Federal Communications Commission                                  FCC 13-71
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.  20554
In the Matter of
Palouse Country, Inc., Assignor
and
Inland Northwest Broadcasting, LLC, Assignee
Application for Assignment of License for:
Station KZZL-FM, Pullman, Washington
Station KRAO-FM, Colfax, Washington 
Station KCLX(AM), Colfax, Washington
Station KMAX(AM), Colfax, Washington
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. BALH-20040806ABA
Facility ID No. 26412
File No. BALH-20040806ABB
Facility ID No. 15269
File No. BAL-20040806ABC
Facility ID No. 15270
File No. BAL-20040806ABD
Facility ID No. 13569
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  May 13, 2013             Released: May 14, 2013
By the Commission:  Commissioner McDowell not participating.  
1. The Commission has before it an Application for Review filed by Radio Palouse, Inc. 
(“RPI”).  RPI seeks review of the December 11, 2007, action by the Media Bureau denying RPI’s Petition 
for Reconsideration and granting the above-captioned applications (“Assignment Applications”) filed by
Palouse Country, Inc. (“PCI”) for Commission consent to assign four radio stations to Inland Northwest 
Broadcasting, LLC (“Inland”).
1
In granting the Assignment Applications, Bureau staff used the contour-
overlap analysis methodology to determine Inland’s compliance with the local radio ownership rule, as is 
required whenever the stations at issue are located outside any Arbitron Metro radio market.
2
In its 
Petition for Reconsideration, RPI argued that the Bureau should have used an alternative market 
definition devised by RPI for this particular local radio market, comprised of only those stations licensed 
to three specific local communities.  In the Reconsideration Letter, the Bureau found that such departure 
from the rules was not justified based on RPI’s factual showing, which it characterized as “opinion and 
estimates” unsupported by objective market data.  The Bureau also observed that the Commission 
expressly rejected the type of case-by-case market analysis advocated by RPI when it revised the multiple 
ownership rules in the 2003 Ownership Order, for reasons of transparency, regulatory certainty, and 
                                                     
1
David Tillotson, Esq., Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 21458 (MB 2007) (“Reconsideration Letter”). 
2
47 C.F.R. § 73.3555(a)(1); 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review – Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership 
Rules and Other Rules, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 13620, 13729-30 and 
13870-73 (2003) (“Ownership Order”) (subsequent history omitted).
                                                    Federal Communications Commission                                  FCC 13-71
2
administrative efficiency.  The Reconsideration Letter accordingly upheld the Bureau’s earlier decision to 
grant the Assignment Applications and denied RPI’s Petition for Reconsideration. 
2. Upon review of the Application for Review and the entire record, we conclude RPI has 
not demonstrated that the Bureau erred.  The Bureau, in the Reconsideration Letter, properly decided the 
matters raised, and we uphold its decision for the reasons stated therein.
3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 5(c)(5) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
3
and Section 1.115(g) of the Commission’s rules,
4
the 
Application for Review IS DENIED.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch  
                    Secretary
                                                     
3
47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5).
4
47 C.F.R. § 1.115(g).