*1 BAMFORD, Appellant, A. V.

v. COMMUNICATIONS

FEDERAL COMMISSION, Appellee. 75-1309.

No. Appeals, States Court

United Columbia Circuit.

District of 25, 1975.

Argued Nov. 29, 1976. March

Decided 6,May

Rehearing Denied

mission’s Primer on Ascertainment of Com- munity Problems by Applicants, Broadcast (1971). 27 650 In so holding, the Board reversed the Initial Decision entered by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) only who had grudgingly approved issuance permit finding on a of “minimal” with compliance despite frag- presentation “hap- mented characterized as hazard in the extreme.” 48 FCC 2d 1161 (1974). urges Petitioner essentially reversal on vagueness a claim of of certain Primer Washington, C., A. Colby, Lauren D. a lack resulting notice, standards in appellant. additionally argues that the Board erred Counsel, Stephen Sharp, C., A. F. C. refusing to allow him to amend his appli- Washington, C.,D. with whom Ashton R. cation. After careful review of the materi- Hardy, Gen. Counsel and Daniel M. Arm- here, pertinent als of record as we affirm strong, Counsel, Acting Associate Gen. F. C. the decision of the Commission. C., C., Washington, D. were the brief for appellee. I. BACKGROUND DANAHER, Judge, Before Circuit Senior part As of its mandate to regulate the LEVENTHAL, Judge, Circuit and VAN industry broadcasting public PELT,* United States District Senior interest,3 required applicants FCC has the District of Nebraska. needs, familiarize themselves with the problems interests and of the groups com Opinion by for the Court filed Senior prising the communities to be Judge DANAHER. Circuit served, to document such familiarity in Dissenting opinion filed Senior Dis- applications, license and to submit program Judge VAN PELT.

trict ming proposals responsive to such needs. The primary purpose of this requirement is DANAHER, Judge: Senior Circuit guarantee to 47 appeal pursuant This is U.S.C. the programming service will be 402(b)(1) from a Review § people rooted in whom the station is obli- of the Federal Board Communications Com who gated to serve and will be in a much (Board)1 denying petitioner Barn- mission position better to see that obligation construction ford’s fulfilled, to them is thus lessening the facility new FM broadcast permit2 enforcement burden Commission. Christi, 48 Texas. The denial was based (1974). solely Relating on a “Public Notice To Ascertainment comply finding of failure to with the Com- Community Needs Appli Broadcast * Sitting by designation pursuant U.S.App.D.C. 225, to 28 U.S.C. 515 F.2d 2 688 n. 294(d). § (1975). importance Because of the attached to permit determination, particu- a construction review The Commission denied of the Board’s larly placed heavy appli- burden both the February thereby giving decision on cant and the Commission establish that is- force and effect of a Commission decision. permit comport will suance of the 155(d)(3). 47 U.S.C. § public interest. prerequisite permit A (d), see, 307(a), 309(a); 3. 47 U.S.C. §§ and, “except of a new station license issuance C., Henry U.S.App.D.C. 257, v. F. C. [instances], guarantee in rare it is also denied, F.2d cert. U.S. 83 S.Ct. operate the station once construct- license 9 L.Ed.2d 60 Fidelity Inc. Television v. F. C. ed.” thus indicating genuine 68-847, R.R.2d awareness of

cants,” be gradually, sought in the areas has evolved to be served. En Banc Accordingly presently pertinent, the Commission’s ginning 60-970, 20 R.R. (1) Inquiry, each to: Programming with some conf continuing, compositional (1960),4 study of the area undertake *3 Ascertain time. See usion,5 present “significant groups” to determine designed by Broadcast Problems Community therein; of out (2) seek and interview “lead- Fed.Reg. 1371 Applicants, for each “spokesmen” ers” or [Renewal] of 1976). importance The (January perception their of local needs determine in the Commis reflected was (3) conduct a problems; “roughly ran- and City in of Camden landmark sion’s general public’s survey percep- dom” al., where it refus 2d 412 et (4) problems; needs and evalu- of such tion voluntary assignment approve ed to uncovered; (5) thus and ate the of the failure because license a station proposals designed to programming submit survey the com adequately to assignee problems. of these the resolution in assist The issuance sought to be served. munity application submitted his Petitioner by a was followed the Camden decision 20, 1970, January on in permit Commission, and in activity at the flurry of preceded confusion which the midst issued 1969 the Commission December application The of the Primer. publication on the ascertainment Inquiry Notice hearing certain is- designated on Primer published standards issue, sues, including community survey requests for clarifica designed to answer 18, 1970, postponed but was on November by applicants and the Feder tion submitted pend- petitioner’s request at the Bar Association. al Communications the Primer. The Primer ing publication thereafter, Shortly the Com 2d 880. 23, 1971, in February on was released “Interim Procedure” published an mission petitioner year conducted May of that effect, among things, other had the designed comply interviews series of proceedings until the staying pending all the results and submitted the Primer with form. Commu was issued in final Primer application filed on in an amendment Procedure, Showings nity Survey —Interim Hearings were then held in June an (1970). The Primer and 22 FCC 2d as a result con- September, Report were formal accompanying detailed October, sup- survey in additional ducted February ly promulgated December, and filed in plemented proceedings finally were allowed pending appli- amendment to the as a second results opportunity being with an al go forward the new Following cation. community to revise applicants lowed for January closed on record was survey, the showings in to comport order 27, 1972. set in the Primer. with the standards forth survey showings, of these As a result with interviews could demonstrate relatively The Primer established de- leaders, primarily drawn guidelines set of applicants tailed business follow, of civic and each thereafter broad base being from a 68, 48 FCC 2d at 1167. provide bound to the Commission with organizations, de- required steps, additionally tailed information on certain show interviews He could There it was stressed that 20 R.R. at 1913. expect “does its broadcast licensees to take point was con- the Commission 5. At one necessary steps to inform recognize themselves of “that there is wide disa- strained to they the real needs and interests of the areas greement the details that should be re- over serve, provide programming reporting and to quired which in on as- of an effort, diligent good fact constitutes needs and inter- certainment Form, faith, provide Program for those needs and FM 1 FCC 2d inter- ests.” AM & ests.” general public,6 inadequate of community prob 23 members reply post questionnaires card receipt of lems: had failed to undertake an ade general members compositional 50 additional quate from of the Corpus area; public. he had failed to interview “leaders” in the city, non-ascertainment issues involved in specifically Spanish-Americans and welfare application were severed Corpus Christi recipients; and he had failed to conduct a Staff, of the Commission request at the survey of general public.7 “random” (1971), and consolidated for 2d 701 pro- hearing with similar issues another II. THE ISSUES ON APPEAL involving ceeding preliminary matter, station in As a broadcast Colorado. 32 we note that Christi whatever other factors have contribut dormant until the con- haphazard remained proceeding ed to ascertainment showing *4 here, was resolved fa- certainly Colorado the solidated involved inadequacy of petitioner on June vorably composition study played for the the a direct role. Thereupon, the composition 2d 835. Adminis- study 41 FCC The serves as the basis the Corpus Law reactivated survey trative for the “leaders” of proceeding and established a date groups, and is Christi therefore compo crucial proposed findings. In the filing the community nent needs survey.8 petitioner conducted new sur- meantime Petitioner’s study was in two vey of the area October and at- first, parts. The submitted with the May tempted reopen the record for submission amendment, copy consisted of a of a of the new results. The ALJ denied this page from the single 1970 Census contain- but, concluding request, that Bamford had race, ing age, information and head of minimally compliance, achieved essential he population household status for the of Cor- February released his initial second, The pus Christi. submitted with granted application. and the 1971 survey, the October contained a list of appealed service, The Commission the Staff rul- professional organiza- and trade which, ing area, to the Review Board after hear- tions in the as well as information ing argument, oral rendered a decision re- concerning city the industrial life of the and versing denying the ALJ and applica- description the general nature of its appealed tion. Petitioner then to the Com- work force. No information was submitted review, which declined mission thus finaliz- detailing income distribution in the ing the Review Board’s determination. The obtained, area. Had such information been presented Board found had have petitioner would been aware that over individuals, May included in 6. These community. applicant The must use that in- survey, were determined to be “de facto” select formation to those who are be con- general public members of after Bamford representatives groups. sulted as of these designate community failed to them leaders. challenged That determination on a data, showing, including supporting that a general public, see 7. The members of the n. significant group has been omitted.” randomly and, to be were found not selected thus, general aspect public survey 27 FCC at 683. The Commission compliance applicant not does not Primer. The demand an undertake study area, mail independent sociological results of the were disallowed proscribes since the Primer use of but rather he techniques “require interviewee’s necessary data “submit such as is indicate questionnaire voluntary return mail.” minority, or ethnic breakdown Primer, J.A. 2d at 46 of the fl activities, community, govern- its economic clearly appropriate. findings were Such activities, public organizations, service any other factors or activities that make 10 of the Primer Answer Question community particular distinctive.” pertinent part: states in may be Id. This information obtained from the purpose requiring a determination Bureau, U.S. Census the local Chamber applicant is to inform Commerce, other reliable sources. what constitute the Corpus comprehensible to men population acting good per cent added) (footnote poverty (emphasis level. omit- was below faith." area Christi ted). Leadership Survey

A. The ignores If an or fails to under provid- “reasonably comprehensible” that the Primer charges require stand ments, of certain notice cannot be complain insufficient heard to him with ed leadership sur- concerning the lack of notice.9 about requirements the Primer did He claims vey. The Review Board found that Bam referred term “leader” him that inform had failed to interview ford “leaders” of the position holding an official person to a only Spanish-American group in Cor not indi- that it did organization, in an Christi,10 pus “[tjhis and that deficiency were embraced recipients that welfare cate alone, standing is sufficient basis” for the “significant group.” phrase within application. denial of 1158. The 2d at Commission thereby dis appli that an dispute beyond It is counted interviews with four position in the placed not be should cant Spanish-Americans holding prominent posi without with an forward going tions requirements established knowledge of —a councilman, city Commission, elementary judge, pastor fairness Catholic church, sufficient to Roman clarity of standards Mexican-American requires county expected. of what clerk who was president also apprise *5 Athens, Knights Radio Leventhal stated holding As in. that Columbus — C., U.&App.D.C. Inc., (WATH) v. F. C. were these individuals not “leaders” of the (1968) (dismissal 401 F.2d Spanish-American community. While the patent without application clearly Board does not indicate its reason rules): with Commission appears non-conformánce that it ing, it defined “leader” in as one who is this heads a formal expect “The Commission entitled instance for the part “group” organized purpose of ad good faith on the broadcast supplying requested. special data interest or of ing industry vancing the cause of correspondingly is industry nationality group.11 The entitled an ethnic or Petition defining er, expect hand, rules con at least on the other believed —or that are applications reasonably tent of his actions indicate that he believed —that Cf., Ranger U.S.App.D.C. v. F. C. 9. “representativeness'” whether the Board views 294 F.2d where the court quality leadership. as a from that of severable said: statement, quoted In a footnote to the above “We think an for a radio license the Board noted: ignores who either or fails to understand connection, noteworthy “In this it is clear and valid rules of the Commission re- Corpus though Christi even 35.7% specting requirements application for an population Spanish-American, is assumes the risk that will not representa- locate leaders of was unable to acceptable filing.” be spe- organizations. has tive The Commission Spanish-American It is conceded that difficulty, cifically itself to this addressed ‘ Corpus “sig- Christi constitutes a stating, not . . .an since compositional study group.” Neither nificant personal arbitrarily consultations with avoid by petitioner submitted indicated the size of group significant lacks a because group. Bamford at first estimated that structure, developed highly formal we believe Spanish-Americans per constituted 48 cent of appropriate to . . [advise] it is population, figure but later modified that may be needed to iden- efforts that additional per consulting Corpus 35.7 cent after groups.’ organized tify less leaders of Chamber of Commerce. RR 2d 1507.” 2d at 1158 n. language employed by The the Board is less language on this from the Board’s reliance stated that “none of the than clear. The Board misplaced, appears to be since lan- Primer Spanish-Americans . four interviewed resolving guage not directed at its terms is were to be leaders of this shown leaders, determining who are thereof).” but (or necessarily representative even resolving problems ignoring it is clear rather at less 48 FCC 2d at 1158. Thus not posi- one who is holds traditional “leader” Christi area were below the level, authority respect within the poverty tion of and accordingly found that happens and who general poor also constituted a significant group. “target” ethnic or provides a member The Primer be that failure to include view to have group. appears Such a racial in the community leader on the a mem- been based notion when “would make the applicant’s show- minority group position defective, ing ber achieves since those consulted would judge elect- prominence not reflect the of the communi- —such person automatically ed be- ty.” official —that 2d at 684. FCC. for, or a spokesman comes a representative Petitioner now claims that this finding of, minority group. expres- While this lacking fairness because it amounted may represent sion a somewhat outdated to an unwarranted addition to the list of say that it concept, patently cannot we groups “required” to be contacted invalid, any can we in the language nor find applicant, that, therefore, he was with reasonably can said Primer which out notice. This contention is without mer Indeed, point at no does proscribe it. Initially, it. we note that there is no such provide any specif- effort to Primer make thing “required” as a list of groups to be “leader”; rather, appears ic definition consulted. The Primer assiduously avoids granted. that the term was taken recognition in the rigidity that commu Board, adopted by the when nities composition.12 differ their supported, may permissi- well be a situations, In some not present here, one ruling, applied it is not to be ble there could be least some plausibility in a notice. prior without submission that the guidelines are too broad so, Even reversal and vague remand respecting just what constitutes for here since the Board addition called a “significant” group. The word “group”, ally totally had failed found as used in the enough “broad of community to include lead include population segments, such as racial *6 any person in a po ers —however groups, and ethnic groups, and informal as defined — bespeak poor. to the interests of the sition well groups as with formal organization.” J.A. 1168. Although at J.A. 2d at 682. The determina- finding strenuously opposed by “significance” tion of the of group, petitioner, objections we find that his triggers which the need for leadership are without merit and that criteria, the Board’s survey, “may rest on several in- independent finding presents size, basis influence, cluding its its or its lack of its of the application. The denial Board the community.” influence in J.A. 18.4 per that cent of noted the families in FCC 2d at 683. organized groupings precisely because of the applicant and the Commission what organizational well lack of a defined structure. groups comprise community. appli- cant must use that information would us select Counsel have follow- construe ing portion establishing representa- of the Primer as those who are to be consulted as listing significant groups: of exclusive groups. That tives of those determination may challenged “10. If the shows con- showing, including Question: on a be groups organi- sultations leaders data, significant supporting group has economic, represent various zations so- ‘significance’ group been omitted. The aof cial, political, cultural and other elements criteria, may including rest several its community, government, the tion, educa- size, or its lack of its influence influence in business, labor, religion, agriculture, community.” groups, professions, racial and/or ethnic (Emphasis added). 27 FCC 2d at 683. eleemosynary organizations, is the Clearly language quoted italicized of the showing support still submit material indicates the Commission’s intent of its determination of of the “groups organizations” “list” of have the community? capacity only. function an illustrative purpose requiring Yes. The Answer: is to inform determination Commission on several circumstances of this occasions in particular In the the Re port indicated its concern for the however, claim needs and case, petitioner’s of lack of problems poor confronted and wel fail, for we find that there are notice must recipients. fare Clearly evinced was an in specific group to the references sufficient require tent “leadership surveys” in in unrepresented found to be poor stances where the constitute signifi Report accompanied which survey in cant grouping.14 Such an intent of the Primer and also in publication can also be found in FCC decisions issued precedent.13 The

pre-Primer prior development of the Primer.15 Un- suggested Additionally at oral ar- gave 13. Counsel the Commission rather ex- Report gument should not be con- problems tensive consideration to the it did because not consti- poor sidered determinative discussing in the context of the ultimate sug- integral part of the Primer. This purpose tute an gestion guidelines pro- — patently without merit. gramming responds problems which to the community. Following publication the proposed Report’s response In the various com- a comment was received parties, interested the fol- ments submitted from Broadcasters, the National Association of given: lowing explanation was Inc., (NAB), suggested which that the dominant suggests Committee that an “The Citizens format of the broadcaster should determine obligation applicant’s does not end with ‘es- problems should be addressed in the leaders, ‘voluntary and includes tablishment’ programming proposals; example, a “rock” agencies dealing with the associations station would be most problems germane treating effective in elderly, indigent needs of the predominantly to a young associations, handicapped, with welfare ten- proposal rejected by audience. This youth groups, groups, prop- and student ant erty following explanation: groups owners associations and other NAB, “Under the rationale of the since wel- organized express purpose protect- for the programs ‘germane’ poor, fare two ing particular needs and interests.’ The city might ignore the stations in the or question groups comprise is whether those only minimally treat these for the significant segment community, relatively reason that their audiences have they fall within whether tablishment’, or without the ‘es- poor people. few That is an undesirable re- however word is defined. accept sult. We do not the thesis that all organizations Leaders of the listed consulted, should be might eligible those who for the welfare they represent if programs popular, do not listen to ‘rock’ or community. particular within the Moreover, inadequacy classical music. groups organizations Since all these listed city’s program might of the topic welfare well be a by the Citizens ly appear in all inappropriate to set them forth in a Primer will not necessari- Committee news, discussion, and editorials on communities, it would be However, all three stations. we believe the applicant’s knowledge of his audience generally applicable.” that is following be used in the manner. (Emphasis 662-663. H large The station with an audience that has a added). recognized While the Commission proportion poor people might emphasize difficulty identifying “leaders” of the available, eligibili- the services the criteria for lacking highly developed structure, formal ty, *7 eligi- and locations where those who are 13(a) and Answer see of Question the Primer go ble should call or to avail themselves of 39, 8, and relevant discussion in J.A. 27 FCC fl might the services. The ‘rock’ station em- 666, required they 2d at it nevertheless phasize the need for volunteers while the sought leadership survey. out in the As an aid popular might emphasize station the need for compliance, assessing in quired the Commission re- pro- volunteers and for contributions to the name, “by the leader to be identified gram sponsored by eleemosynary organi- the organization.” position and/or Answer 20. To only possible zation. These are offered as guidance, provide Report gave further the the ways meeting community problem. of In- examples: following would, doubt, novative broadcasters no have “ Jones, . John Executive Vice-Presi- points emphasis different of or other means dent, Corporation, appro- would be XYZ an problems.” meeting of the priate identification for a business leader. 58, 10-11, also, ¶ J.A. 27 FCC 2d at 673. See Jones, Street, spokesman 123 First John for 17, 4, J.A. 27 2d FCC at 656. H recipients, appropriate would be an welfare group lacking example, expressed by for a leader of a 15. For identification this concern was high degree organization.” important City of formal in the the Commission 10, (Emphasis al., (1969). 2d at 671. J.A. FCC 18 F.C.C.2d 412 of Camden et added). application There the Commission denied the circumstances, we properly believe that Ms request der these denied to reopen the provided petitioner was notice adequate record for submission of a new ascertain significant poor constitute a the survey that should conducted in October 1973. It Corpus he was in Christi group will be recalled the survey materials “representa with their “leaders” consult contained record years were two old Moreover, we believe that the Re tives”. request at the time of the because of a that a Board’s determination view Commission-imposed dormacy in Corpus per constituting nearly twenty cent of an See, proceeding. Christi 32 FCC 2d 773 significant justi was population is area’s (1972); 2d 31 FCC Corpus Under the terms Primer fied. was proceeding free to move for was denied because of July ward after ascertainment showing.16 this “deficient” following counsel, conference with failure to show consulta It was ALJ set November as the date for anyone arguably bespeaking tion with of filing proposed findings. On Novem and his poor, of Christi’s interests requested ber such consultations were not re claim filing postponement date re quired Primer which lead us to this of the record opening to allow submission of Therefore, conclusion. we ad a new of needs conduct to the Span reference dress in ed sometime October. The purported present. “leaders” are not ish-American justification request for this was an assert “on-going ascertainment” ed Petition for Amendment B. Primer, and a need to overcome “the question presented A in pe closer potentially disqualifying community needs claim that titioner’s Commission im- The ALJ issue.”17 denied petition Camden, City Jersey, disadvantaged New developing in pro- Camden in Corporation approval of McLendon the vol- gramming proposals. example This is untary assignment of a license from station superficiality applicant’s the proposal.” we find in the city corporation, finding pro- that the designed posed programming was more for (Emphasis added). Id. at 423. Camden, city Philadelphia than 16. The Answer 16 of the Primer Question holding, in The Commission based its license. “The omission of states: consultations with demographic study part, inadequate significant group leaders of a would make the contact, others, among Camden and failure defective, applicant’s showing since those con- poor. representatives of the 2d at 422. would not reflect the sulted proposed pro- The Commission found that community.” (Em- 27 FCC 2d at 684. gramming depth reflected the lack of deter- added). phasis language This was substituted mining community. the needs Id. More for that contained importantly purposes, our found that the merely stated that station was “ process “subject significance particular . . question”, represented Camden, economically disadvantaged and thus way imposed. possibly cheapest general- increase in the and most effective sanction See bringing ly, 668; to the attention of such 2d Voice of H them, job-train- Inc., Dixie, 1029-1030, matters of interest ing programs, schedules, as recon. programs, denied, education bus 47 FCC 2d 526 unemployment compensa- where obtained, goes one tion can be getting how about justification, full 17. J.A. 58. The set forth in family, feed his food if he cannot denial, the ALJ’s order was as follows: *8 service, is medical or clinical what available Acceptance “2. of this amendment is re- neighborhood, happening in immediate the taking spectfully requested. supple- held, meetings being and the the that up-date previous to mental the data— opportunities deed, participate in elections. In- years the of which is now most recent two important to an a radio station extent justified required by both and old—is actually helps define the citizen’s sense ‘on-going require- so-called ascertainment’ feeling community par- his and thus builds acceptance Primer. The ments community ticipation in—or exclusion from— delay proceeding amendment not should Yet there no clear evidence that affairs. most, sought explore at more than a few weeks and McLendons and evalu- will economically pressing poten- needs of that ate ensure Bamford overcomes the 86 previ failed to come the blatant deficiencies of the Bamford had that ground required by Section Petitioner had cause as ascertainment efforts. good ous

show rules.18 Ten petition that he 1.522(b) candidly the Commission’s admitted a Petition for denied “potentially ALJ over the dis days later the was concerned parts previ issues, those of the and had qualifying” Reconsideration survey, new relating to the concern in re-emphasized ous Order his Petition extension of time requested granted peti Reconsideration.19 Had this been for findings. J.A. proposed to file which attempt reopen within first the record tioner’s the ALJ are far from 60. The orders following publication a dif clarity, yet they allow for being models present. would be 27 ferent situation the reasons for deni insight into sufficient 680; also, Risner Broadcasting at see Cf., Corpora Boston Television Greater al. cf., Inc., (1971); 28 FCC 2d 330 Em Sioux 383, U.S.App.D.C. F. 143 392- tion v. C. Co., Broadcasting 16 pire 841, 395, F.2d 850-853 cert. de however, attempt, third was his and It un 2229, L.Ed.2d nied, 91 S.Ct. 403 U.S. we believe circumstances deni der on-going as (1971). The claim of permissible.20 was al for a non-renewal requirement certainment accordingly. Judgment ALJ, rejected by the was no such exists so since PELT, (dis- VAN Senior District state, are constrained to the Primer. We senting). however, sole, primary, or even if dissent from the respectfully excellently I amendment had proposed for reason majority opinion accurately which written so update surveys the old the need to been issues evidence. reflects a current assess accurately present as we community’s problems, ment subscribe to the finding I cannot with the determination. agree could Review Board Bamford had failed to survey is purpose of the ascertainment Spanish-American leaders of the interview of, aware and re make the broadcaster population Christi. The to, problems. community Un sponsive interviewed, Spanish-Americans four change and needs over doubtedly problems majority opinion judge, are “a shown time, and if the period councilman, pastor of a Roman city programming require responsive church, Mexican-American Catholic meaning, they must any are to have ments president clerk who was also county the sur reasonably current —otherwise be I am Knights of Columbus.” unable to of form a fruitless exaltation vey becomes Spanish- in a in which believe substance. over constitute Americans 35.7% to 48% of the (see note record, majority opinion) However, as we read the Spanish-American that for a to be elected a the ALJ concluded to us appears councilman, merely attempting city county to over- or a clerk is judge, ignore disqualifying duty tially issue 20. We cannot needs Commission’s therefore, able, rendering convenience, public to start make certain that the inter and is pos- public necessity at the earliest service to will be served when a new est new exists, therefore, permit sought. supra. cause date. Good See n. sible highly this amendment.” technical area under In the considera here, surely great are bound to tion we accord 1.522(b) provides part: in relevant C.F.R. deference to the Commission’s construction “Requests has after it to amend regulations of its own and administration designated . . . will been statutory requirements. meeting essential good granted only cause shown.” Tallman, 380 U.S. Udall v. S.Ct. (1965); Develop Power Reactor L.Ed.2d 616 that “Bamford’s The ALJ noted Electrical, Union v. International Co. prior responsibility merely de- assumes Workers, Machine 367 U.S. Radio and says imputed not be should ficiencies 6 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. *9 60. to Bamford.” prima facie evidence of his or her lead- approximately ership. As 18% the poverty level, who are below the any survey

I would feel critical of

poverty group in such a community which

did not include a conference with a priest of

a Roman Catholic Mexican-American I

church. am not member of that reli-

gious group my experience teaches me uniformly priests almost Catholic poverty

well informed as needs of

their community. request

I sustain the petitioner’s would

reopen the record for the submission new

survey material. UNION NO.

LOCAL INTERNATION- BRIDGE,

AL OF ASSOCIATION

STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Petitioner,

IRON

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

BOARD, Respondent.

No. 75-1060.

United of Appeals, States Court

District Columbia Circuit.

Argued Nov.

Decided March

Rehearing Denied June Berger, Evansville, L.

Sydney Ind., with Berger, whom Charles L. Evansville, Ind., brief, was on petitioner. Armstrong, Aileen A. B., N. Atty., L. R. Washington, D. with whom John Irv- S. ing, Counsel, Deputy Hardin, Gen. Patrick Counsel, Associate Gen. Moore, Dep- Elliott uty Counsel, Gen. Associate and Robert A. Giannasi, Counsel, Asst. Gen. B., N. L. R.