WPC 2MBVRKZ3|x7jC:,yoXj\  P6G;XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4SiHPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\YnhXP2 K$3|x"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdCourierCourier BoldCourier Italic2 Z: ZHP LaserJet 4SiHPLAS4SI.PRSx  @\Ynh@(<?xxx,x6X@`7X@?xxx,x `7X<R&HHH,~ ,H6X@`7h@R&HHH,W,H `7h ?xxx,Πx6Nhez7XH 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardHPLAS4SI.PRSx  ( $// MO&O, WAXQ(FM), NY, Rep cond, NAL, FCC 95271 //$ $/ 300.309 Action Upon Applications /$ $/ 300.503 Forfeitures in Cases of Rebates and Offsets /$ $/ 1.80 Forfeiture Provisions /$ $/ 73.2080 Equal Employment Opportunity /$ $/ FOR F Q CC RECORD ONLY /$ Q  x` `  hh@hpp  xxFCC 95271  ?@<'   Before the 0 Federal Communications Commission  ?<Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In re Application of ) ) ) GAF Broadcasting Company, Inc. ) File No. BRH910201WL ) For Renewal of License of )  ?<Station WAXQ(FM)  ?h< x<ԍ The station's call sign, WNCN(FM), was changed to WAXQ(FM) effective December 18, 1993. hh@ ) New York City, New York ) )  ?0<\  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER  ?<l AND NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY ă  ?< Adopted : June 29, 1995; Released : July 21, 1995 By the Commission: Commissioner Quello concurring in the result.  ?<,  I. INTRODUCTION ă  ?8< I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) Â1. The Commission has before it for consideration: (i) a conditional license renewal for WAXQ(FM) in New York City; (ii) a Petition to Deny timely filed by the New York State and New York City Branches of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); (iii) a Petition to Deny timely filed by Listeners' Guild, Inc.; (iv) an opposition from the licensee; and (v) the licensee's responses to staff letters of inquiry. The NAACP alleged that the above station violated the Commission's equal employment opportunity (EEO) Rule and policies toward minorities. It requested that the Commission designate the licensee's renewal application for hearing and deny the application.  ?`"<h II. BACKGROUND ă  ?#< 2. On September 14, 1992, the NAACP and the licensee filed a Joint Request for Approval of Settlement Agreement which requests approval of the agreement, dismissal of the NAACP's petition to deny, and unconditional grant of the station's license renewal"H& 0*0*0*." application. We have reviewed the settlement agreement pursuant  ?<to 47 C.F.R.  73.3588 and Formulation of Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, Competing Applicants and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process and to  ? <the Prevention of Abuses of the Renewal Process, 4 FCC Rcd 4780  ?<(1989) ("Renewal Process"). We find that the settlement agreement complies with the Commission's rules and policies and, therefore, the agreement is approved and the petition is dismissed.  ?< 3. On March 29, 1994, Listeners' Guild, Inc., and the licensee filed a Joint Request for Approval of Agreement For Dismissal of Court Appeals and Pleadings Before the Commission which requested approval of the agreement, dismissal of Listeners' Guild, Inc.'s petition to deny, and unconditional grant of the station's  ? <license renewal application. The Commission approved the agreement, dismissed the Listeners' Guild, Inc. petition, and granted renewal of WAXQ(FM)'s license subject to disposition of a Commission staff inquiry into the station's EEO program and  ?<practices. See Application of GAF Broadcasting Company For Renewal of License of Station WAXQ(FM) (formerly WNCN(FM)), New  ?h<York, New York, 9 FCC Rcd 3649 (1994) ("GAF"). We now address the staff inquiry into EEO issues.  ?<  ?<  4. Staff review of the licensee's EEO program and annual  ?<employment reports led us to conclude that there was a prima  ?P<facie case demonstrating that unconditional grant of the renewal application would have been inconsistent with the public  ?<interest. Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  ?< 309(d)(1). Astroline Com. Co. Ltd. Partnership v. FCC, 857  ?p<F.2d 1556 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (Astroline). Further inquiry was,  ?8<therefore, necessary. See Bilingual Bicultural Coalition on Mass  ?<Media, Inc. v. FCC, 595 F.2d 621 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (Bilingual).  However, review of the entire record, including the licensee's responses to further staff inquiries, indicates that, while there were deficiencies in recruitment and hiring, there are no substantial and material questions of fact warranting designation for hearing. In addition, we find no evidence that the licensee engaged in discrimination. Accordingly, renewal of GAF's license  ?x<for WAXQ(FM) is in the public interest, subject, however, to the  ?@<remedies and sanctions set forth herein.  ? <,  III. DISCUSSION  ?!<  ?`"< 5. Section 73.2080 of the Commission's Rules requires that a broadcast licensee refrain from employment discrimination and establish and maintain an EEO program reflecting positive and continuing efforts to recruit, employ and promote qualified women and minorities. When evaluating EEO performance, the Commission focuses on the licensee's efforts to recruit, employ and promote qualified women and minorities and the licensee's ongoing assessment of its EEO efforts. Such an assessment enables the"'0*((/" licensee to take corrective action if qualified women and minorities are not present in the applicant pool. The Commission also focuses on any evidence of discrimination by the licensee.  ?X<See Sections 73.2080 (b) and (c) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  73.2080 (b) and (c).  ?<  6. A review of the licensee's 1991 EEO Program Report (renewal application), responses to our inquiries, and other pleadings reveals that the licensee had 23 overall, including 15 upper-level, full-time hiring opportunities from January 1988,  ?<through January 1991. dPQ ?( <ԍ The license term for WAXQ(FM) ended on June 1, 1991.d The licensee stated that its records for the license term under review are incomplete, thus WAXQ(FM) can document recruitment for only seven vacancies. WAXQ(FM) could document only one minority referral each from two colleges and  ? <two from a personnel agency. The station indicated use of a Spanish language newspaper, a Black newspaper, the NAACP, and the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), as well as several general sources. However, with the exception of listing the referral sources for its hires, WAXQ(FM)'s records did not  ?<indicate which sources were used for each vacancy. Hire records  ?<revealed that the licensee used the New York Times, a personnel  ?h<agency, and another station for recruitment. The licensee reported 29 minority interviewees in nine applicant/interview  ?<pools, including one upperlevel pool. P XPQ ?< x<ԍ According to the licensee's records, it interviewed 12  xh<Blacks, three Hispanics, one Asian, and 13 minorities whose race is  x<unknown to the licensee. Only three minorities were interviewed for one upperlevel position. Their race was unknown.P Of its 23 hires, eight  ?<were minorities (five Blacks, two Hispanics, and one Asian). X@PQ ?< x;<ԍ Apparently, an Hispanic male hired in January 1991 left the  x<station before the March payroll period reflected in WAXQ(FM)'s 1991 Annual Employment Report. Of  ?<its 15 upperlevel hires, none were minorities. a ( ` PQ ?x< x<ԍ The labor force of the New York City Metropolitan  x<Statistical Area ("MSA") is 45.1% female and 37.8% minority (19.7%  x <Black, 14.4% Hispanic, 3.6% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.1%  x<American Indian). According to the licensee's Annual Employment  x<Reports, in 1985 it employed 25 persons overall (21 upperlevel)  x<with 13 women (52.0%) and six minorities (24.0%) five Blacks  x<(20.0%) and one Hispanic (4.0%). In upperlevel positions, it  x<employed nine women (42.9%) and three Blacks (14.3%). Blacks were  xx<the only minorities reported in upperlevel positions until 1991.  x<No Hispanics were reported in upperlevel positions during the  xh<term. In 1986, the licensee employed 24 persons overall (20 upper xx<level) with 11 women (45.8%) and five minorities (20.8%) three  xh<Blacks (12.5%), one Hispanic (4.2%), and one Asian/Pacific Islander"'0*(()"  x<(4.2%). In upperlevel positions, it employed eight women (40.0%)  x<and three Blacks (15.0%). In 1987, it employed 24 persons overall  xh<(18 upperlevel) with 11 women (45.8%) and eight minorities (33.3%)  xh<ԩ four Blacks (16.7%), two Asian/Pacific Islanders (8.3%), and two  x<Hispanics (8.3%). In upperlevel positions, it employed seven  x<women (38.9%) and two Blacks (11.1%). In 1988, it employed 24  x<persons overall (19 upperlevel) with 11 women (45.8%) and seven  xh<minorities (29.2%) four Blacks (16.7%) and two Hispanics (8.3%).  xx<In upperlevel positions, it employed eight women (42.1%) and two  xh<Blacks (10.5%). In 1989, it employed 27 persons overall (23 upper x<level) with 13 women (48.1%) and six minorities (22.2%) four  xh<Blacks (14.8%), one Hispanic (3.7%), and one Asian/Pacific Islander  xh<(3.7%). In upperlevel positions, it employed 10 women (43.5%) and  x<two Blacks (8.7%). In 1990, it employed 28 persons overall (23  x<upperlevel) with 15 women (53.6%) and eight minorities (28.6%)  x<six Blacks (21.4%), one Hispanic (3.6%), and one Asian/Pacific  x<Islander (3.6%). In upperlevel positions, it employed 11 women  x<(47.8%) and three Blacks (13.0%). WAXQ(FM)'s upperlevel Black  x<employees went from two in 1989 to three in 1990 due to a  x<promotion. In 1991, it employed 28 persons overall (24 upper x<level) with 14 women (50.0%) and six minorities (21.4%) three  x<Blacks (10.7%), two Hispanics (7.1%), and one Asian/Pacific  x<Islander (3.6%). In upperlevel positions, it employed 11 women (45.8%) and two minorities (8.3%), both Black.a "P0*(("Ԍ ?<ԙ 7. The licensee admitted that it did not keep complete recruitment records until 1990, when it claimed it added minority  ?<sources and increased recordkeeping. PPQ ?p< x<ԍ The licensee stated that its recruitment efforts are  xx<broader for some positions than others and that if it uses a wide  x <assortment of sources, it "generally contacts" three general  xh<magazines, a Black newspaper, an Hispanic newspaper, a college with  x<a "substantial minority enrollment," a personnel agency hired to target minorities, and the state employment service. However, the licensee noted that it interviewed 29 minorities in the review period, and argued that this was more important than which source referred them. In addition, it argued that the important issue is whether the station gets an adequate number of minority applicants, instead of what kind of referral source refers them. In support  ?@<of its argument, it cited Applications of Certain Broadcast  ?<Stations Serving Communities in South Carolina, 5 FCC Rcd 1704,  ?<1709 n.8 (1990) (South Carolina). In South Carolina, we held that it was permissible for a licensee to rely exclusively on  ?` <general sources if they were adequately productive. Id. However, we also held that if a licensee's exclusive reliance on general sources failed to produce meaningful results, we would  ? <question whether minority recruitment was adequate. Id. Although the licensee argued that its results were adequate, we note that WAXQ(FM)'s records reveal no recruitment for most openings and only three Hispanic applicants for the 23 openings"0*((" in the review period. Despite this and its location in a 14.4% Hispanic labor force (38.1% of the minority labor force), the licensee tried recruiting Hispanics when it recruited at all by using only one Hispanic recruitment source. This is inadequate recruitment.  ?< 8. The licensee contended that it has had difficulty competing for Hispanic applicants with eight other radio stations in New York City which are either minorityowned, Spanish language, or  ?<minorityoriented in format. XPQ ?` < xK<ԍ As the Commission stated in Leflore Broadcasting, Inc. v.  ?( < x <FCC, 66 FCC 2d 734, 78485 (1985), a station's format has no bearing on its EEO obligations. In addition, the licensee argued that it has had difficulty for these same reasons with attracting  ?<or keeping minority employees in general. The licensee claimed that it did not reserve lowerlevel jobs for minorities or upperlevel jobs for nonminorities. It also claimed it recruited minorities for upperlevel jobs from varied sources, including minority sources, as listed above. Although the licensee hired no minorities for upperlevel positions in the review period, we note that the licensee hired three Blacks for upperlevel fulltime positions earlier in the term; one in 1985 and two in 1986.  ?< 9. Further, the licensee argued that minority hiring results were more important than its recruitment procedures or recordkeeping, citing Commissioner Duggan's Concurring Statement in  ?<Applications for Renewal of License of Certain Broadcast Stations Serving Melbourne, Florida and Other Communities in the Florida  ?<Area, 5 FCC Rcd 6738, 6744 (1990) (Melbourne). We note, however, that the licensee failed to hire any minorities for upperlevel positions in the review period and failed to hire any Hispanics for fulltime upperlevel positions during the license term.  ?p<  10. Citing the cases listed below, the licensee also contended that its record was the same as or better than those of licensees whose licenses were renewed unconditionally or with only  ?<reporting conditions.   See Applications of Certain Broadcast  ?<Stations Serving Communities in the Miami, Florida Area, 5 FCC  ?X<Rcd 4893 (1990) (concerning WNWS(AM)/WLYF(FM) (Miami);  ? <Applications of Certain Broadcast Stations Serving Communities in  ?<the State of Texas, 4 FCC Rcd 6685 (1989) (concerning KAMRTV and  ?<KTABTV) (Texas); Applications of Carolina Christian Broadcasting, Inc. For Renewal of License of Station WGGSTV,  ?@<Greenville, South Carolina, 3 FCC Rcd 1907, 1909 (1988)  ? <(concerning WKFTTV) (Carolina); Applications of Arkansas Educational Television Commission for Renewal of License of  ?!<Stations KETS(TV), et al., Little Rock, Arkansas, 3 FCC Rcd 1923,  ?`"<1924 (1989) (concerning KTBSTV) (Arkansas); Applications of Certain Broadcast Stations Serving Communities in the States of  ?#<Michigan and Ohio, 3 FCC Rcd 6944 (1988) (concerning WUAB(TV))"#0*((>+"  ?<(Michigan); Applications of Certain Broadcast Stations Serving  ?<Communities in the State of Florida, 3 FCC Rcd 1930 (1988)  ?<(concerning WTGLTV, WXELTV, and WNFTTV); South Carolina, supra  ?X<(concerning WODE(AM)/WNOKFM and WSPA(AM)/WSPAFM).  ?< 11. We find the licensee's precedents to be inapt and unpersuasive. WAXQ(FM) inappropriately focuses on limited aspects of the EEO records of the abovecited stations. On the whole, those EEO programs were better and more productive than the EEO program at issue. We believe that the record before us can be distinguished from the proffered cases based on, among other things, the size of the minority labor force in WAXQ(FM)'s MSA, its contact with referral sources, the overall ineffectiveness of its recruitment program, and the length of time the licensee has owned the station. Our focus in all cases is on a licensee's efforts to recruit minorities and females and the licensee's ongoing assessment of its EEO efforts. Contrary to WAXQ(FM)'s contention, minority hiring results are not more important than recruitment procedures and record keeping. Such results are but one factor in our analysis of the success of a licensee's recruitment efforts.  ?0<  12. However, we find the licensee's minority recruitment efforts, particularly for Hispanics in upperlevel positions, to be deficient because minorities were absent from a significant number of the licensee's applicant pools. Moreover, despite its lack of success in recruitment, the licensee failed to contact minorityspecific sources for most of its vacancies. The licensee also failed to maintain adequate records for meaningful selfassessment. 47 C.F.R.  73.2080.  ?8<  13. Recently, we adopted a Policy Statement regarding forfeitures to be assessed for violations of our EEO Rule.  ?<Standards for Assessing Forfeitures for Violations of the  ?<Broadcast EEO Rules, 9 FCC Rcd 929 (1994) ("EEO Policy  ?X<Statement"). A court decision issued since the EEO Policy  ? <Statement indicated that our general policy statement on  ?<forfeituresXX ?@< x;<ԍ Standards for Assessing Forfeitures, 6 FCC Rcd 4695 (1991),  ? < x<recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 5339 (1992), revised, 8 FCC Rcd 6215 (1993). must be put out for notice and comment. United  ?<States Telephone Ass'n v. FCC, 28 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1994)  ?x<(USTA). While USTA did not address our EEO Policy Statement, members of the broadcast community have called for the withdrawal  ? <of the EEO Policy Statement until it is likewise made available  ? <to the public for notice and comment. See, e.g., Petition for  ?!<Declaratory Ruling by Eagle Radio, Inc. (filed August 11, 1994);  ?`"<Letter from Henry L. Baumann to William E. Kennard, July 13, 1994. We will respond to these concerns in a separate order, and in the meantime, utilize our preJanuary 1994 process of"#0*(( +"  ?<assessing forfeitures.  ?<  14. Previously, we used a process of stare decisis. We would analogize the cases based on factors such as, but not limited to, station size, number of hiring opportunities, MSA size, recruitment patterns, applicant and interview pools, assessment, and recordkeeping. Under this approach, in determining appropriate sanctions and/or remedies, we have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of this case in light of  ?<pertinent case precedent.   We believe that the record in the instant case is similar to, but more egregious than, that of the licensee of KMPC(AM)/KLIT(FM), Los Angeles/Glendale, California,  ?` <in Applications of Golden West Broadcasters For Renewal of License of Stations KMPC(AM)/KLIT(FM), Los Angeles/Glendale,  ? <California, 10 FCC Rcd 1602 (1995) (KMPC). %  PQ ?H < x<ԍ The Los Angeles Long Beach, California MSA, in which the  x<stations are located, has a 41.9% minority labor force (10.8%  x <Black, 24.4% Hispanic, 6.1% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.6% American Indian).% The licensee therein could document recruitment for only 36 (58.1%) of its 62 overall openings and used 44 general and 16 minority recruitment sources. Minorities were absent from 36 (58.1%) overall applicant/  ?<interview pools and 33 (70.2%) of 47 upperlevel pools. In KMPC, we concluded that the licensee failed to comply with our EEO Rule and that its EEO deficiencies, particularly regarding Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander recruitment, warranted our increased concern. Accordingly, we renewed the licenses subject to a Notice of Apparent Liability for $20,000 and reporting conditions.  ?P< 15. The record here indicates that the licensee of WAXQ(FM) can document recruitment for only seven (30.4%) of 23 openings and that minorities were present in only nine applicant and interview pools. In addition, it can document contacts with minority sources for no more than seven openings and used only one Hispanic source despite obvious deficiencies with Hispanic recruitment. Furthermore, the licensee failed to maintain adequate records for meaningful selfassessment. Although the licensee correctly noted that the Commission is interested more in minority referrals than in which sources refer them, we note that the licensee could not adequately selfassess because it did not know which of its sources were productive and which were not.  ?< In addition, it could report minority referrals from only three sources; it used sources sporadically; and its recruitment of Hispanics, particularly for upperlevel positions, was inadequate as evidenced in part by their absence from at least 14 of 15  ? <upperlevel interview pools. See n.3, infra. Moreover, WAXQ(FM)'s recruitment of all minority groups for upperlevel positions was inadequate and it failed to selfassess and correct deficiencies in this regard. These deficiencies are manifest by"(# 0*((N*" the presence of three minorities in the applicant and interview pool for one upperlevel position only.  ?<  ?X<16. We believe that the facts in the instant case are similar  ? <to, but more egregious than, those of KMPC. Whereas the stations  ?<in KMPC recruited for 58.1% of openings, WAXQ(FM) recruited for 30.4% of its openings. Also, KMPC(AM)/KLIT(FM)'s recruitment efforts were more extensive, as evidenced by its use of 44 general and 16 minority recruitment sources. Thus, the license renewal of WAXQ(FM) will be made subject to reporting conditions and a Notice of Apparent Liability for $30,000.  ?<  ?` <h IV. CONCLUSION ă  ? < 17. After considering the information before us, we find that a hearing is not warranted and the record of the licensee of WAXQ(FM) supports license renewal. The license renewal will be subject to a Notice of Apparent Liability for $30,000 for violation of our EEO Rule and reporting conditions to ensure that the licensee improves its minority recruitment efforts, particularly for Hispanics.  ?0<< V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  ?< 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement filed with the Commission on March 29, 1994, between the NAACP  ?P<and GAF Broadcasting Company, Inc. IS APPROVED .  ?< 19. Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition to Deny  ?<filed by the NAACP against the licensee of WAXQ(FM) IS DISMISSED .  ?p<  ?8< 20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 503,  ?<this document constitutes a NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR  ?<FORFEITURE in the amount of $30,000 for the licensee of WAXQ(FM).  ?X<  ? <21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license renewal of GAF  ?<Broadcasting Company, Inc. for Station WAXQ(FM) IS MADE SUBJECT to the EEO reporting conditions specified herein.  ?@< 22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the licensee of Station WAXQ(FM) file an original and one copy of the following information on February 1, 1996, and February 1, 1997: (a) For each report, please make two lists divided by fulltime and parttime job vacancies during the twelve months preceding the respective reporting dates, indicating the job title, date of hire, the race or national origin, sex and the referral source of each applicant for each job and the race or national origin and sex of the person hired. The list should also note which recruitment sources were "' 0*((/"  ?< contacted;  @PQ ?X<ԍ Such a list might start: (1) News Director: Officials and Managers; Full-time. 3 Applicants: 1 White female NOW 1 Black male Urban League 1 Black female NAACP  xx< Sources Contacted: Local Newspaper, NOW, Urban League and NAACP. Selected: Black male (12/19/95). (b) A list of employees as of the January 1, 1996, payroll period for the first report and as of the January 1, 1997, payroll period for the second report, by job title, indicating part-time or full-time status (ranked from the highest paid classification), date of hire, sex and race or national origin; (c) Details concerning the station's efforts to recruit minorities for each position filled during the period specified, including identification of sources used and indicating whether any of the applicants declined actual offers of employment. In addition, the licensee may submit any relevant information with regard to the station's EEO performance and efforts thereunder.  ?< 23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED , that the Mass Media Bureau send by Certified Mail -- Return Receipt Requested -- one copy of this  ?h<Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability to all parties.  ?< 24. The reports are to be filed with the Acting Secretary of the Commission for the attention of the Mass Media Bureau's EEO Branch. Should the parties have any questions regarding this action, they may telephone the Mass Media Bureau's EEO Branch at 202-6327069. Regarding the forfeiture proceedings, the licensee of WAXQ(FM) may take any of the actions set forth in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, as summarized in the attachment to  ?8<this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent  ?<Liability. Any comments relating to its ability to pay should include those financial letters set forth in the noted attachment.  ? < FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary