$//Central Florida Comm. Grp. MM 90-633 FCC 94-338//$
$/1.106 Petitions for reconsideration/$
///newjob///
$///FCC 94-338  12-30-94///$
                                Before the
                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                          Washington, D.C. 20554
                                                      FCC 94-338

In re Applications of              )    MM Docket No. 90-633
                                   )
CENTRAL FLORIDA                    )    File No. BPH-880505MS
COMMUNICATIONS                     )
GROUP, INC.                        )
                                   )
MICHELLE N. TERZYNSKI              )    File No. BPH-880505PL
                                   )
For Construction Permit for        )
New FM Station on Channel 277A     )
Holly Hill, Florida                )


                                   ORDER

     Adopted: December 22, 1994;  Released: January 6, 1995


By the Commission:


                              I.  BACKGROUND

     1.  This order dismisses in part and denies in part a
Petition for Reconsideration, filed January 12, 1994, by Central
Florida Communications Group, Inc. (CFCG).   CFCG seeks
reconsideration of a Commission order that denied review of a
Review Board decision denying CFCG's application for a new FM
radio station in Holly Hill, Florida and granting the mutually
exclusive application of Michelle N. Terzynski.  Central Florida
Communications Group, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 4128 (Rev. Bd. 1993), rev.
denied, 8 FCC Rcd 8725 (1993).

     2.  The Board found that CFCG did not demonstrate that it
was financially qualified at the time it filed its application
because it did not show the availability of sufficient assets to
meet its estimated costs.  8 FCC Rcd at 4129-31  8-11.  The
Board faulted a financial statement submitted by CFCG as
inadequately documenting liquid assets relied on.  The Board also
rejected CFCG's reliance on real estate as not supported by valid
appraisals.  Because CFCG did not demonstrate its qualifications
at the time it filed its application, the Board did not permit
CFCG to rely on a bank letter obtained subsequently.  The
Commission denied review without comment.

                     II.  PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

     3.  In its petition for reconsideration, CFCG reiterates its
arguments that: (1) its financial statement adequately
demonstrated the availability of sufficient liquid assets; (2)
there is no reason to doubt the adequacy of its non-liquid assets
to meet its costs; and (3) the Commission should have taken into
account CFCG's bank loan.

     4.  Additionally, CFCG contends that changed circumstances
have occurred warranting reconsideration.  CFCG observes that the
United States Court of Appeals recently held that the
Commission's integration criterion, used in comparative
proceedings, was arbitrary and capricious.  Bechtel v. FCC, 10
F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1993).  CFCG argues that the Commission's
financial qualifications policy is also arbitrary and capricious,
especially as applied to minorities, and that Bechtel therefore
dictates further review of this case.

                             III.  DISCUSSION

     5.  CFCG has shown no basis for reconsideration.  To the
extent that CFCG merely repeats arguments concerning its
financial qualifications previously made to the Commission, its
petition for reconsideration is repetitious and subject to
summary rejection.  The provisions of 47 C.F.R.  1.106(b)(2)
and 1.115(g) provide that the Commission will entertain a
petition for reconsideration of a ruling which denies an
application for review only if the petition relies on newly
discovered facts or changed circumstances.  

     6.  The only changed circumstance noted by CFCG is Bechtel. 
That case, however, concerned the validity of the Commission's
integration criterion and not financial qualifications.
Additionally, CFCG did not timely challenge the facial validity
of the Commission's financial qualifications policy.  CFCG did
not at any stage of this proceeding argue with specificity that
the financial standards were arbitary and capricious on their
face.  Rather, it previously argued that it demonstrated its
financial qualifications consistent with those standards.  Only
now  -- in light of Bechtel -- does CFCG argue, in a conclusory
fashion, that the financial standards used in comparative
proceedings are arbitrary and capricious.   We see nothing in
Bechtel that would require us to entertain an untimely and
conclusory challenge to the facial validity of a Commission
policy unrelated to integration, as CFCG now seeks to make.  

                                IV.  ORDER

     8.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That the Petition for
Reconsideration, filed January 12, 1994, by Central Florida
Communications Group, Inc. IS DISMISSED in part and otherwise IS
DENIED. 

     9.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the Petition to Rescind,
filed March 29, 1994, by Central Florida Communications Group,
Inc. IS DISMISSED as moot.




                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




                         William F. Caton
                         Acting Secretary