio stations in the Wichita, Kansas, metropolitan area. 
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Capstar owns KKRD-FM, KRZZ-FM, 
and KNSS-AM in Wichita and that Capstar controls approximately 20 
percent of the Wichita radio advertising market. The complaint also 
alleges that Triathlon owns KZSN-FM, KRBB-FM, KEYN-FM, KWSY-FM, KFH-AM, 
and KQAM-FM in Wichita and controls approximately 33 percent of the 
radio advertising revenues in the Wichita radio advertising market. The 
proposed acquisition would give Capstar a significant share of the 
radio advertising market in Wichita and control over stations that are 
close substitutes for each other based upon their specific audience 
characteristics. According to industry estimates, the proposed 
acquisition would give Capstar control of over 45 percent of the radio 
advertising revenue--even after Capstar divests the two lowest ranked 
FM radio stations pursuant to Federal Communications Commission 
(``FCC'') regulations. As a result, the combination would substantially 
lessen competition in the sale of radio advertising time in the Wichita 
metropolitan area.
    The prayer for relief seeks: (a) adjudication that Capstar's 
proposed acquisition of Triathlon described in the Complaint would 
violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 18; 
(b) preliminary and permanent injunctive relief preventing the 
consummation of the proposed acquisition; (c) an award to the United 
States of the costs of this action; and (d) such other relief as is 
proper.
    Before this suit was filed, the United States reached a proposed 
settlement with Capstar and Triathlon which is memorialized in the 
Stipulation and proposed Final Judgment which have been filed with the 
Court. Under the terms of the proposed Final Judgment, Capstar must 
divest five stations--KEYN-FM, KWSJ-FM, KFH-AM, KNSS-AM and KQAM-AM--to 
another radio operator approved by plaintiff at the time it acquires 
Triathlon. If Capstar does not divest these stations to an approved 
buyer at the time it acquires Triathlon, Capstar must place the 
stations in an FCC Trust. The FCC Trust Agreement was filed with the 
Court as an attachment to the proposed Final Judgment. Unless the 
Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (the 
``Antitrust Division'') grants an extension, the Trustee must divest 
the stations to a buyer approved by the Antitrust Division at its sole 
discretion within four (4) months of the date of entry of the Final 
Judgment.
    The proposed Final Judgment also requires both Capstar and 
Triathlon to ensure, to the extent they are able under the proposed 
Final Judgment, that these stations will be operated independently as 
viable ongoing businesses while Capstar and Triathlon continue to 
operate them. If the stations are transferred to the Trustee, the 
Trustee has agreed that he will operate the stations independently as 
viable ongoing businesses. Further, the proposed Final Judgment 
requires Capstar to give plaintiff prior notice regarding future radio 
station acquisitions or certain agreements pertaining to the sale of 
broadcast radio advertising time in Wichita.
    The plaintiff and defendants have stipulated that the proposed 
Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with APPA. Entry of the 
proposed Final Judgment would terminate this action, except that the 
Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the 
provisions of the proposed Final Judgment, and to punish violations 
thereof.

II. The Alleged Violation

A. The Defendants
    Capstar is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Austin, 
Texas.

[[Page 28513]]

Capstar owns approximately 309 radio stations in 76 U.S. markets. In 
1997, Capstar had total revenue of approximately $350 million, 
approximately $4.9 million of which was derived from its Wichita 
stations.
    Triathlon is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Diego, 
California. Triathlon currently owns 31 radio stations in six U.S. 
markets. In 1997, Triathlon had total revenue of approximately $33.6 
million, approximately $8 million of which was derived from its Wichita 
stations.
B. Description of the Events Giving Rise to the Alleged Violation
    On July 23, 1998, Capstar and Triathlon entered into an Agreement 
and Plan of Merger (``Agreement''). Under the terms of the Agreement, 
Triathlon agreed to transfer its licensee companies, including 
Triathlon Broadcasting of Wichita Licensee, Inc. to Capstar. Also under 
the terms of the Agreement, Triathlon agreed to sell Triathlon 
Broadcasting Company to Capstar.
    Capstar and Triathlon compete for the business of local and 
national companies seeking to advertise in the Wichita radio market. 
The proposed acquisition of Triathlon and Capstar, and the threatened 
loss of competition that would be caused thereby precipitated the 
government suit.
C. Anticompetitive Consequences of the Proposed Acquisition
1. The Sale of Radio Advertising Time in Wichita
    The Complaint alleges that the provision of advertising time on 
radio stations serving the Wichita, Kansas Metropolitan Survey Area 
(``MSA'') constitutes a line of commerce and a section of the country, 
or a relevant market, for antitrust purposes. The Wichita MSA is the 
geographical unit for which Arbitron furnishes radio stations, 
advertising agencies, and advertisers with data to aid in evaluating 
radio audience size and composition. Advertisers use this data in 
making decisions about which radio station or combination of radio 
stations can deliver their target audiences in the most efficient and 
cost-effective way. The Wichita MSA includes Butler, Harvey, and 
Sedgwick Counties. Radio stations earn their revenues from the sale of 
advertising time to local and national advertisers. Many local and 
national advertisers purchase radio advertising time in Wichita because 
they find such advertising preferable to advertising in other media for 
their specific needs. For such advertisers, radio time (a) may be less 
expensive and more cost-efficient than other media at reaching the 
advertiser's target audience (individuals most likely to purchase the 
advertiser's products or services); (b) may reach certain target 
audiences that cannot be reached as effectively through other media; or 
(c) may render certain services or offer promotional opportunities to 
advertisers that they cannot exploit as effectively using other media. 
For these and other reasons, many local and national advertisers in 
Wichita who purchase radio advertising time view radio either as a 
necessary advertising medium for them or as a necessary advertising 
complement to other media.
    Although some local and national advertisers may switch some of 
their advertising to other media rather than absorb a price increase in 
radio advertising time in Wichita, the existence of such advertisers 
would not prevent radio stations from raising their prices a small but 
significant amount. At a minimum, stations could raise prices 
profitably to those advertisers who view radio either as a necessary 
advertising medium for them, or as a necessary advertising complement 
to other media. Radio stations, which negotiate prices individually 
with advertisers, can identify those advertisers with strong radio 
preferences. Consequently, radio stations can charge different 
advertisers different rates. Because of this ability to price 
discriminate among different customers, radio stations may charge 
higher rates to advertisers that view radio as particularly effective 
for their needs, while maintaining lower rates for other advertisers.
2. Harm to Competition
    The Complaint alleges that Capstar's proposed acquisition of 
Triathlon would lessen competition substantially in the provision of 
radio advertising time in the Wichita MSA. The proposed transaction 
would create further market concentration in an already concentrated 
market. Using a measure of market concentration called the Herfindahl-
Hirschman Index (``HHI''), explained in Appendix A of the Complaint, a 
combination of Capstar and Triathlon would substantially increase the 
concentration in the Wichita radio advertising markets. The HHI 
currently is 3040. If Capstar divests only the two least significant FM 
stations, Capstar's share of the Wichita radio market, based on 
advertising revenue, would increase from approximately 20 percent to 
approximately 45 percent. The approximate post-merger HHI would be 
3680, representing an increase of about 640 points. This substantial 
increase in concentration is likely to give Capstar unilateral power to 
raise advertising rates and reduce the level of service provided to 
advertisers in Wichita.
    Today, several Capstar and Triathlon stations in Wichita compete 
head-to-head to reach the same audiences and, for many local and 
national advertisers buying time in Wichita, they are close substitutes 
for each other based on their specific audience characteristics. The 
proposed merger would eliminate this competition.
    During individual price negotiations between advertisers and radio 
stations, advertisers provide the stations with information about their 
advertising needs, including their target audience and the desired 
frequency and timing of ads. Radio stations thus have the ability to 
charge advertisers differing rates based in part on the number and 
attractiveness of competitive radio stations that can meet a particular 
advertiser's specific target needs.
    During individualized rate negotiations, advertisers that desire to 
reach certain listeners can help ensure competitive rates by ``playing 
off'' Capstar stations against Triathlon stations. Capstar's 
acquisition of Triathlon will end this competition. After the 
acquisition, such advertisers will be unable to reach their desired 
audiences with equivalent efficiency without using Capstar stations. 
Because advertisers seeking to reach these audiences would have 
inferior alternatives to the merged entity as a result of the 
acquisition,the acquisition would give Capstar the ability to raise 
prices and reduce the quality of its service to some advertisers on its 
stations in Wichita.
    b. Advertisers could not turn to other Wichita radio Stations to 
prevent Capstar from imposing an anticompetitive price increase.--If 
Capstar raised prices or lowered services to those advertisers who buy 
advertising time on Capstar and Triathlon stations in Wichita because 
of their strength in delivering access to certain audiences, non-
Capstar radio stations in Wichita would not be induced to change their 
formats to attract those audiences in sufficiently large numbers to 
defeat a price increase. Successful radio stations are unlikely to 
undertake a format change solely in response to small but significant 
increases in price being charged to advertisers by a multi-station firm 
such as Capstar because they would likely lose a substantial portion of 
their existing audiences. Even if less successful stations did change 
format, they would still be unlikely to attract

[[Page 28514]]

enough listeners to provide suitable alternatives to the merged entity. 
In addition, new entry into the Wichita radio advertising market would 
not be timely, likely or sufficient to deter the exercise of market 
power. For all these reasons, plaintiff concludes that the proposed 
transactions would lessen competition substantially in the sale of the 
radio advertising time on radio stations serving the Wichita MSA in 
violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.

III. Explanation of the Proposed Final Judgment

    The proposed Final Judgment would preserve competition in the sale 
of radio advertising time in Wichita. It requires Capstar to divest 
five stations: KEYN-FM, KWSJ-FM, KFH-AM, KNSS-AM and KQAM-AM. The 
relief will reduce the share in advertising revenues Capstar would have 
achieved in the transaction from 45 percent to less than 40 percent. 
The divestitures will preserve choices for advertisers and will ensure 
that radio advertising prices do not increase and services do not 
decline as a result of the transaction.
    Capstar must divest KEYN-FM, KWSJ-FM, KFH-AM, KNSS-AM and KQAM-AM 
assets to either another buyer or a Trustee at the time it acquires 
Triathlon. The divestitures must be to a purchaser or purchasers 
acceptable to the plaintiff in its sole discretion. Except in the case 
of KNSS-AM, the divestitures shall include all the assets of the 
stations being divested. The divestitures shall be accomplished in such 
a way as to satisfy plaintiff, in its sole discretion, that such assets 
can and will be used as viable, ongoing commercial radio businesses. If 
defendants fail to divest these stations within the time periods 
specified in the Final Judgment, a Trustee agreed upon by plaintiff and 
Defendants and identified in the Final Judgment will be entrusted to 
effect the divestitures. If the Trustee is appointed, the proposed 
Final Judgment provides that Capstar will pay all costs and expenses of 
the Trustee and any professionals and agents retained by the Trustee. 
After appointment, the Trustee will file monthly reports with the 
plaintiff, Capstar and the Court, setting forth the Trustee's efforts 
to accomplish the divestitures ordered under the proposed Final 
Judgment. If the Trustee has not accomplished the divestitures within 
four (4) months after the date of the Order's entry, the Trustee shall 
promptly file with the Court a report setting forth (1) the Trustee's 
efforts to accomplish the required divestitures, (2) the reasons, in 
the Trustee's judgment, why the required divestitures have not been 
accomplished and (3) the Trustee's recommendations. At the same time 
the Trustee will furnish such report to the plaintiff and defendants, 
who will each have the right to be heard and to make additional 
recommendations.
    The proposed Final Judgment requires that prior to the consummation 
of the transaction, defendants will maintain the independence of their 
respective radio stations in Wichita until the closing of the merger 
and the transfer of KEYN-FM, KWSJ-FM, KFH-AM, KNSS-AM and KQAM-AM to 
either a buyer approved by the plaintiff or to the Trustee.
    The proposed Final Judgment also prohibits Capstar from entering 
into certain agreements with other Wichita radio stations without 
providing at least thirty (30) days' notice of the plaintiff. 
Specifically, Capstar must notify the plaintiff before acquiring any 
interest in another Wichita radio station. Such acquisitions could 
raise competitive concerns but might be too small to be reported 
otherwise under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 
1976, as amended, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 18a (the ``HSR Act''). Moreover, 
Capstar may not agree to sell radio advertising time for any other 
Wichita radio station, or to have another radio station that also sells 
radio advertising time in Wichita sell its radio advertising time, 
without providing plaintiff with notice. In particular, the provision 
requires Capstar to notify the plaintiff before it enters into any 
Joint Sales Agreements (``JSAs'') in Wichita. Under a JSA, one station 
sells another station's advertising time. Despite their clear 
competitive significance, JSAs may not all be reportable to the 
Department under the HSR Act. Thus, this provision in the proposed 
Final Judgment ensures that the plaintiff will receive notice of and be 
able to act, if appropriate, to stop any agreements that might have 
anticompetitive effects in the Wichita radio advertising market.
    The relief in the proposed Final Judgment is intended to remedy the 
likely anticompetitive effects of Capstar's proposed transaction with 
Triathlon in Wichita. Nothing in this Final Judgment is intended to 
limit the plaintiff's ability to investigate or to bring actions, where 
appropriate, challenging other past or future activities of defendants 
in Wichita, or any other markets.

IV. Remedies Available to Potential Private Litigants

    Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15, provides that any 
person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the 
antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three times 
the damages the person has suffered, as well as costs and reasonable 
attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will neither 
impair nor assist the bringing of any private antitrust damage action. 
Under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 
Sec. 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no prima facie effect in 
any subsequent private lawsuit that may be brought against defendants.

V. Procedures Available for Modification of the Proposed Final Judgment

    The plaintiff and the defendants have stipulated that the proposed 
Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance with the 
provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has not 
withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry upon the Court's 
determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public 
interest.
    The APPA provides a period of at least sixty (60) days preceding 
the effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any 
person may submit to the United States written comments regarding the 
proposed Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should do so 
within sixty (60) days of the date of publication of this Competitive 
Impact Statement in the Federal Register. The plaintiff will evaluate 
and respond to the comments. All comments will be given due 
consideration by the Department of Justice, which remains free to 
withdraw its consent to the proposed Final Judgment at any time prior 
to its entry. The comments and the response of the United States will 
be filed with the Court and published in the Federal Register.
    Any such written comments should be submitted to: Craig W. Conrath, 
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, United States Department 
of Justice, 1401 H Street, NW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530.
    The proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains 
jurisdiction over this action, and the parties may apply to the Court 
for any order necessary or appropriate for the modification, 
interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment.

VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Final Judgment

    The plaintiff considered, as an alternative to the proposed Final 
Judgment, a full trial on the merits of its Complaint against 
defendants. The plaintiff is satisfied, however, that the

[[Page 28515]]

divestiture of KEYN-FM, KWSJ-FM, KFH-AM, KNSS-AM and KQAM-AM and other 
relief contained in the proposed Final Judgment will preserve viable 
competition in the sale of radio advertising time in the Wichita radio 
advertising markets. Thus, the proposed Final Judgment would achieve 
the relief the plaintiff would have obtained through litigation, but 
avoids the time, expense and uncertainty of a full trial on the merits 
of the Complaint.

VII. Standard of Review Under the APPA for Proposed Final Judgment

    The APPA requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust 
cases brought by the United States be subject to a sixty (60) day 
comment period, after which the court shall determine whether entry of 
the proposed Final Judgment ``is in the public interest.'' In making 
that determination, the Court may consider--

    (1) the competitive impact of such judgment, including 
termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and 
modification, duration or relief sought, anticipated effects of 
alternative remedies actually considered, and any other 
considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment;
    (2) the impact of entry of such judgment upon the public 
generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the 
violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the 
public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the 
issues at trial.

10 U.S.C. Sec. 16(e).
    As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit held, this statute permits to court to consider, among other 
things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific 
allegations set forth in the plaintiff's Complaint, whether the decree 
is sufficiently clear, whether enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, 
and whether the decree may positively harm third parties. See United 
States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1461-62 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
    In conducting this inquiry, ``[t]he Court is nowhere compelling to 
go to trial or to engage in extended proceedings which might have the 
effect of vitiating the benefits of prompt and less costly settlement 
through the consent decree process.'' \1\ Rather,

    \1\ 119 Cong. Rec. 24598 (1973). See United States v. Gillette 
Co., 406 F. Supp. 713, 715 (D. Mass. 1975. A ``public interest'' 
determination can be made properly on the basis of the Competitive 
Impact Statement and Response to Comments filed pursuant to the 
APPA. Although the APPA authorizes the use of additional procedures, 
15 U.S.C. Sec. 16(f), those procedures are discretionary. A court 
need not invoke any of them unless it believes that the comments 
have raised significant issues and that further proceedings would 
aid the court in resolving those issues. See H.R. Rep. 93-1463, 93rd 
Cong. 2d Sess. 8-9 (1974), reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N. 6535, 6538.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [a]bsent a showing of corrupt failure of the government to 
discharge its duty, the Court, in making its public interest 
finding, should * * * carefully consider the explanations of the 
government in the competitive impact statement and its responses to 
comments in order to determine whether those explanations are 
reasonable under the circumstances.

United States v. Mid-America Dairymen, Inc., 1977-1 Trade Cas. para. 
61,508, at 71,980 (W.D. Mo. 1977).
    Accordingly, with respect to the adequacy of the relief secured by 
the decree, a court may not ``engage in an unrestricted evaluation of 
what relief would best serve the public.'' United States v. BNS, Inc., 
858 F.2d 456, 462 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing United States v. Bechtel 
Corp., 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d 
at 1460-62. Precedent requires that

    the balancing of competing social and political interests 
affected by a proposed antitrust consent decree must be left, in the 
first instance, to the discretion of the Attorney General. The 
court's role in protecting the public interest is one of insuring 
that the government has not breached its duty to the public in 
consenting the decree. The court is required to determine not 
whether a particular decree is the one that will best serve society, 
but whether the settlement is ``within the reaches of the public 
interest.'' More elaborate requirements might undermine the 
effectiveness of antitrust enforcement by consent decree.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (citations omitted) (emphasis 
added); See BNS, 858 F.2d at 463; United States v. National Broad. 
Co., 449 F. Supp. 1127, 1143 (C.D. Cal. 1978); Gillette, 406 F. 
Supp. at 716. see also Microsoft, 56 F.2d at 1461 (whether ``the 
remedies [obtained in the decree are] so inconsonant with the 
allegations charged as to fall outside of the `reaches of the public 
interest' '') (citations omitted).

The proposed Final Judgment, therefore, should not be reviewed under a 
standard of whether it is certain to eliminate every anticompetitive 
effect of a particular practice or whether it mandates certainty of 
free competition in the future. Court approval of a final judgment 
requires a standard more flexible and less strict than the standard 
required for a finding of liability. ``[A] proposed decree must be 
approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose on 
its own, as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or is 
`within the reaches of public interest.' '' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ United States v. American Tel. and Tel Co., 552 F. Supp. 
131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd. sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 
460 U.S. 1001 (1983) (quoting Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. at 716 
(citations omitted)); United States v. Alcan Aluminum, Ltd., 605 F. 
Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is strong and effective relief that should fully address the 
competitive harm posed by the proposed transaction.

VIII. Determinative Documents

    There are no determinative materials or documents within the 
meaning of the APPA that were considered by the plaintiff in 
formulating the proposed Final Judgment.

    Dated: May 12, 1999.

    Respectfully submitted,
Karl D. Knutsen,
Attorney, Merger Task Force.
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
1401 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530, (202) 514-0976.

Certificate of Service

    I, Karl D. Knutsen, of the Antitrust Division of the United States 
Department of Justice, do hereby certify that true copies of the 
foregoing Competitive Impact Statement were served this 12th day of 
May, 1999, by United States mail, to the following:
David J. Laing, Baker & McKenzie,
815 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.

Counsel for Triathlon Broadcasting Company.

Neil W. Imus, Vinson & Elkins,
1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.

Counsel for Capstar Broadcasting Corporation.

Karl D. Knutsen

[FR Doc. 99-13403 Filed 5-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M