Report No. GN-157        GENERAL ACTION        June 20, 1994

COMMENTS SOUGHT ON COMPARATIVE CRITERIA FOR BROADCAST APPLICANTS
                             (GC DOCKET 92-52)

     The Commission is asking for further comments on the
modification of the criteria used in comparative hearings to
award construction permits for new broadcast facilities. 
Specifically, it is asking commenters to address several issues
raised in a recent court decision.

     On December 17, 1993, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling (Bechtel v. FCC)
that the Commission's integration criterion was arbitrary and
capricious and therefore invalid.  (The Commission had given
credit to applicants who proposed integrating their owners into
the day-to-day management of the station.)

     When the Commission initiated this rulemaking in 1992, it
noted that the comparative criteria had not been comprehensively
examined for 27 years and that changes in the broadcast
marketplace, in broadcast technology, and in the Commission's
regulatory policies for broadcasting warranted reexamination of
the criteria.

     In the Bechtel decision, the court directed the Commission
to evaluate applications before it under standards free of the
integration criterion.  Because integration and factors deemed to
enhance integration have been decisionally significant in many
recent comparative proceedings, the Commission stayed pending
cases while it considered appropriate actions responsive to the
court's opinion. 

     The Commission asked commenters to address what objective
and rational criteria could be used to evaluate the applicants'
comparative qualifications in light of Bechtel.  In particular,
it asked for comments on the impact of Bechtel on the factors
previously considered to enhance integration: local residence and
civic participation, minority status, and broadcast experience. 
It also asked for comment on the relative weight that should be
given to the various comparative criteria in an analysis that
does not rely on integration.

                                  (over)

                                   - 2 -

     It also asked for comments on the procedural ramifications
of applying a revised comparative analysis to pending cases.  For
example, commenters may wish to consider under what circumstances
it would be appropriate to permit applicants in pending cases to
amend their proposals in light of newly-adopted standards and
when further evidentiary proceedings would be warranted.

     Finally, it asked for ways any proposed revision of the
comparative analysis could be structured to satisfy the kind of
concerns which, in Bechtel, resulted in a determination that
integration was arbitrary and capricious.

     Action by the Commission June 13, 1994, by Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 94-167).  Chairman Hundt,
Commissioners Quello and Barrett, with Commissioners Ness and
Chong not participating.

                                  - FCC -

     News Media contact: Rosemary Kimball at (202) 418-0500.
     Office of General Counsel contact: David Senzel at (202)
632-7220.