WPCM 2HB XE(3|x)TT)-#XP\  P6Q DXP#Courier New (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)]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[SSSSSSSCourier New (TT)Times New Roman (TT)6QPHP2W Ez ZX X-#XP\  P6Q DXP#HP LaserJet 4/4Mt1 Room 228HPLAS4.WRSSx  @,,u"HX@zC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd?xxxX/Xx6X@DQX@]7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.^7UC2X(xXU4  pQX 7ZCLXE2XZ\  P@QXP2k  K - Z 3|x%Courier New (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)RomanDL|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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdCourierTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldHP LaserJet 4SiHPLAS4SI.PRSx  @\YnhX@2 K Kv="i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd/>/>/>/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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNd<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddZi44d4i_d_QQGiVr_ZVC&Cr000!0i4R0_i___________dZdZdZdZdZ44444444mii_i_i_i_riririri0Z__idi_i_dZi_dd__ii__dZdZdZdZiidZmZm_mmZmZriri4iii444iGidV4VRmimiii00iQiR_Q00N00Gd0V___d0____Z______000000000000000__t_|nnV_yy24Z_7c__nCzZhcnonvyXzXshn~|y00000000000000000000000000000000L0Ld_rw0CCL|0|0i__________00r|rV_idid_mr4GiVwmiiii_Zr_r_d_CCCi_0_dZdZ>Zi44d4i_d_QQGiVr_ZVC&Cr00000000000000000000000000000000000Z__d4di_______4|__0ZG00______V_______ddddd4444imiiiii_irrrrddi______ZZZZZ4444_i_____V_iiiiZd"5@^?(?SO_c(88?g(g(WOOOOOOOOOO((_g_GkOWSWSO[_,;WGc[WWWWOK_O_OSO888WO(OSKSK3KW,,S,WOSOCC;WG_OKG8 8_((((W,E(OWOOOOOOOOOOOwSKSKSKSKSK,,,,,,,,[WWOWOWOWO_W_W_W_W(KOOWSWOWOSKWOSSOOWWOOSKSKSKSKWWSK[K[O[[K[K_W_W,WWW,,,W;WSG,GE[W[WWW((WCWEOC((N((;S(GOOOS(OOOOKOOOOOO(((((((((((((((OOtOg[[GOee*,KO.wROOn[CfxKxWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((?(?SO_c(88?g(g(WOOOOOOOOOO((_g_GkOWSWSO[_,;WGc[WWWWOK_O_OSO888WO(OSKSK3KW,,S,WOSOCC;WG_OKG8 8_(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((KOOS,SWOOOOOOO,gOO(K;((OOOOOOGOOOOOOOSSSSS,,,,W[WWWWWOW____SSWOOOOOOwKKKKK,,,,OWOOOOOGOWWWWKS"5@^..<9DG((.JJ?9999999999DJD3M9?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.xhh O< ` @Ѝ ` ` #C\  P6QP#Our EEO Rule imposes identical requirements with respect to women. Adarand concerned federal  xprograms based on minority status. The standard of review for genderbased programs is intermediate scrutiny.  xhUnder that standard, there must be an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for genderbased government action and  xthat action is constitutional if it serves an important governmental objective and is substantially related to  yO8- xachievement of that objective. United States v. Virginia, 116 S. Ct. 2264 (1996); J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.,  yO-511 U.S. 127 (1994); Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982). x 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  xwomen. 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.  XN- ` x 10. ` ` 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" ,u'u'33="  xconsidered in making this preliminary assessment, along with information contained in the  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 the 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  xLfactor in this second step analysis. Broadcast licensees whose employment profiles are below our processing guidelines have been renewed without sanction.  X- ` Px 11. ` ` 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  Xb- x[suffered such injury as a result of the provisions of our Rule. As the Court emphasized in City  XK- 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  X-personal rights of any person, we conclude that Adarand does not implicate our EEO program.  X- ` Sx 12. ` ` Our reading of the scope of the Adarand decision is consistent with the  X- x interpretation of the case by the Department of Justice (DOJ). An analysis of the Adarand decision by DOJ states:  RXxMere outreach and recruitment efforts . . . typically would not be subject to  X|- Adarand standards. Indeed, postCroson cases indicate that such efforts are  }considered race neutral means of increasing minority opportunity. In some sense,  }of course, the targeting of minorities through outreach and recruitment campaigns  involves raceconscious action. But the objective there is to expand the pool of  applicants or bidders to include minorities, not to use race or ethnicity in the  #actual decision. If the government does not use racial or ethnic classifications in  X- Sselecting persons from the expanded pool, Adarand ordinarily would be  X-inapplicable.3h Ok!< ` Ѝ ` ` #C\  P6QP#Memorandum 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!-v III. DISCUSSION ă  X#- ` x 13. ` ` Section 73.2080 of the Commission's Rules requires that a broadcast licensee"#G,u'u'33e""  xlrefrain from employment discrimination and establish and maintain an equal employment  xjopportunity program reflecting positive and continuing efforts to recruit and promote qualified  xkwomen and minorities. When evaluating EEO performance, the Commission focuses on the  xlicensee's efforts to recruit and promote qualified women and minorities and the licensee's  xongoing assessment of its EEO efforts. Such an assessment enables the licensee to take  xcorrective action if qualified women and minorities are not present in the applicant and interview  Xv- xpools. The Commission also focuses on any evidence of discrimination by the licensee. See  xLSection 73.2080, subsections (a), (b), and (c) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  73.2080(a)(c).  X1- ` x 14. ` ` Review of the licensee's renewal applications, opposition, and inquiry responses  xreveals that the stations filled 21 fulltime vacancies, including 20 upperlevel positions, from  xAugust 1, 1993, to August 1, 1996. The licensee states that it "routinely" recruited for its  xMopenings but could document recruitment for only 14 (66.7%) of its 21 hiring opportunities.  xWhere recruitment occurred, the station contacted from two to 10 general sources. The only  xminorityoriented sources contacted were the NAACP and the Urban League, which were  xcontacted for nine (42.9%) openings. Regarding referrals, the licensee was able to report the  xsources for just 10 openings. Of these, there were 65 referrals for whom sources were known.  xThe only minority referrals were two Black applicants referred by the stations' employees. In  xaddition, the licensee had two Black hires but did not know the referral source for either of them.  X4- ` 3x15. ` ` The licensee maintained applicant and interview data for 10 (47.6%) positions.  xCounting the applicants and interviewees reported by the licensee for these 10 positions, and  xfurther including each of the remaining 11 hires as applicants/interviewees, the licensee attracted  xfour (5.8%) minorities out of 69 applicants overall, including three (4.4%) minorities out of 68  xapplicants for upperlevel positions. Minorities were included in four (19.1%) of the station's 21  xapplicant pools, including three (15.0%) of the pools for the 20 upperlevel positions. Three  xminorities were interviewed, constituting 9.7% of 31 interviewees overall. Two (6.7%) minorities  xwere among 30 candidates interviewed for upperlevel positions. Minorities were included in  x three (14.3%) interview pools, including two (10.0%) for upperlevel positions. During the  xreview period, the stations report hiring two (9.5%) Blacks, one of whom (5.0%) was hired for  xan upperlevel position. In addition, the licensee states that it offered an upperlevel position  X7-(office manager) to a Black female in December 1995 but that she declined the offer. 7h X-  M#Xj\  P6G; DXP#э#]\  PCqP# xThe Chattanooga, Tennessee Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) had an available labor force in 1980 that  xxwas 42.4% female and 13.1% minority (12.2% Black, 0.6% Hispanic, 0.2% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.1% American  xIndian). In their 1990 Annual Employment Report, the stations reported 22 employees overall (18 upperlevel),  xincluding 11 females (50.0%) and one (4.6%) Black. Seven females (38.9%) and no minorities were employed in  x,upperlevel positions. In 1991, the stations reported a staff of 17 overall (15 upperlevel), including nine females  xj(52.9%) and one Black (5.9%). In upperlevel positions, the stations employed eight females (53.3%) and no  x,minorities. In 1992, the stations reported a staff of 15 persons (13 upperlevel), including six females (40.0%) and  xone Black (6.7%). Four females (30.8%) and no minorities were employed in upperlevel positions. The Commission  xwuses 1990 Census data for all license renewal applications filed after May 31, 1993, and for 1993 Annual Employment  yO%- xReports. See EEO Branch of MMB to Use 1990 U.S. Census Data, Public Notice # 32651 (April 12, 1993). According  xto the 1990 Census, the Chattanooga MSA labor force is 46.4% female and 13.4% minority (11.9% Black, 0.6% Hispanic,"&,u'u'&"  x.0.7% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.2% American Indian). In 1993, the stations reported an overall staff of 12  xemployees (10 upperlevel), including eight females (66.7%) and one Black (8.3%). In upperlevel positions, the  x,stations employed six females (60.0%) and no minorities. In 1994, the stations employed 16 individuals overall (14  xupperlevel), including five females (31.3%) and two minorities (12.5%) one Black (6.3%) and one American  xIndian (6.3%). In upperlevel positions, the stations reported three females (21.4%) and one American Indian (7.1%).  x,In 1995, the stations reported an overall staff of 13 employees (11 upperlevel), including five females (38.5%) and  xJtwo minorities (15.4%) one Black (7.7%) and one American Indian (7.7%). In upperlevel positions, the stations  xZemployed three females (27.3%) and one American Indian (9.1%). In 1996, the stations employed 15 individuals  xoverall (12 upperlevel), including seven females (46.7%) and three minorities (20.0%) two Blacks (13.3%) and  xhone American Indian (6.7%). In upperlevel positions, the stations reported four females (33.3%) and one American Indian (8.3%). "7( ,u'u'33?"Ԍ X- ` %ԙx16. ` ` PUSH contends that the licensee's EEO program is "virtually nonexistent."  xReferring to the licensee's renewal applications, PUSH argues that the stations used only two  xrecruitment sources and received only two minority referrals. In addition, PUSH criticizes the  xlicensee's record of minority employment as reflected on the stations' Annual Employment  xzReports from 1989 to 1995, although the 1989 report was filed prior to the start of the license  xterm. However, for its analysis of the stations' minority workforce, PUSH mistakenly uses  xstatistics from the Hamilton County, Tennessee, labor force instead of the correct Chattanooga,  xTennessee, Metropolitan Statistical Area ("MSA") labor force, of which Hamilton County is a  XH-part. See n. 5, supra.  X - ` Px17. ` ` In response, the licensee contends that it has contacted more outside recruitment  xysources than the two indicated in its renewal application, as outlined above, including minority  xsources. In addition, it states that it expanded its list of sources starting on March 20, 1996, and  xMthat it also improved recordkeeping in 1996. In contrast to PUSH's contention that its EEO  xprogram is almost nonexistent, the licensee argues that it has complied with the Commission's  x.EEO Rule and policies and notes that the number of minorities on its staff has increased in the  x[last three years. Furthermore, it argues that PUSH's criticism of the stations' record of minority employment is unjustified because it is based on inaccurate labor force statistics.  XK- ` x18. ` ` In its replies to the licensee's opposition and inquiry responses, PUSH argues that  xjthe licensee's lack of recruitment records should not immunize it from adverse inferences about  xthe stations' EEO program. In addition, PUSH contends that the licensee proposed no remedial  xsteps even though its EEO program was inadequate. PUSH further argues that, although  xminorities have increased on the stations' staffs, one of the minorities is a male American Indian  xand American Indians constitute less than one percent of the labor force. PUSH thus maintains  xthat his employment does not mitigate the licensee's weak minority employment record.  xFurthermore, PUSH notes that, regardless of what labor force statistics are used, the stations  xreported no Black upperlevel employees on annual employment reports during the license term.  xAlso, PUSH contends that offering an upperlevel position to a Black applicant is of no  xxconsequence because the offer was rejected and the licensee did not report how many offers were  xmade to nonminority applicants who rejected them. Finally, PUSH argues that the Commission  xyshould base a forfeiture in this case on the licensee's violation of Commission rules through its"7( ,u'u'33?" entire license term, if the Commission chooses to issue a Notice of Apparent Liability. x` `  X- ` x19. ` ` Review of PUSH's allegations, as well as the licensee's renewal applications,  xZopposition, and inquiry responses, leads us to conclude that there are no substantial and material  X- x>questions of fact warranting designation for hearing. See Astroline. Moreover, there is no  xevidence that the licensee engaged in employment discrimination. The record indicates that the  Xv-licensee attracted, interviewed, and hired minorities.   XH- ` `x20. ` ` Nevertheless, we find the licensee's overall EEO efforts during the license term  xdeficient. The stations could document recruitment for only 66.7% of their vacancies, could  xdocument applicant or interview records for only 47.6% of openings, and included minorities in  X - xonly four (19.1%) of the stations' 21 applicant pools and three (14.3%) interview pools.y h X| -  #Xj\  P6G; DXP#э#]\  PCqP# xThe licensee is reminded that under our EEO Rule, 47 C.F.R.  73.2080, it has an obligation to recruit for  x-females and minorities for each vacancy. To the extent that licensees fail to do so, female, as well as minority employment may be affected. Further,  xwe find that the stations failed to maintain adequate records for meaningful selfassessment. 47 C.F.R.  73.2080.  X - ` x21. ` ` We agree with PUSH that the licensee's lack of recruitment information does not  X- x.immunize it. However, we disagree with PUSH that the licensee proposes no steps to improve  xits program because, as shown above, the licensee increased recordkeeping and the number of  xrecruitment sources contacted in 1996. Because these program enhancements were implemented some five months prior to the end of the license term, they are entitled to diminished weight. x  X- ` Ax22. ` ` Furthermore, PUSH and the licensee have offered arguments about minority hires  xand employment, including PUSH's argument minimizing the employment of an American Indian  xjin a labor force where American Indians constitute 0.2%. Regarding these issues, we note that  xwe have considered the licensee's minority hiring and employment record, including the rejected  xoffer of employment made to a minority, in determining that there is no evidence of  xydiscrimination. However, our review of the licensee's recruitment program focuses primarily on  X- x efforts and we do not require licensees to employ a minimum percentage of minorities. See  X|- xkChannel 5 Public Broadcasting, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 10388, 10389 (1995). See also, Amendment  xof Part 73 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Equal Employment Opportunity in the  XN- x0Broadcast Radio and Television Services, 2 FCC Rcd 3967, 3974 (1987). Furthermore, as  x=explained above, we compare a licensee's minority employment with the presence of minorities  x@in the relevant labor force only as part of the preliminary analysis of a licensee's EEO  xperformance, not as a numerical goal. Finally, regarding any forfeiture in this case, we will base that decision on Commission precedent, as shown below. x  X - ` 3x23. ` ` The record in the instant case is similar to, but less egregious than, that of the  X!- xklicensee of KGWNTV, Cheyenne, Wyoming, in Stauffer Communications, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd"! ,u'u'33 "  x5060 (1995). The licensee therein was located in a labor force that was 13.0% minority. It  xrecruited for 15 of its 26 hires (57.7%). The licensee maintained applicant or interview data for  xonly 15 (57.7%) of its overall openings and 10 of its 20 upperlevel openings (50.0%). The  xlicensee included minorities in two applicant/interview pools (7.7%). The only record of self xassessment was the addition of minority sources after the license term expired. In that case,  xbecause the licensee failed to recruit for 11 of 26 openings, failed to include minorities in almost  xall of its applicant/interview pools, and failed to maintain records for meaningful selfassessment,  x-we renewed the station's license subject to reporting conditions and issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for $12,000. x` `   X - ` px24. ` ` Stations KGWNTV and WDOD(AM)/WDODFM are located in areas with  xsimilarlysized minority labor forces (13.0% and 13.4%, respectively). Both licensees had similar  xnumbers of hires (26 for KGWNTV and 21 for the instant radio stations). Neither licensee  xcontacted recruitment sources for every hiring opportunity. Both licensees failed to maintain  xcomplete applicant or interview data. Such documentation is necessary for the ascertainment of  xLefforts as well as for adequate selfassessment of an EEO program. In addition, both licensees  xQhad similar numbers of applicant and interview pools including minorities (two  x=applicant/interview pools for KGWNTV compared to four applicant and three interview pools  xfor the radio stations). However, because WDOD(AM)/WDODFM recruited for a higher  xpercentage of openings (66.7% compared to KGWNTV's 57.7%), we find that their record is less  xjegregious than that of KGWNTV. Accordingly, given the facts of this case and broadcasters'  xfamiliarity with our longstanding EEO Rule, we feel that the circumstances here justify issuance  xof a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for $11,000. Also, to ensure that better efforts  xare taken with respect to their EEO program, we will impose reporting conditions on  X-WDOD(AM)/WDODFM.  x  X- |IV. CONCLUSION  X-x ` `  X|- ` x25. ` ` Upon review of the record, we find that no hearing is warranted. Grant of the  xapplication is consistent with Section 309(k) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,  x.47 U.S.C.  309(k). Thus, because the licensee is otherwise qualified, grant of the applications  xkwill serve the public interest. 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(2). However, because the licensee failed to  xyrecruit for all openings and failed to maintain adequate records for meaningful selfassessment,  xwe will issue a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for $11,000. Further, we will impose reporting conditions to monitor the stations' prospective EEO performance. x` `  X - V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X"- ` x26. ` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition to Deny filed by the National  X#- x0Rainbow Coalition concerning the renewal applications of WDOD(AM)/WDODFM IS  Xh$-DISMISSED.  X:&- ` x27. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition to Deny filed by Operation PUSH":&,u'u'33$"  X-concerning the renewal applications of WDOD(AM)/WDODFM IS DENIED . x  X- ` }x28. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, the license renewal applications for Stations  X- xxWDOD(AM)/WDODFM ARE GRANTED , subject to the reporting conditions specified herein,  X- xjand, pursuant to Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, a NOTICE OF  X-APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $11,000.  X_- ` x29. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the licensee of Stations WDOD(AM)/WDOD xFM submit to the Commission an original and one copy of the following information on April 1, 1998; April 1, 1999; and April 1, 2000:  X -x(a)` ` Two lists divided by fulltime and parttime job vacancies during the twelve x` ` months preceding March 1, 1998, for the first report, March 1, 1999, for the  ` x` ` second report, and March 1, 2000, for the third report, indicating the job title and  ` x` ` FCC job category, date of hire, the race or national origin, sex, and the referral  ` ~x` ` source of each applicant for each job, and the race or national origin and sex of x` ` the person hired. The list should also note which recruitment sources were  Xy-x` ` contacted;  yh X-#Xj\  P6G; DXP#э#]\  PCqP# xSuch a list might start: x` ` 1) News Director: Officials and Managers; Fulltime.  yOk-3 Applicants:` ` 1 White female hhA.W.R.T  yO3-x` ` 1 Hispanic malehhNational Hispanic Media Coalition ("NHMC")  yO-x` ` 1 Black femalehhUrban League  yO-2 Interviewees:` ` 1 White femalehhA.W.R.T.  yOS-x` ` 1 Hispanic malehhNHMC Sources contacted Local newspaper, A.W.R.T., NHMC, and Urban League. Selected Hispanic male (08/19/97); NHMC.   XK- ` x(b)` ` A list of all employees as of the March 1, 1998, payroll period for the first report,  ` Qthe March 1, 1999, payroll period for the second report, and the March 1, 2000,  ` `payroll period for the third report, by job title and FCC job category, indicating  ` fulltime or parttime status (ranked from highest paid classification), date of hire, sex, and race or national origin; and(#`  X- ` nx(c)` ` Details concerning the stations' efforts to recruit minorities for each position filled  ` during the 12month 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 information it believes   relevant regarding the stations' EEO performance and its efforts thereunder.(#` "N  ,u'u'33|"Ԍ X- ` `x30. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Memorandum Opinion and  X- xOrder and Notice of Apparent Liability be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to the National Rainbow Coalition, Operation PUSH, and the licensee.  X- ` `x31. ` ` The reports are to be filed with the Acting Secretary of the Commission for the attention of the Mass Media Bureau's EEO Branch.  X_- ` x32. ` ` With respect to the forfeiture proceeding, the licensee may take any of the actions  xset forth in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.80, as summarized in the  X1- xattachment to this Order. Any comments concerning the ability to pay should include those financial items set forth in the attachment. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x x x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton  Xb-x` `  hhActing Secretary "^ #XZ\  P@Q2XP# "^