WPC0 2MBVRKZ3|x7jC:, Xj\  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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4SiHPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\YnhXP2> K Z3|x"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4SiHPLAS4SI.PRSx  @\Ynh@2 pvrpkX(a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2 k`v t{ a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2 !  ^  a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2   Wa4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2Q!a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2 _a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2873a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2jenSPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:)>F)))))))))<)C"VV5VYO5O5O5O5^<^<^<^>^<^C^F.".C.).CaC>>^CO"O6O)O0O"VCVVCVC^<^O=O)OFVCVCVCVCVCVCxVV>O5O5O5VCO)VCC.O)V<X<<( (WTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN+HH+@<)<<<</>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNCorporation, 7 FCC Rcd 4254 (1992) (Lanser). In Liggett, we denied a petition to deny 0TP O< ` }Ѝ#]\  PCɓP#` ` The NAACP petition to deny, which was filed also on behalf of the Ohio State Conference of  xBranches of the NAACP, named 53 stations in the states of Michigan and Ohio, including Stations WFUR/WFUR yOm- xZFM. For administrative convenience, we addressed the NAACP's requests and allegations in both the Liggett and  yO5-Lanser decisions.  filed  x-by the Michigan State Conference of Branches of the National Association for the Advancement  xof Colored People (NAACP) and granted various renewal applications, including those filed by  xFurniture City Broadcasting Corporation (Furniture City or licensee) for Stations WFUR/WFUR xFM, Grand Rapids, Michigan. We granted WFUR/WFURFM's renewals subject to reporting  xconditions and issued a $7,500 Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) for apparent violations of the  xlCommission's EEO Rule, 47 C.F.R.  73.2080. Finally, we denied the NAACP's request to  xiorder the early filing of renewal applications of seven stations which were coowned with stations  X- xnamed in the petition to deny. See Liggett, 7 FCC Rcd at 45244525 n.3. In Lanser, in addition  xto denying the NAACP's petition to deny against the stations named in that order, we declined  xjthe NAACP's request to commence an investigation of the EEO practices of all licensees in the  xGrand Rapids, Michigan market. For the reasons discussed herein, we grant the licensee's request  xfor rescission of the NAL but deny the remainder of the licensee's request. We also deny the"@ 0*&&33h" NAACP's petitions for reconsideration.  X-   X- ` "x2. ` ` In its "Request for Rescission of Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirements,"  xFurniture City argues that the NAL is barred by Section 503(b)(6) of the Communications Act  x{of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(6), and by Section 1.80(c)(1) of the Commission's  x.Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.80(c)(1). Furniture City notes that the NAL is based upon activities which  xlast occurred on May 20, 1989 more than three years prior to the release of the July 17, 1992,  xNAL. Furniture City claims further that the Commission mistakenly placed more emphasis on  xxthe level of success the stations had than on their EEO efforts. It submits that the stations' record  X1- xis not comparable to that outlined in WROV Broadcasters, Inc., 4 FCC Rcd 6157 (1989)  X - x.(WROV), relied upon by the Commission in Liggett. Furniture City argues that in WROV, that  x[station used three recruitment sources for only seven of 65 openings while WFUR/WFURFM  xused 16 sources in addition to onair ads and employee referrals for its six openings. Finally,  X - xFurniture City contends that Liggett erroneously found that the licensee interviewed all but one  xmale applicant for upperlevel jobs and all but one female applicant for lowerlevel jobs. It submits that its parttime and fulltime hiring data show otherwise.  Xy- ` Px3. ` ` In seeking reconsideration of our decision to grant renewal of license for Stations  xWFUR/WFURFM, the NAACP asserts that the Commission erred by not sanctioning the licensee  XK- xfor its failure to recruit and hire Blacks.K O< ` Ѝ#]\  PCɓP# ` ` The NAACP also asserts that the Commission stated in Liggett that 7.3% of the Grand Rapids MSA  xlabor force was comprised of minorities "without providing a source for that figure." It then asserts that a "1986  xdatabase" at the Commission provided a minority labor force figure of 9.0%. We disagree. The only figures used  xby the Commission in this case are from the 1980 Census, and they indicate that minorities comprised 7.3% of the Grand Rapids MSA labor force at that time.  It also argues that the Commission wrongly "appeared  xto rely with approval" on the licensee's practice of sending a form letter twice a year to minority  xsources while general sources allegedly received notices of specific openings. The NAACP  xasserts that this is not a legitimate form of recruitment. The NAACP requests that the Commission reconsider its decision and order a hearing.  X- ` x4. ` ` In seeking reconsideration of Liggett, the NAACP also urges that the Commission  xorder the early filing of renewal applications for seven stations that were coowned with stations  x=named in its petition to deny the applications of various Michigan and Ohio radio stations. In  X|- xseeking reconsideration of Lanser, the NAACP argues that we irrationally denied its request for a marketwide investigation. "70*%%33]"  X-x` ` G% DISCUSSION ă  X- ` x5. ` ` Reconsideration is appropriate where the petitioner shows either a material error  xor omission or raises additional facts not known or not existing until after the petitioner's last  X- xopportunity to present such matters. See WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), aff'd sub nom.,  X- xNLorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 967 (1966);  Xv- x>47 C.F.R.  1.106(c). Applying this standard, we conclude that reconsideration of Lanser is  X_-inappropriate, but we will rescind the NAL imposed in Liggett, as discussed below.  X1- ` x6. ` ` The NAL. We agree with Furniture City that the NAL is barred by the statute of  xlimitations provisions of former Section 503(b)(6) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47  xU.S.C.  503(b)(6). At the time the NAL was issued, on July 17, 1992, Section 503(b)(6) stated  xthat a forfeiture penalty shall not be imposed if the violation being sanctioned occurred three  X - xyears prior to the date the required notice is issued. See also, former Section 1.80(c)(1) of the  X - xCommission's Rules.  . O7< ` oԍ#]\  PCɓP# ` ` The statutory provision, 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(6), was amended on October 27, 1992, by the  xTelecommunications Authorization Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102538, 106 Stat. 3543 (1992). The amendment  xextended the statute of limitations to encompass the entire current license term and clarified the meaning of the term  yO- x"current license term." The Commission amended 47 C.F.R.  1.80(c)(1) on January 28, 1993, in Amendment of  yOg-Section 1.80 Forfeiture Payment Procedures, 8 FCC Rcd 658 (1993), to reflect the amended statute. The last hiring data considered by the Commission occurred on or before  xMay 20, 1989, which was more than three years prior to release of the NAL. Therefore, the  x>NAL was barred by the thenapplicable statute of limitations, and the licensee's request for  Xy- xrescission of the NAL will be granted. See Bloomington Twin Cities Broadcasting Corporation, FCC 96299 at para. 15, released July 24, 1996.  X4- ` x7. ` ` The Stations' EEO Record. Furniture City claims that we focused on the lack of  xsuccess of its EEO efforts rather than the efforts themselves. We disagree. The emphasis in  X- x[Liggett was on the licensee's almost negligible recruitment and its inadequate selfassessment.  X- xAs stated in Liggett, the licensee should have considered its lack of success as a relevant factor  xMin its selfassessment, but apparently it failed to do so. Moreover, we found that there was  X-virtually no recruitment of women for upperlevel jobs. See Liggett at 4523.  X- ` x8. ` ` The licensee's further argument, that its record was significantly better than that  X|- xof the licensee in WROV, is also without basis. Although the licensee in WROV had more hiring  xopportunities and used fewer sources than the licensee of WFUR/WFURFM, Furniture City  xmistakenly credits itself with contacting 16 sources (in addition to onair ads) for all six of its  xyopenings. In fact, it sent a notice to its minority sources for only one of its openings and to its  xgeneral sources for only lowerlevel openings. Moreover, whatever Furniture City's policy was  xconcerning job notices, it apparently sent specific notices only once. In any event, licensees are " 0*%%33."  X- xrequired to recruit women and minorities for all openings. See 47 C.F.R.  73.2080(c)(2). The  xjlicensee's practice of sending general notices to sources without a specific job being available,  xabsent additional recruitment efforts, is inadequate recruitment under our EEO Rule.  xFurthermore, WROV's record is similar to that of WFUR/WFURFM because both licensees had  xdeficient recruitment efforts toward women. Although the records of the licensee and WROV  X- x.are not identical, they are comparable for the reasons we stated in Liggett, and we find WROVĄ  x=to be appropriate precedent. Finally, in claiming that the Commission erred in its evaluation of  xmale and female applicants being considered for upper and lowerlevel jobs, respectively, the  xylicensee includes parttime hires. However, as in this case, the Commission focuses principally  X1- xjon fulltime hires. See License Renewal Applications, 7 FCC Rcd 6045, 6046 (1992) [concerning  xMStation WFSQ(FM), Tallahassee, Florida]. Thus, there was no mistake in the Commission's figures.  X - ` x9. ` ` The NAACP's Petition for Reconsideration. We also find that the NAACP petition  X - xfor reconsideration fails to justify any change in Liggett. The NAACP points to no evidence of  xdiscrimination, nor does it otherwise raise any substantial and material question of fact about the  X- xEEO record of Stations WFUR/WFURFM. Moreover, Liggett clearly sanctioned the licensee  xfor deficient recruitment efforts with respect to both minorities and women. Finally, the  x.NAACP's allegation that the owner of WFUR/WFURFM sent notices of specific jobs only to  x=nonminority sources is not supported by the record. In his statement, the owner claimed that  xhe sent a notice about a specific job to a number of organizations and attached a list that indicated that at least three were minority organizations.  X- ` px 10. ` ` In the case of the NAACP's request that we order the early filing of renewal  xapplications for stations coowned with those named in the petition, we continue to believe that  X- xthe NAACP has not presented a "compelling reason" to do so. See Liggett, 7 FCC Rcd at 4524 x25 n.3. In this regard, the NAACP has presented no evidence that any of the licensees have  xdiscriminated against minorities or otherwise failed to comply with our EEO Rule. Therefore, we deny this request.  XN- ` x 11. ` ` Likewise, we continue to believe that a marketwide investigation of the EEO  xpractices of Grand Rapids, Michigan licensees would serve no useful purpose. As we stated in  X - xLanser, our focus is on individual licensees, not markets. In any event, following the NAACP's  x.petition to deny, we sent inquiry letters to nine Grand Rapids stations. We imposed reporting  xconditions on seven licensees whose efforts were deemed questionable. Consequently, EEO  xreports have been filed annually for three years by the seven licensees. The NAACP submits no  x-information suggesting that the investigation it requests would warrant changes in our decisions regarding the Grand Rapids licensees. x` `  hh@h  X#- ` x 12. ` ` After consideration of all of the above, we conclude that the only change warranted"#0*%%33G""  X- xin Liggett as it pertains to WFUR/WFURFM is to rescind the NAL. We otherwise reject the  x{licensee's arguments in its response to the NAL and also deny the NAACP's petition for  x[reconsideration. Furthermore, we deny the NAACP's request that stations listed in its petition  xto deny be required to file early renewal applications. Finally, we also deny the NAACP's request that we conduct a marketwide investigation of stations in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  Xv-  ORDERING CLAUSES ă  XH- ` 4x 13. ` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the portion of Furniture City's pleading  xrequesting rescission of the notice of apparent liability for forfeiture IS GRANTED and the proposed forfeiture IS RESCINDED.  X - ` Dx 14. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that both the licensee's pleading requesting  xlunconditional renewal of its licenses and the NAACP's petition for reconsideration ARE DENIED.  X- ` x15. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Mass Media Bureau send by Certified Mail  Xy- xjԩ Return Receipt Requested copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Furniture City and the NAACP. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton x` `  hhActing Secretary