NEWSReport No. DC 95-8-    ACTION IN DOCKET CASE           January 10, 1995

        MOTION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND EXPEDITED ACTION DENIED IN
                      LONGMONT, CO., FM PROCEEDING 
                            (MM DOCKET 90-424)

     The Commission has denied a motion filed jointly by Longmont Broadcasting Corp.
(LBC) and Amador S. Bustos that the Commission order the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
presiding in the Longmont, CO, comparative hearing to proceed at once to prepare and issue a
partial initial decision resolving all basic qualifications issues against Western Cities
Broadcasting, Inc.

     Western Cities' renewal application and application to cover minor changes in
KQKS(FM), Longmont, and the competing applications of Buston and LBC for a new station
on Channel 282C1, Longmont, were designated for hearing on 1990 on issues including
character issues against Western.

     The record in this proceeding was closed in March 1993 and the parties filed proposed
findings in May 1993 but the ALJ has not yet issued an initial decision. 

     The Commission said that a recent public notice emphasized that no issue concerning an
applicant's basic qualifications is to be adjudicated in a comparative proceeding during the freeze
on comparative proceedings which was instituted earlier this year, unless disqualification of that
applicant would obviate comparative evaluation in the case or a request for approval of
settlement is pending which is contingent upon resolution of that issue.  The Commission then
noted that disqualification of Western Cities would not obviate all comparative evaluation in the
case and that the parties had not filed for approval of a settlement agreement.

     The Commission rejected an argument that the ALJ's inaction was in violation of a
direction in 47 U.S.C. 155(d) to "expedite the orderly conduct of the business of the
Commission with the objective of rendering a final decision within six months from the final
date of the hearing . . . ."  The Commission said that the provision does not require adjudicators
to forgo orderly processes of deliberation and that the best way of deciding certain fundamental
comparative issues posed in this case is through the pending rulemaking that was instituted in
response to the holding by a panel of the D.C. Circuit in the Bechtel case regarding the validity
of the integration criterion.     

     Action by the Commission January 6, 1995, by Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC
95-12).  Chairman Hundt, Commissioners Quello, Barrett, Ness and Chong.
                                  - FCC -
     News Media contact: Rosemary Kimball (202) 418-5000