WPC: 2BHT Z 3|x  )Courier New (TT)Courier New (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)HP LaserJet 4/4MtScript_230_1HPLAS4.WRSSx  @,, PX@2@+PX 3|xCourier New (TT)Courier New (Bold) (TT) RomanTimes Roman Italic?xxxX/Xx6X@DQX@6?xxxXXx `NQX.7UC2X+xXU4  pQX7PC2XH DXP\  P6QXP[dCYddddd7>d<d<$YYdCCddooCYd<d<$YYdCCddooCYd<d<+oodCCddddCod<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSS?xxxX/Xx6X@DQX@6?xxxXXx `NQX.7UC2X+xXU4  pQX7PC2XH DXP\  P6QXPy.C8*XHC\  P6QP.y.G8*X+G4  pQP.y.G8*X+G4  pQ"5@^*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW*7777CE7S]xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxJxJxJoJoJoJSSSS]]C]A]A7A]S]o.oEx]x]SxxJxJ]A]AN:*ZS7SSSSSS27}}S2}}S}277SSS77SS7S72t7[[[[_ee*C`_.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW7SSSS7]777SS:S7A7xx*7SSSS%S7}2S_7}SC[227`Z*727S}}}SxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf]SSSSSSxJJJJJ....S]SSSSS[S]]]]S]2: XA   &~#XU4  pQxX# #XU4  pQxX# Federal Communications Commission   #o\  PC DXP# #XP\  P6Q DXP# FCC 96246 ă   yxdddy  yO'#C\  P6QP#  yO'fv#X\  P6G;P#Before the   Federal Communications Commission  yOH'5G Washington, D.C. 20554 #Xj\  P6G; DXP#ѐ\  X4In re Applications of hhCq) ` `  hhCq)  X4Historic Hudson ValleyhhCq)ppFile Nos. BR910130VI  X4Radio, Inc.` `  hhCq)pp BRH910130VE   X 4` `  hhCq)  X 4 For renewal of license forhhCq)pp  Xo 4Stations WGHQ(AM)/WBPM(FM)hhCq)  XX 4Kingston, New York hhCq)  X*'|  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER  X' AND FORFEITURE ORDER   X4\ Adopted: May 29, 1996 hhCqReleased: June 12, 1996 By the Commission:  x 1. The Commission has under consideration: (1) its Memorandum Opinion and Order and  X[4 xNotice of Apparent Liability in Beacon Broadcasting Corp., 9 FCC Rcd 2132 (1994) ("Beacon");  XD4 x (2) a petition for reconsideration of Beacon filed by the New York State Conference of Branches  xof the NAACP ("NAACP"); (3) an opposition to the NAACP's petition for reconsideration filed  x_by Historic Hudson Valley Radio, Inc. ("Historic Hudson" or "licensee"), licensee of Stations  xEWGHQ(AM) and WBPM(FM); (4) a petition for reconsideration and response to Notice of  x[Apparent Liability ("NAL") filed by Historic Hudson; and (5) a supplement to petition for  x_reconsideration and response to notice of apparent liability filed by Historic Hudson. For the  xreasons that follow, we deny the NAACP's petition for reconsideration. However, we grant the  xlicensee's petition to the extent indicated herein. We recalculate the forfeiture and reduce it to $8,000.  Xu4  X^ 4  The NAACP's Petition for Reconsideration ă  X0"4 x 2. In Beacon, we found no evidence that Historic Hudson engaged in discrimination. We  x'observed that it recruited, interviewed and hired some minorities during the license term.  xHowever, we also found that Historic Hudson's recruitment and selfassessment efforts were  xc"egregiously deficient." Accordingly, we granted the renewal applications only for a shortterm,  xsubject to reporting conditions, and issued a $25,000 NAL for apparent violations of the  xCommission's EEO rule, Section 73.2080 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  73.2080.  X'4Beacon, 9 FCC Rcd at 213739. X'0*((%3'#XԌ X-v2 X- &}#XU4  pQX# #XU4  pQX# Federal Communications Commission #o\  PCXP# #XP\  P6QXP# FCC 96246 ă   yxdddy Й  X- x 3. In seeking reconsideration, the NAACP does not dispute any specific factual finding  xLconcerning Stations WGHQ(AM)/WBPM(FM). Rather, the NAACP contends that we did not  xproperly investigate whether the licensee's minority hiring record resulted from inadvertence or  xdiscrimination. The NAACP submits that because, in its view, Historic Hudson had an "extreme  xunderrepresentation" of minority applicants, Historic Hudson must have deliberately chosen not  x]to use minority recruitment sources to fill upperlevel jobs. The NAACP argues that the  x[Commission was compelled to investigate whether Historic Hudson intended to hire minorities only as clerical workers.   x 4. Historic Hudson challenges the NAACP's premise that there was an extreme  xunderrepresentation of minority applicants. Historic Hudson points out that it could not identify  xthe race of the vast majority of its applicants because it had mistakenly not solicited information  X - xabout the applicant's race or sex.q 2 XN< xЍ#Xj\  P6G;XP# #X\  P6G;P#See, however, Amendment of Part 73 EEO Rule, 4 FCC Rcd 1715 (1989), where we informed  xlicensees that "although some states appear to prohibit the collection of information about an applicant's race or  xnational origin, ... those same states recognize that such information may be lawfully collected if the collection is  xpursuant to the requirements of a federal agency or in furtherance of a program to analyze whether recruitment or  xselection procedures have an adverse impact upon protected classes. [footnote omitted] The data collection we have  xymandated is for the purpose of allowing licensees to analyze whether their recruitment efforts are resulting in  xapplicant pools which include qualified minority and female applicants. This purpose was articulated in 1976 and  X-has remained unchanged."#Xj\  P6G;XP# q To the extent it obtained such information about an applicant,  xit could do so only on the basis of visual inspection of those applicants who appeared for  xinterviews. In any event, the licensee denies that it intended to hire minorities only as clerical  xworkers. In this regard, the licensee observes that more than 50% of its hires were for parttime  xjobs, that nearly 70% (39 of 56) of its hires for onair positions were to fill parttime jobs, and that five minorities were among those hired for parttime onair positions.   xz 5. Reconsideration is appropriate only where the petitioner shows either a material error or  x[omission in the original order or raises additional facts not known or not existing until after the  X- x.petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters. See WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964),  X- x\aff'd sub nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S.  X- x967 (1966); 47 C.F.R.  1.106(c). Applying this standard, we conclude that reconsideration of  xour decision to renew the licenses of the stations without further investigation is not warranted.   x 6. Viewing the entire record, we reaffirm our conclusions that a hearing is not warranted and  xjthat there were no substantial questions left unanswered. Because of the small percentages of  Xe- xMminorities in the local labor force,e2 X($< xjЍ#Xj\  P6G;XP# #X\  P6G;P#The local labor force availability of minorities was 3.1% Black, 2.3% Hispanic, .5% AsianPacific  yO%-Islander, and .2% American Indian. See Beacon, 9 FCC Rcd at 2138 n. 13.#Xj\  P6G;XP# we disagree with the NAACP that there was an "extreme"e 0*&&"  x<underrepresentation" of minority applicants, and we find speculative the NAACP's assertion that  xthe licensee deliberately chose not to use minority recruitment sources for upperlevel job  x vacancies. Moreover, we specifically sought and reviewed information about the stations'  xrecruitment efforts. That information disclosed that the licensee recruited for most of its fulltime  xjob vacancies. Further, contrary to the NAACP's claim, the stations did hire minorities for onair  x[positions, albeit on a parttime basis. Although we normally focus on a licensee's efforts to fill  Xv- xfulltime vacancies in assessing EEO compliance,v2 X<ԍ#Xj\  P6G;XP# #X\  P6G;P#See WFSQ(FM), 7 FCC Rcd 6045, 6046 (1992).#Xj\  P6G;XP# we consider all relevant evidence in  xdetermining whether a substantial and material question of fact exists. In the EEO context, such  xLevidence includes, among other things, the composition of the local labor force, the number of  x.hiring opportunities the stations had during a representative period, the licensee's recruitment  xefforts, and the types of jobs filled. Here, after taking into account that the minority presence  xin the labor force is relatively small, that the majority of the licensee's onair positions were part xjtime and that five minorities were among the 39 persons hired for those positions, we conclude  xthat the licensee's minority hiring record does not raise a substantial question of discrimination.  xNothing in the NAACP's submissions leads us to believe that such a question exists. We therefore deny reconsideration.   Xy- Historic Hudson's Petition for Reconsideration /  Xb- Response to Notice of Apparent Liability ă  X4- x 7. In Beacon, we concluded, inter alia, that Historic Hudson had violated the Commission's  xlEEO rule (47 C.F.R. 73.2080). We found that Historic Hudson's recruitment efforts were  xdeficient because minorities were apparently absent from most of the stations' applicant and  x<interview pools. Moreover, it appeared that Historic Hudson had not conducted meaningful self X- xassessment of its EEO program. Referring to the guidelines set forth in Standards for Assessing  X- xMForfeitures for Violations of EEO Rules, 9 FCC Rcd 929 (1994) ("EEO Policy Statement"), we  xconcluded that the licensee's apparent EEO rule violations were egregious and warranted  xximposition of significant sanctions. We therefore renewed the WGHQ(AM)/WBPM(FM) licenses only for shortterms, subject to reporting conditions, and issued a $25,000 NAL.   x= 8. In seeking reconsideration and a reduction or rescission of the forfeiture, Historic Hudson  xsubmits that the NAL is patently deficient because it fails to identify the rule, or any specific  xjprovision thereof, that Historic Hudson violated. In any event, Historic Hudson disputes that  xit violated our EEO rule, arguing that it hired minorities in excess of their presence in the local  X- xlabor force. The licensee also argues that the penalties imposed pursuant to the EEO Policy  X- x<Statement are invalid because that statement should have been put out for comment and because  xthe penalties referenced therein were applied retroactively. Historic Hudson further submits that  X!- xBeacon ignored important facts regarding the stations' recruitment efforts and parttime hires.  xFinally, Historic Hudson argues that its record of compliance with the Act and our rules and its""y0*&&!"  xNpoor financial state warrant a reduction in the forfeiture. For the reasons that follow, we  X-conclude that the forfeiture should be reduced to $8,000.2 Ob< xЍ#X\  P6G;P# Historic Hudson had also requested that we reconsider our decision to require submission of EEO reports  xkand to grant its renewal applications only for a short term. Historic Hudson has recently filed its renewal  xapplications for both stations. Because we will determine in reviewing those applications whether renewal for the  xirest of the license terms will serve the public interest, Historic Hudson's request to have its licenses renewed for a  yO- xyfullterm is moot. See Lotus Communications, Inc., FCC 966, released March 20, 1996. Moreover, because  yOZ- x-Historic Hudson has submitted the only reports required by Beacon (see 9 FCC Rcd at 2139 n. 17), its request to have the reporting conditions lifted is moot.   x 9. At the outset, we reject Historic Hudson's contention that the NAL was patently deficient.  x>The petition alleged that each licensee violated the Commission's EEO rule and policies. In  X- xzparagraph five of Beacon, we explained the requirements of our broadcast EEO rule, Section  x73.2080 of the Commission's Rules. In discussing the performance of Historic Hudson in  xparagraph 41, we concluded that the licensee had apparently not consistently engaged in efforts  xto attract minorities and had failed to recruit for six fulltime vacancies. We further concluded  xthat the licensee had apparently failed to conduct meaningful selfassessment of its program.  X - xkFinally, in paragraph 43 of Beacon, we stated that the licenses of WGHQ(AM)/WBPM(FM)  xwould be renewed only for a short term, subject to reporting conditions, and that a $25,000 NAL  X - xwould be issued because of Historic Hudson's deficient recruitment efforts. In sum, Beacon  xclearly gave notice to Historic Hudson that the Commission found apparent violations of the  xCommission's EEO rule and that those violations pertained to Historic Hudson's apparent failure  xto recruit minorities whenever job vacancies became available [Section 73.2080(c)(2)] and its apparent failure to analyze the results of its recruitment efforts [Section 73.2080(c)(5)].  x. 10. In light of Historic Hudson's apparent failures as described above, we reject its argument  x[that it did not violate our rules. Moreover, we disagree with Historic Hudson's premise that its  xoverall record of hiring and employing minorities compels a conclusion that it fully complied  xwith our rules. As we have repeatedly informed licensees, hiring or employing minorities within  xcertain parameters does not insulate licensees from scrutiny because our focus is on the licensee's  xefforts, particularly its recruitment efforts and its efforts to selfassess the results of its program.  X- xkSee, e.g., Carolina Christian Broadcasting, Inc., 3 FCC Rcd 1907, 1910 (1988). As set forth in  X-Beacon and as described herein, those efforts were deficient.   X- xy 11. In adopting the EEO Policy Statement, we proposed the use of nonbinding guidelines for  xassessing forfeitures for violations of our broadcast EEO rule. We had issued general forfeiture  xyguidelines to identify those situations that could lead to a forfeiture and to identify criteria that  xymight be used to increase or decrease the base amount of the forfeiture and that might result in  X7- xgrant of renewal for less than a fullterm. Policy Statement, Standards for Assessing Forfeitures,  X - x6 FCC Rcd 4695 (1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 5339, revised, 8 FCC Rcd 6215 (1993)  X - x("Policy Statement"). The EEO Policy Statement was issued because, in 1993, we had deleted" 0*&&"  xthe broadcast EEO violation category from our general forfeiture guidelines and announced that  X- xwe would issue a further policy statement on broadcast EEO matters in the future. See Policy  X- xStatement, 8 FCC Rcd at 6215 n. 1. The EEO Policy Statement did not modify any part of the  X-EEO rule. See Streamlining  GYof Broadcast EEO Rule and Policies, 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996).   X- x 12. In United States Telephone Ass'n v. FCC, 28 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ("USTA"), the  Xv- xcourt set aside our general forfeiture guidelines. The USTA decision concluded that the forfeiture  xschedule should have been put out for comment under the Administrative Procedure Act.  XH- xFollowing the USTA decision, we have received requests to withdraw the EEO Policy Statement  X1- xuntil it is likewise made available to the public for comment. See, e.g., Petition for Declaratory  X - xRuling by Eagle Radio, Inc. (filed August 11, 1994); Letter from Henry L. Baumann to William  X - x\E. Kennard, July 13, 1994. In Streamlining  GYof Broadcast EEO Rule and Policies, we vacated the  xEEO Policy Statement and advised licensees that we would follow our recent practice of making  X - xforfeiture decisions by relying on case precedent to resolve the decisional case. Consistent with that approach, we now recalculate the proposed forfeiture assessed against Historic Hudson.   x> 13. In determining a forfeiture, we take into consideration the relevant statutory factors in  xSection 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act, including the nature, circumstances, extent and  xgravity of the violation, and Historic Hudson's record of compliance with our rules. In our  xevaluation, we consider the number of hiring opportunities, the composition of the local labor  xforce, the station's size, the licensee's recruitment efforts, the station's applicant and interview  X- xpools, and the licensee's selfassessment and recordkeeping. E.g., Stauffer Communications,  X- xInc., 10 FCC Rcd at 5061 (1995). After considering all of the foregoing, including Historic  xHudson's overall history of compliance with our rules as well as its financial situation, we conclude that a forfeiture of $8,000 is appropriate.   xk 14. In reaching the specified amount, we have determined that Historic Hudson's record is  X- xequivalent to that of Stations KDYL(AM)/KSFIFM, Salt Lake City, Utah. See Holiday  X|- xNBroadcasting Company, 10 FCC Rcd 4500 (1995), recon. denied, 11 FCC Rcd 1125 (1996).  Xe- x("Holiday"). There, the stations were located in an area that had 7.5% minorities in the labor  xyforce. During the three year review period, Stations KDYL(AM)/KSFIFM had between 21 and  x!24 fulltime employees. The stations had 16 fulltime hiring opportunities. The licensee  xmaintained that it contacted recruitment sources for 14 vacancies. However, the licensee's  xycontacts were marred by "incomplete mailings." Only one of 91 applicants was a minority. We  xconcluded that the licensee's recruitment efforts were inconsistent and that its self assessment was  xinadequate. Finding no discrimination, we granted fullterm renewal of license to the stations, subject to reporting conditions, and issued an $8,000 NAL.   x 15. Stations WGHQ(AM)/WBPM(FM) are located in an area that had 6.1% minorities in the  xlabor force. During their 19841991 license terms, they had between 15 and 24 fulltime"#0*&&G""  X- x[employees. During the period under review, the stations had 36 fulltime hiring opportunities.%2 Oy< xЍ #X\  P6G;P#In Beacon, we incorrectly stated that WGHQ(AM)/WBPM(FM) had 35 fulltime hiring opportunities  yOQ-during the period under review.#Xj\  P6G;XP#%  x\The licensee recruited from among several general recruitment sources and as many as four  X- xyminorityspecific recruitment sourcesy02 X< xЍ#Xj\  P6G;XP# #X\  P6G;P# In its petition for reconsideration, Historic Hudson contends that the Kingston Human Relations  xCommission, Ulster County Community Action, and Junior League of Kingston, which it used for four vacancies, three vacancies and three vacancies, respectively, should be viewed as minority recruitment sources. We will do so.  for 30 of the vacancies. For the remaining openings, the  x=licensee relied primarily on employee referrals, which, as discussed below, will not be credited.  xHistoric Hudson's records reflected that few minority applicants resulted. Four (11%) of the  xjoverall applicant/interview pools for fulltime positions, but only one fulltime upperlevel (3%)  xapplicant/interview pool, contained minorities. There was no indication that Historic Hudson  x[took note of the general absence of minorities from its upperlevel applicant/interview pools or  xmade any attempt to increase the number of minority applicants and interviewees for fulltime upperlevel positions.   x 16. The stations [KDYL(AM)/KSFIFM and WGHQ(AM)/WBPM(FM)] are located in areas  xwhere minorities constitute roughly 7% of the local labor force. They are also comparable in  xsize. Both licensees recruited for a similar percentage of job openings, (the licensee of Stations  xKDYL(AM)/KSFIFM recruited for 88% of its job vacancies while the licensee of Stations  xPWGHQ(AM)/WBPM(FM) recruited for 83% of its vacancies). Although Stations  xiWGHQ(AM)/WBPM(FM) had more hiring opportunities, they also had more applicant pools with  Xy- x<minorities. Nonetheless, neither licensee adequately assessed its recruitment efforts. In Holiday,  xthe Salt Lake City licensee did not alter its recruitment practices despite the virtual absence of  xapplications from minorities, while the instant licensee took no significant action to increase the  x>number of minority applicants for fulltime upperlevel positions. Further, because Historic  xHudson did not collect data as to the race and national origin of most of its applicants, it was in  xyno position to know which, if any, of its recruitment efforts were effective in attracting minority  X- xapplicants. Considering the facts of this case, we believe the appropriate forfeiture is $8,000, the  X-same as that imposed in Holiday. x` `  X- xZ #Xj\  P6G;XP#17. In assessing its recruitment efforts, the licensee contends that the Commission should credit  xjits use of employee referrals, noting that employee referrals may be one way to satisfy the EEO  xrule. While employee referrals may indeed be a way of satisfying a licensee's recruitment  Xe- xobligations,yeq2 X"< xiЍ#Xj\  P6G;XP# #X\  P6G;P#See Section 73.2080(c)(2)(iv), where the requirement to use potential sources of minority and female  xapplicants to supply referrals whenever job vacancies are available may be met by encouraging current employees  yO8$-to refer minority and female applicants.#Xj\  P6G;XP# we have also observed that the use of "word of mouth" recruitment may not be  xproper if it tends to exclude minorities and females and simply perpetuates a white male"N 0*&&"  X- xdominated staff. See Rust Communications Group, 73 FCC 2d 39, 48 (1979) (subsequent history  X- xomitted). In this case, the stations had few minority employees during the license terms,y2 Xb< xЍ#Xj\  P6G;XP# #X\  P6G;P#See Beacon, 9 FCC Rcd at 2138 n. 13, which describes the stations' fulltime employment profiles.  xMoreover, even considering the licensee's parttime employment of minorities, it appears that, during the license  yO-terms, the stations never employed more than two minorities at any time.#Xj\  P6G;XP# and  x<there is no evidence to demonstrate that employee referrals resulted in minority applicants during  xthe period under review. Accordingly, we will not credit the licensee's use of employee referrals.  x 18. The licensee also contends that the Commission ignored its parttime hires. This  x?contention is incorrect. In our original decision, we cited the licensee's hiring of a Black  xapplicant for a parttime upperlevel announcer position before concluding that no substantial and  XH- xLmaterial questions of fact existed. See Beacon, 9 FCC Rcd at 2138. In affirming our conclusion  x.that there was no discrimination at the stations and in affirming our decision to renew Historic  X - xHudson's licenses, we are also taking notice of the licensee's parttime hires. See para. 6, above.  xHowever, inasmuch as our primary focus is on the licensee's efforts to fill fulltime vacancies,  xthe hiring and employment of minorities on a parttime basis does not mitigate the licensee's  xnoted deficiencies in recruitment for fulltime vacancies and its failure to adequately selfassess  X - xLthe results of those efforts. See Radio Chattanooga, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 9773 (1995). Thus, even though we will renew the licenses, we continue to find a forfeiture appropriate.  x/ 19. Finally, as noted, the licensee has asked us to consider its ability to pay in setting the  Xb- xforfeiture. Our review of the licensee's financial documents b 2 X<ԍ#Xj\  P6G;XP# #X\  P6G;P#The licensee has requested that we keep its financial information confidential. We grant this request.#Xj\  P6G;XP# leads us to conclude that the  xstations have not been profitable. The stations' expenses, without regard for depreciation, have  xexceeded their income, and the stations have been forced to offset decreasing income by reducing  x<operating expenses. On the other hand, expenses for the stations have included an annual salary  xjto a licensee principal, rental payments for the studio to three licensee stockholders, and rental  xpayments for the tower site to a licensee principal. Moreover, the licensee itself showed a profit for the twelve months ending May 31, 1993.   X- x 20. In Benito Rish, 10 FCC Rcd 2861 (1995), the Commission reduced a $10,000 forfeiture  X- xZto $2,500, inter alia, because the licensee's station [Station WREM(AM), Monticello, Maine] was  xa 5 kW daytime only station licensed to a community of 425. The Commission concluded that,  x[in light of those circumstances and the station's apparently unprofitable history, a forfeiture of  x$2,500 would adequately deter future misconduct. Here, the two stations are licensed to a  xcommunity of 23,500, and, as noted, the licensee has shown a profit during the last period for  xwhich information was submitted. Inasmuch as we have already reduced the forfeiture  x[substantially, we are not persuaded that the information relating to Historic Hudson's financial  xcondition warrants a further reduction. While a $25,000 forfeiture might have impaired the  xlicensee's ability to serve its listeners, we do not believe that a forfeiture of $8,000 is beyond its" 0*&&" ability to pay or will in any way affect the licensee's ability to serve the public interest.   x 21. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the petition for reconsideration filed by the NAACP IS DENIED.   x 22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Historic Hudson's request for confidentiality IS  xGRANTED and that the financial information submitted with its response to the NAL SHALL  xzBE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL pursuant to Sections 0.457 and 0.459 of the Commission's Rules.  x> 23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of  X - x1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 503(b), that Historic Hudson FORFEIT to the United  xStates the sum of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for the willful and repeated violations of  x|Section 73.2080 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 73.2080. Payment of the  xforfeiture may be made by mailing to the Commission a check or similar instrument payable to the Federal Communications Commission.   x 24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Mass Media Bureau send by Certified MailReturn  xjReceipt Requested, copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Forfeiture Order to the NAACP and to Historic Hudson.  x x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton  Xe-x` `  hhActing Secretary#x6X@`7pX@#