NEWS                                         August 1, 1996


COMMISSIONER QUELLO ISSUES AMENDED STATE  MENT 
ON PHILADELPHIA, PA, FM PROCEEDING

In Re Applications of Group W Radio, Inc., et al.

Commissioner Quello's statement issued on July 29, 1996, and attached to the Memorandum
Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability (FCC 96-250) regarding Group W Radio,
Inc. and WXTU License Limited Partnership contained typographical errors in the amounts of
the forfeitures.  A corrected statement is attached.

                          CONCURRING STATEMENT OF
                       COMMISSIONER JAMES H. QUELLO


In Re Applications of Group W Radio, Inc., et al.

     I concur in this decision because it represents a classic case of bureaucratic overkill; of
the FCC's inability to see the forest for the trees in implementation of its EEO regulation.

     The Commission's EEO rules are efforts, rather than results, based; an approach that
results from a judicial and political disregard for race-based quotas.  However, the outcome in
these two cases exemplifies the inherent absurdity of an efforts-based rule.  With respect to
WXTU(FM), as the item correctly recognizes, the licensee could not produce paperwork
demonstrating that it actively recruited for 13 of the 20 vacancies during the three-year reporting
period.  Despite the lack of an adequate paper trail, however, the hiring record of WXTU(FM)
was exemplary.  The station employed minorities well above 50% of parity for minorities in the
work force for every year of the license term, including for all of its upper-level jobs, and for
four of the seven years were at or just below 100% of parity.  Despite the fact that this record
indicates that the licensee recruited actively for minorities, because of the absence of an adequate
paper trail, the majority feels compelled to flex its bureaucratic muscle by imposing a forfeiture
of $12,000.  I cannot embrace this reasoning.

     With respect to WMMR(FM), the current owner of the station acquired it just two years
before the end of the license term.  It therefore had little opportunity to implement an EEO
program that would produce positive results.  Despite this fact, the majority imposes a forfeiture
of $14,000.    
      
     Until this Agency approaches EEO enforcement with its head as well as its heart, we will
continue to be criticized, thereby placing in jeopardy our entire EEO scheme.  I therefore must
concur in this result.