WPCh 2MBVRKZ3|jy.X80,(X\  P6G;P"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN K Z3|j"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4M LPT3:(Add) RM 7310HL4MPCA1.PRSXP\  P6Q\8!}XP2 p%zvpTimes New RomanTimes New Roman Bolda8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . 2 kk"v2 a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` 22 t N   BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2L d   a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 2~N''a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 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. ׃  2)7a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   22d&a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 23deDoc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:3$B94lf;5l;6$><Technical 6Technical 63` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 24 Technical 3Technical 35 Technical 4Technical 46` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2fE7l>8$?9$$A:HCTechnical 1Technical 17 Technical 7Technical 78` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 89` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 1toc 1:` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#2N;E<G=I>Ktoc 2toc 2;` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3<` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4=` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5>` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#2U?BN@v`PAPBRtoc 6toc 6?` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7@ toc 8toc 8A` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9B` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#2\CDUDbWEYFv[index 1index 1C` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2D` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoaE` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionF 2aGlF\Hr\K$]Ko__Equation Caption_Equation CaptionG endnote referenceendnote referenceH "i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""Coalition on Mass Media v. FCC, 595 F.2d 621 (D.C. Cir. 1978), and designate the licensee's  xrenewal applications for hearing. In response, the licensee denies Rainbow's allegations, argues  xthat its EEO efforts are in full compliance with the Commission's rules, and requests unconditional renewal of its licenses.  X"- ` x3.` ` Rainbow derived its factual allegations from WLXN(AM)/WWGLFM's EEO  xLprogram and annual employment reports. As a threshold matter, we found that Rainbow made  Xh$- xa prima facie showing that grant of the renewal applications would have been inconsistent with  xthe public interest. Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47  X:&- xU.S.C.  309(d)(1); Astroline Communications Co. v. FCC, 857 F.2d 1556 (D.C. Cir. 1988)  X#'-("Astroline"). "#'0*l(l(tt%"Ԍ X- ` ԙ x4.` ` After review of all matters presented, however, we conclude that there are no  xsubstantial and material questions of fact, and that grant of the applications would be consistent  xwith Section 309(k) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  309(k).  x[Further, we find no evidence of employment discrimination. Therefore, because the licensee is  xotherwise qualified, grant of the applications will serve the public interest. 47 U.S.C.   x=309(d)(2). While we grant renewal of the licenses of Stations WLXN(AM)/WWGLFM, we do so subject to an admonishment for the reasons set forth below.  XH- II. DISCUSSION ă  X - ` x5.` ` Section 73.2080 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  73.2080, requires that  xa broadcast licensee refrain from employment discrimination and establish and maintain an EEO  x=program reflecting positive and continuing efforts to recruit and promote qualified women and  xminorities. When evaluating EEO performance, the Commission focuses on the licensee's efforts  xto recruit and promote qualified women and minorities and the licensee's ongoing assessment of  xits EEO efforts. Such an assessment enables the licensee to take corrective action if qualified  xwomen and minorities are not present in the applicant pool. The Commission also focuses on  Xy- xany evidence of discrimination by the licensee. See Sections 73.2080(a), (b), and (c) of the  x1Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  73.2080(a), (b), and (c). Before discussing the EEO  x>performance of Stations WLXN(AM)/WWGLFM, however, we address first the licensee's  xZargument that Rainbow has no standing, then its constitutional challenge to our EEO Rule in light  X- xof the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pe9a, 515 U.S. __, 115 S. Ct.  X-2097 (1995) ("Adarand"), and then its request to use alternative labor force data.  X-x A.` ` Standing  X-  X- ` x6.` `  In challenging an application pursuant to Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications  xAct, a petitioner must demonstrate party in interest status. In addition, a petitioner must, as a  xthreshold matter, submit "specific allegations of fact sufficient to show . . . that a grant of the  xNapplication would be prima facie inconsistent with [the public interest, convenience and  XN- xnecessity]." 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(1); Astroline, supra; Texas Coast Broadcasters, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd  X7- x?1688 (1996); Dubuque T.V. Limited Partnership, 4 FCC Rcd 1999 (1989). The allegations,  xexcept for those of which official notice may be taken, must be supported by the affidavit of a person with personal knowledge of the facts alleged. 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(1).  X- ` x7.` ` Submitted with the petition to deny is a statement under penalty of perjury from  xma member of Rainbow's organization. The declarant states that she has resided in the  xGreensboro/WinstonSalem, North Carolina area for 30 years, that she is a regular listener of  xStations WLXN(AM) and WWGLFM, and that she would be seriously aggrieved if the petition  xKis not granted. The licensee argues that Rainbow failed to establish standing because it does not  xallege that any of its members have been discriminated against with respect to employment, that  xany of its members are interested in employment, or that any of its members have been denied"Q%0*&&tt $"  xZemployment at the stations. Because there is no dispute that the declarant resides in the stations'  xservice area or is a listener of the stations, we find that the declarant's statement meets the well X- x[established requirements for standing. See NAB Petition for Rulemaking, 82 FCC 2d 89, 93101  X- xL(1980); see also Stephens County Broadcasting Co., 11 FCC Rcd 3628 (1996). Accordingly, we hold that Rainbow has petitioner status against Stations WLXN(AM)/WWGLFM.  X-  Xv-xB . ` ` Constitutionality of the Commission's EEO Rule  XH- ` x8.` ` The licensee contends that our EEO Rule is inconsistent with the holding in  X1-Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pe9a, supra. We disagree.  X - ` x9.` ` Adarand addresses the constitutionality of a racebased preference program arising  xunder federal law. The Supreme Court held that where questions arise as to a violation of the  xxpersonal right to equal protection of the laws as a result of such programs, courts should evaluate  x-such challenges by invoking the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review. Under strict scrutiny,  X - xracial classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further a compelling governmental interest.  Xb- `  x 10.` ` The requirements imposed by our EEO Rule, 47 C.F.R.  73.2080, are  XK- xfundamentally different from a racebased preference program such as that at issue in Adarand.KTF X-ԍx#C\  P6Q,P#Adarand involved a federal procurement set aside program.  X4- xThe Rule does not require that any person be hired or accorded a hiring preference based on  X- x>racial or ethnic status. Rather, it requires that licensees make efforts to recruit minority and  X- xwomen applicants so that they will be ensured access to the hiring process. yTF X0-  Ѝx#C\  P6Q,P#The standard of review for gender based programs is intermediate scrutiny. Under that standard, there must  xbe an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for genderbased government action and that action is constitutional if  yO- x,it serves an important governmental objective and is substantially related to achievement of that objective. United  yO- xStates v. Virginia, 116 S. Ct. 2264 (1996); J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994); Mississippi  yOq-University of Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982).  The ultimate  xdecision as to whether to hire a particular applicant may be premised upon any non xdiscriminatory considerations, without regard to the applicant's race, ethnicity, or gender status.  x Further, our Rule does not require licensees to hire any prescribed "quota" of minorities or  x[women. Thus, our EEO rule imposes no requirement that would operate to deprive any person of a benefit he or she might receive but for his or her race, ethnicity, or gender.  Xe- ` x 11.` ` We employ a twostep process in evaluating licensees' EEO efforts. In the first  x>step, we seek to identify those licensees whose EEO efforts may be unsatisfactory so as to  x warrant further inquiry. Whether a licensee's employment profile as reflected in its Annual  xEmployment Reports filed during the license term meets the processing guidelines is one factor  xconsidered in making this preliminary assessment, along with information contained in the" J0*&&tt="  xrenewal application, allegations raised by any petitions to deny or informal objections, and any  x\other information available concerning the licensee's EEO record. We emphasize that these  xguidelines are used as an initial screening tool for determining the stations whose EEO programs  xmight require further investigation. If the first step of review indicates that the station's EEO  xefforts are satisfactory, the station is found to be in compliance with our EEO Rule. In no  xsituation are a station's efforts found to be unsatisfactory or is it found to have violated our EEO  xjRule solely because it does not meet the processing guidelines. Where we find that a station's  xefforts may be unsatisfactory, we will generally request additional information which is analyzed  xalong with relevant pleadings to determine if, among other things, the station notifies sources of  xyminority referrals when vacancies occur and engages in continuous selfassessment of its EEO  xprogram; if, in light of the evidence, the station violated our EEO Rule; and, if it did, what  xLsanctions or remedies may be appropriate. Compliance with the processing guidelines is not a  xfactor in this second step analysis. Broadcast licensees whose employment profiles are below our processing guidelines have been renewed without sanction.  X - ` P x 12.` ` Accordingly, we find no basis for concluding that our process denies any person  x.equal protection of the laws. Indeed, the licensee has not identified any person who arguably  Xy- x[suffered such injury as a result of the provisions of our Rule. As the Court emphasized in City  Xb- xof Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 493 (1989) ("Croson"), the right to equal  xprotection is a personal right. In the absence of any provisions in our EEO Rule that abridge the  X4- x[personal rights of any person, we conclude that Adarand does not implicate our EEO program.  X- ` Sx 13.` ` Our reading of the scope of the Adarand decision is consistent with the  X- xinterpretation of the case by the Department of Justice ("DOJ"). An analysis of the Adarand decision by DOJ states:  X-  @xMere outreach and recruitment efforts . . . typically would not be subject to Adarand  X-  1xstandards. Indeed, postCroson cases indicate that such efforts are considered race   xneutral means of increasing minority opportunity. In some sense, of course, the  Xe-  xtargeting of minorities through outreach and recruitment campaigns involves race  0xconscious action. But the objective there is to expand the pool of applicants or bidders   xto include minorities, not to use race or ethnicity in the actual decision. If the   xgovernment does not use racial or ethnic classifications in selecting persons from the  X -xexpanded pool, Adarand ordinarily would be inapplicable.3 TF yO -  z#C\  P6Q,P#ЍxMemorandum to All Agency General Counsels from Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice, at 7 (June 28, 1995) (footnotes omitted). 3  X-  X- x C. ` ` Appropriate Labor Force Data  X!- ` #x 14.` ` The licensee contends that its EEO performance should be evaluated using labor  xforce statistics for Davidson County, North Carolina. The stations' community of license,"" 0*&&tt!"  x<Lexington, is located in Davidson County, which is included in the GreensboroWinstonSalem x[High Point Metropolitan Statistical Area ("Greensboro MSA"). According to the 1990 Census  xMdata, Davidson County shows a 46% female and 9.9% minority (8.9% Black, 0.4% Hispanic,  x0.3% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.3% American Indian) labor force; in comparison, the  xyGreensboro MSA shows a 47.8% female and 19.7% minority (18.1% Black, 0.6% Hispanic, 0.6%  xLAsian/Pacific Islander, and 0.4% American Indian) labor force. The licensee contends that the  xstations' "effective labor force" is Davidson County rather than the Greensboro MSA. It asserts  xthat the stations' formats are local in appeal and do not attempt to compete for advertisers or  xjlisteners with the radio stations serving the Greensboro, WinstonSalem, and High Point metro  xarea. It states that the stations aim to serve Davidson County and the surrounding rural area,  xwhich is why the main studio for both stations is located in Lexington. It further states that the licensee does not maintain any offices or facilities outside Davidson County.  X - ` x15.` ` The licensee points out that, in determining the appropriate labor market, the  xZCommission looks at practical difficulties in attracting minority applicants. The licensee contends  xthat it satisfies the Commission's requirements for use of alternative labor force data because  x>Lexington is approximately 32 miles from Greensboro and 21 miles from WinstonSalem, the  xnearest areas where minorities are centrally located. Second, it asserts that commuting between  xkthese cities and Lexington can be done only with a private automobile as there is no regular  x!means of mass transportation. Third, it asserts that it has had considerable difficulty in  xpersuading potential minority employees to relocate from the larger Greensboro, WinstonSalem,  xand High Point metro markets to Lexington. It states that minority recruits have expressed  xnumerous reasons for such reluctance, including reservations about the stations' format (the FM  xstation airs Southern gospel programming and the AM station airs primarily news and talk show  xiprogramming), concern over the disruptions inherent in commuting and relocation, and reluctance  xto move to a lower paying job market. The licensee argues that because the stations are true  x"community" stations in the sense that programming efforts are concentrated locally, and because  xthe licensee's effective labor pool is Davidson County, the appropriate benchmark for evaluating  xZthe licensee's EEO program is Davidson County labor force data rather than the Greensboro MSA labor force data.  X7- ` x16.` ` In its reply, Rainbow contends that the licensee has not justified use of alternative  xlabor force data. Rainbow points out that the licensee does not suggest that most of its staff, or  xmost of its job applicants, are drawn strictly from Davidson County. Rainbow argues that the  xylicensee's suggestion that its failure to hire minorities can be attributed to the stations' formats,  xjrelocation or commuting costs, and supposedly low pay are factors that affect all races and are not unique to minority applicants.  X"- ` ox17.` ` As our initial frame of reference in analyzing EEO efforts of broadcast stations,  xthe Commission uses the labor force data of the MSA in which the station is located or, when  Xh$- xZthe station is outside the MSA, the county in which the station is located. Michigan/Ohio, 3 FCC  xRcd 6944, 6945 (1988). In certain circumstances, we will evaluate a station's EEO efforts by"Q%0*&&tt $"  xreference to alternative labor force data if the licensee shows that the MSA labor force is not  x=applicable to its circumstances. The Commission evaluates such requests by considering: (1)  xwhether the distance of the station from the areas with significant minority population in the  xMSA is great; (2) whether commuting from those areas to the station is difficult (such difficulties  xNmay be based on distance but may also be based on other factors such as lack of public  xZtransportation); and (3) whether recruitment efforts directed at the MSA minority labor force have  Xv- xbeen fruitless. Buckley Broadcasting Corp., 9 FCC Rcd 2099, 2101 (1994) (noting the standard  X_- xjfor evaluating a request to use an alternative labor force is "a threepart test"); Broadcast EEO, 2 FCC Rcd 3967, 3973 (1987).  X - ` $x18.` ` The burden is on the licensee to justify the use of alternative labor force data.  X - xBroadcast EEO, 2 FCC Rcd at 3973. We find that the licensee did not substantiate the factors  x>required to meet the standard for use of alternative labor force data. While the licensee did  X - xaddress potential commuting difficulties such as the lack of a regular means of mass  xtransportation between the stations g"NE ' g"NE  location and Greensboro and WinstonSalem (a distance of  xapproximately 32 miles and 21 miles, respectively), it failed to demonstrate that recruitment  X- xefforts directed at the MSA were fruitless. See Lanser Broadcasting Corporation, et al., 7 FCC  Xy- x?Rcd 4254, 4256 (1992); Group Six Communications, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 1815, 1817 n.2 (1992).  Xb- xSignificantly, in this regard, the licensee did not explain its efforts to attract qualified minority  XK- x{applicants from Greensboro and WinstonSalem, and the results of those efforts. See id.  xLTherefore, there is no indication whether its lack of success in attracting minority applicants is  xin any way reflective of transportation problems between the stations g"NE ' g"NE  location and Greensboro  xand WinstonSalem or of the licensee's possible "failure to engage in best efforts to recruit from  X-[Greensboro and WinstonSalem]." Id.  X- ` x19.` ` To satisfy the alternative labor force criterion concerning recruitment efforts, we  x have stated that a licensee must show that "despite extensive recruitment involving use of  x>minority referral sources, it was unable to obtain qualified applicants from areas of minority  X|- xconcentration in the MSA . . . ." Application of National Capital Christian Broadcasting, Inc.,  Xe- x{for Renewal of License of Station WTKK(TV), Manassas, Virginia, 3 FCC Rcd 1919, 1920  XN- x(1988) ("Manassas"); accord Buckley Broadcasting Corp., 9 FCC Rcd 2099, 2101 (1994); Gulf  X7- x/Atlantic Media Corp., 8 FCC Rcd 603, 604 (1993); Lanser Broadcasting Corporation, et al., 7  X - xFCC Rcd at 4256; Group Six Communications, 7 FCC Rcd at 1817. The record, as will be more  xKfully discussed below, shows that the licensee did not recruit for two of eight vacancies. Further,  xit used only one specific minority recruitment source, the NAACP, and it relied on anywhere  xyfrom two to five educational institutions for the remaining six vacancies as potential sources of  X - xminority applicants.@A TF X=#-  Ѝ xI#C\  P6Q,P#n its response to our letter of inquiry, the licensee notes that it used the following sources as "anticipated  xsource[s] of minority applicants": WinstonSalem State University, North Carolina A&T University, Johnson C.  xiSmith University, Livingstone College, Bennett College, and the NAACP for five vacancies; and WinstonSalem State University, the North Carolina A&T University, and the NAACP for one vacancy. @ Further, the record indicates that hires for five vacancies were referred by" 0*&&tt"  xZ"personal recruit," "word of mouth," "unknown source," or "station posting." We do not believe  xithat this record demonstrates "extensive recruitment" sufficient to warrant use of alternative labor  X- xforce figures. Moreover, the licensee's argument that prospective minority employees are  xunwilling to work in the stations' formats or accept lower wages is unrelated to the choice of  X- xrelevant labor force; these factors affect minorities and nonminorities similarly. See Lotus  X- xkCommunications, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 2117, 2120 & n.13 (1994) (holding that station format does  xnot relieve licensees of their EEO obligations and that competitive factors, such as salary  xylimitations, "affect minorities and nonminorities equally"). Thus, because the licensee has not  xprovided an adequate basis for use of alternative labor force data, we will evaluate  X1-WLXN(AM)/WWGLFM's EEO performance in light of the Greensboro MSA labor force.1TF X -ԍx#C\  P6Q,P#The licensee is not foreclosed, however, from making a further request for use of alternative labor force data in the future.  X -x D.` ` The Stations' EEO Performance  X - ` x20.` ` Review of the licensee's renewal applications, opposition, and inquiry response  X - xreveals that from December 1, 1992, to December 1, 1995, the stations filled eight fulltime  X - xKvacancies, including seven upperlevel positions.i ATF X-  lЍx#C\  P6Q,P#The relevant license term ended December 1, 1995. According to the 1980 Census, the Greensboro xWinstonSalemHigh Point, North Carolina MSA, where the stations are located, had a 45.3% female and 17.8%  xminority (16.8% Black, 0.6% Hispanic, 0.2% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.2% American Indian) labor force. We  xnote that the stations' Annual Employment Reports from 1989 through 1995 indicate that no minorities were  x-employed for fulltime positions. Also, for reporting years 1989 through 1995, all employees were classified as  xupperlevel employees. The stations' 1989 Annual Employment Report lists four females (28.6% ) out of 14 full xtime employees. The 1990 report lists three females (25%) out of 12 fulltime employees. The 1991 report lists  x;three females (25%) out of 12 fulltime employees. The 1992 report lists four females (36.4%) out of 11 fulltime employees.   xThe Commission began using 1990 labor force statistics for license renewal applications filed after May 31,  yOR- x1993, and 1993 Annual Employment Reports. See "EEO Branch of MMB To Use 1990 Census Data," Public Notice  xY#32651 (April 12, 1993). The 1990 Census for the GreensboroWinstonSalemHigh Point, North Carolina MSA  xishows a 47.8% female and 19.7% minority (18.1% Black, 0.6% Hispanic, 0.5% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.4%  xAmerican Indian) labor force. The stations' 1993 Annual Employment Report lists three females (30.0%) out of ten  xfulltime employees. The stations' 1994 report lists five females (45.5%) out of 11 fulltime employees. The stations' 1995 report lists eight females (53.3%) out of 15 upperlevel employees.  The licensee recruited for only six of the eight  xLvacancies. The licensee states that it did not recruit for the two vacancies in its sales manager  xposition in 1995 because of "exceptional circumstances." The licensee explains that, in 1993, the  xcurrent General Manger, Mr. Greeley Hilton, who had previously been employed in the capacity  xyof sales manager, assumed the General Manager's position in addition to his responsibilities as  xjsales manager because of the death of the former General Manager. Later, in 1995, the licensee  xstates that it was approached by an individual who was familiar with the licensee's employment  xneeds and thus convinced the licensee to hire him for the sales manager role that Mr. Hilton was"r0*&&tt"  x-occupying. A few months thereafter, however, the licensee decided to replace the new employee  xbecause "it was not working out." The licensee looked for a replacement using "personal  xsources" and did not recruit for the position. The licensee explains that, "under the circumstances  X- xof the Station's relationship with the existing Sales Manager, it was inappropriate to put out a  xLpublic notice for that position." For the six vacancies for which recruitment efforts were made,  xthe licensee asserts that it used 12 to 16 recruitment sources, including both general sources and  Xv- xorganizations deemed likely to refer minority applicants.vTF X-Ѝx#C\  P6Q,P#See note 4, supra.  Neither the NAACP nor the  xeducational institutions used referred any applicants. Our review further reveals that the hirees  xZfor five of six vacancies were referred by "personal recruit," "word of mouth," "unknown source," or "station posting."  X - ` ~x21.` ` The stations had five applicant and interview pools (four upperlevel); multiple  xhires were made from one of these pools. The licensee's inquiry response reveals that the  x.stations had a total of 90 applicants (52 in upperlevel) and 39 interviewees (26 in upperlevel).  xThe licensee notes that some of the applicants had not revealed their race or ethnic origin during  xthe application and interview process. Thus, the stations were able to document the race or ethnic  xorigin of only 70 applicants and 36 interviewees. Of these, 21 applicants (ten in upperlevel) and  x16 interviewees (eight in upperlevel) were minorities. Minorities were present in four of the five applicant and interview pools. No minority was hired from these pools.  X4- ` "x22.` `  Rainbow contends that Stations WLXN(AM)/WWGLFM are operating in violation  xof the Commission's EEO Rule, 47 C.F.R.  73.2080. Rainbow points out that, during the past  xrenewal term, these stations did not report even one fulltime minority employee on any of their  xseven annual employment reports. Rainbow also points out that the licensee's 1995 EEO  xProgram reported that, in the preceding year, the stations received only six minority referrals, and that they hired four persons, none of whom was a minority.  X- ` x23.` ` The licensee contends that it is in compliance with the Commission's EEO  xrequirements. The licensee argues that it "maintains a vigorous EEO program" focusing on job  xhires, policy dissemination, recruitment, and selfassessment. It states that even though it has not  xihad any fulltime minority employees over the license term, it has undertaken "substantial" efforts  xlto recruit minorities. The licensee points out that not only were minorities present in the  xapplicant and interview pools, but that minority applicants (all Black) were offered jobs in  xjconnection with three vacancies, but all declined to accept the job offers. The licensee asserts  xjthat one offer was made for a parttime news position, which was intended to lead to a fulltime  xnews director position, but that this offer was rejected because the candidate desired a fulltime  xlposition. The licensee further asserts that two offers were made for sales and secretarial  x-positions, but that both of these offers were declined by candidates, who indicated that they had accepted higher paying jobs in a larger city.""y0*&&tt!"Ԍ  X- ` Qx24.` ` We find that there are no substantial and material questions of fact warranting  X- xdesignation for hearing. See Astroline. Moreover, there is no evidence that the licensee engaged  xin employment discrimination. The licensee recruited, hired and employed females, and recruited  xand extended offers of employment to minorities. Although no minority was employed for a full xtime position during the license term, we note that compliance with our rules is not based on  Xv- x=meeting or exceeding a numerical goal, but on the total efforts to recruit minorities and females  X_- xand the ongoing assessment of those efforts. See Implementation of Commission's Equal  XH- xEmployment Opportunity Rule, 9 FCC Rcd 6276, 6291 (1994); Amendment of Part 73 of the  X1- xCommission's Rules Concerning Equal Employment Opportunity in the Broadcast Radio and  X - x{Television Services, 2 FCC Rcd 3967, 3974 (1987). Minorities were present in most of the  xapplicant and interview pools. We also find that the licensee contacted recruitment sources for most of its vacancies. Therefore, renewal of the stations' licenses is in the public interest.  X - ` #x25.` ` While we grant renewal of the licenses, we are nevertheless concerned about the  xlicensee's selfassessment of the effectiveness of its recruitment sources in eliciting minority  x=applicants. For example, we note that neither the NAACP nor the five educational institutions  xcontacted by the licensee referred any applicants, yet the licensee continued to rely on these  xunproductive sources. In addition, hires for a majority of vacancies were referred by informal  xmeans such as "word of mouth." We believe that a continuing and more extensive review by  xWLXN(AM)/WWGLFM of its EEO program was warranted. Accordingly, we admonish the licensee for failing to selfassess its EEO program adequately.  X-y III. CONCLUSION ă  X- ` x26.` ` After reviewing the record before us, we find that a hearing is not warranted and  xthat grant of the renewal applications is in the public interest. Accordingly, finding the licensee to be otherwise qualified, we will grant the renewal applications subject to an admonishment.  Xe- IV. ORDERING CLAUSES  X7- ` x27.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition to Deny filed by Rainbow  X -regarding the renewal applications for Stations WLXN(AM) and WWGLFM IS DENIED .  X- ` Px28.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license renewal applications for Stations  X-WLXN(AM) and WWGLFM ARE GRANTED subject to an admonishment. " 0*&&tt"  X- ` 1 x29.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Mass Media Bureau send by Certified Mail  X- x[ԩ Return Receipts Requested copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the licensee and to Rainbow.  Xv-  X_- x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  4h x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton  X -  hhActing Secretary