Steubenville and Youngstown. An educational station from Pittsburgh is carried, and there is one time and weather channel. There is no local origination. Ellwood City has one local newspaper, the Ellwood City Ledger, which is published six days a week. The New Castle News from New Castle,13 is also distributed in Ellwood City daily, except Sundays. There is also some circulation of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and, on Sundays only, the Youngstown Vindicator.

20. Population Characteristics: The characteristics of the population of Ellwood City,1 based upon the 1970 U.S. Census, have been officially noticed by the Board,15 and may be briefly described as follows:

Total Population: 10,857.

Educational Level:

Persons 25 years and older-Median number of school years completed: 12. Percent who completed 4 years of high school or more: 49.7. Percent completing less than 5 years of school: 3.1.

Persons 3 to 34 years-Percentage enrolled in schools: 54.2 (24.5% of Ellwood City.)

Economic Characteristics:

Civilian labor force, percent unemployed: 6.5.

Percent in manufacturing industries: 52.9.

Percent in white-collar occupations: 42.1.

Percent government workers: 13.0.

Ethnic Breakdown:

Percent Negro : 0.72.

Percent foreign born: 8.2.

Total foreign born: 882.

Total foreign stock: 3,351.

Major country of origin: Italy (1,786).

Age:

Median age: 36.8.

Percent over 18: 69.3.

Percent over 65: 13.4.

Percent under 18: 30.7.

Income Levels:

Median Income: $8,476.

Less than poverty level: 9.7%.

$15,000 or more: 10%.

County Data:

Ellwood City has 9,754 persons located in Lawrence County and 1,103 persons located in Beaver County. Lawrence County has 4.9% rural farm and 42.3% rural non-farm populations with a median income of $8,664. Beaver County has 2.1% rural farm and 20.7% rural non-farm populations with a median income of $9,428.

13 As indicated previously, New Castle is situated 14 miles from Ellwood City, and it is the county seat of Lawrence County where the bulk of Ellwood City's population is situated. 14 Even the late Judge noted the complete lack of a breakdown of ethnic characteristics for Ellwood City. (Tr. 737.) 15 The Board is aware of the prescription of 5 U.S.C. $ 556 (e) that "When an agency decision rests on official notice of a material fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a party is entitled, on timely request, to an opportunity to show the contrary." Any dispute with respect to the use of this official U.S. Census material must be addressed to the Review Board in the form of a petition for reconsideration under Section 1.106(a) of the Commission's Rules. See WMOZ, Inc., 36 FCC 201, 209, 1 RR 2d 801, 816-17 (1964).

21. Service Area and Major Communities Served: Turning to the major communities which Jud proposes to serve, and those communities which fall within Jud's proposed service area (with populations greater than 1,000 persons), the following chart lists those communities, their population, their distance from Ellwood City and their location with respect to Jud's proposed contours:

1 In addition to the Ellwood City CATV system, companies under common ownership with Jud either operate CATV systems or hold CATV franchises for each of these communities, all of which are situated within the "Greater Ellwood City Area", and the Ellwood City CATV system serves as the head-end for these other CATV systems.

2 These are the major communities which the applicant proposes to serve, in addition to its principal community of Ellwood City. See para. 10, supra. Ott Sedwick testified that he did not consult any maps to determine the existence of communities located within his proposed service area (Tr. 745-46), but confined his efforts to communities "adjacent" to Ellwood City. (Tr. 681.) The chart above indicates that two adjacent communities are not proposed to be served by Jud: Perry Township with a population of 1,841 and North Sewickley Township with a population of 6,048. This chart also establishes that Big Beaver, Koppel, and New Beaver are located within distances ranging from one to four miles from Ellwood City. With respect to the other communities outside of the Greater Ellwood City Area, Ott Sedwick indicated his reason for not surveying New Castle: "New Castle alrea ly has an AM station, as many other communities surrounding the area have AM stations." (Emphasis supplied.) (Tr. 687.) None of the communities listed in the chart have either AM or FM stations licensed to them.

NOTE. None of the above communities has a licensed AM or FM broadcast station.

COMMUNITY ASCERTAINMENT OF PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND INTERESTS, AND PROPOSED PROGRAMMING

22. To ascertain community needs, problems, and interests, Ott Sedwick, who lives in Kittanning, Pennsylvania, approximately 40 miles from Ellwood City, spent approximately 10 days there in order to make the applicant's March 1970 post-designation survey. The showing of the applicant with respect to these surveys and its proposed programming is set forth in (a) Jud Exhs. 12A and 12B (the March 1970 surveys); Exh. 13 (the supplementary May 1971 survey); and (c) his testimony of record. Exh. 12A is a 10-page double-spaced affidavit of Ott Sedwick relating to the March 1970 surveys. Exh. 12B consists of approximately 200 pages of copies of a questionnaire used by Ott Sedwick with respect to his contact with 47 persons (7 face-to

face and 40 by telephone) 16 in the Greater Ellwood City Area. These 200 pages of data were placed bodily in the record; it constitutes what the Judge characterized as the applicant's "prodigious" efforts, and we agree with this characterization." It is evident that the 10 pages of double-spaced text set forth in Exh. 12A and the 12 pages of text set forth in Exh. 13, do not fit such a characterization. Examination of the record shows that the 200 pages of Exh. 12B were placed in the record haphazardly, unalphabetized as to the interviewees, with no analysis.18 Indeed, it is to be noted that there is no contention in Jud's proposed findings that these 47 persons, on the basis of Ott Sedwick's best information and belief, are community leaders; nor is there any contention in Jud's proposed findings that these 47 persons are representative of all significant groups in the community. Instead, para. 87 of Jud's proposed findings merely indicates that Ott Sedwick "attempted" to contact the leaders in education, youth, and leaders among the elderly, businessmen, public officials, civic groups, unions, and minority groups (emphasis supplied). In our view, this proposed finding is incompatible with the fundamental principles and objectives of the Primer as more specifically detailed below.

23. Bearing in mind the deficient state of this record relating to the population characteristics of Ellwood City (para. 20, supra), it is evident that the applicant did not make a population characteristics study either prior to or subsequent to the selection of the 47 persons interviewed, which comprise Jud's alleged community leaders survey.19 See Q's & A's 10 and 13(a), and paras. 27-30 of the Primer. Nor does the totality of other evidence in this record establish the applicant's awareness, let alone its recognition of Ellwood City's significant population groups, i.e., (a) its ethnic groups; (b) its population with incomes below the poverty level; (c) its population comprising "the aged", etc.

24. More specifically, the potpourri of information set forth in the 200 pages of bulk data does indicate that Ott Sedwick contacted 47 persons, comprising the applicant's alleged community leaders survey; however, this bulk data, with few exceptions, in no way reveals to what extent these 47 person are representative of significant population groupings, even though it does indicate that he contacted three black persons, and a few persons whose names and affiliated organizations reveal that they may be a part of Ellwood City's ethnic groups, or that of its "aged". We, accordingly, cannot deem this 200 pages of bulk data to constitute a substitute for the omission, in the first place,

16 One person was contacted by someone other than Ott Sedwick.

17 See, note 2, supra.

18 Since Exhs. 12A and 12B are duplicates of Jud's March 1970 amendment to its application, there are 400 pages of copies comprising the same information, and the lack of orderliness precludes page-by-page examination of the amendment data with the Jud Exh. 12B data. In addition, para. 89 of Jud's proposed findings includes 48 pages of duplication of this same data (at pages 43(a)-44 (v)). Obviously, this bulk merely brings clutter to the record. In this connection, it is to be noted Jud's only specific proposed finding with respect to all of this bulk data reads, as follows: "The persons interviewed for the community leaders survey, their address, employment, positions held, and survey responses are as follows:". Thereafter, there follows 48 pages of the interview sheets described above. Because of the lack of orderliness in placing this bulk data in the record, as well as in Jud's proposed findings, it is difficult to compare original interview sheets with the typed versions in the proposed findings. However, a comparison does reveal that those in the proposed findings, are, at best, a summary of the responses in the originals. Moreover, in some instances, there have been deletions in the summaries of community problems revealed in the originals. For example, compare the original interview sheets of Exh. B, pps. 56-59 and pps. 116-119 with the typed versions in the proposed findings.

of the detailed population characteristics showing as required by Q. & A. 10 and para. 30 of the Primer. See, also, notes 7 and 14, and para. 20, supra. Moreover, Ott Sedwick's own testimony negates, rather than recognizes, even the sheer physical existence of these significant Ellwood City groups. Thus, for example, he testified that although he "particularly sought out minority group leaders and dissatisfied and dissident groups," he "found few such groups or persons whom he considered leaders in such groups," and, illustratively, he referred only to the few black persons in the area, with no mention whatsoever of the existence of these other significant groups. Obviously, his testimony here conveys the impression that all these groups are inconsequential in Ellwood City. Given the stated regulatory objectives of the Primer,20 and the ordinary dictionary definition of the word "minority", Ott Sedwick's testimony in this respect is patently ambiguous, if not evasive. He further testified that there does not seem to be "a disproportionate high percentage of retired persons"; however, it is axiomatic, on the basis of the regulatory objectives of the Primer,22 that his use of the word "disproportionate" distorts what constitutes a significant and/or a minority group. (Emphasis supplied.)

25. Accordingly, we conclude that Jud's showing, standing alone, falls far short of constituting a prima facie showing that there are no significant minority populations in Ellwood City which is the thrust of the applicant's position. We further find and conclude that the facts set forth in para. 20, supra, which have been officially recognized by the Board, contradict the thrust of the applicant's showing. Moreover, the findings at para. 20, supra, also contradict Ott Sedwick's opinion, based upon his alleged surveys of community leaders, that there is "very little unemployment", and that "the low unemployment rate results in less people being on welfare, than in other areas of the country." Surely, the 6.5% unemployment rate 23 and the 9.7% 24 rate of families in Ellwood City with incomes less than the poverty level

19 We do not adopt Jud's proposed findings at para. 88 that "In advance of the survey, [Ott] Sedwick obtained lists of fraternal organizations, civic groups, unions, and industries and their officers and leaders." Examination of the transcript at page 665 establishes that when he was interrogated concerning the basis of this statement, he relied upon an addendum attached to Jud Exh. 2 entitled "Sources". The face of that addendum is devoid of any description which directly or inferentially implies the inclusion of a roster of officers and community leaders. At most, items 8, 12, 13, and 16 of the addendum describe, generally, such documents as "industrial lists", directory of lodges and clubs, directory of churches, and directory of labor unions. The text of Jud Exh. 2 merely shows the physical existence of such industries, by names of the companies; of unions, by names of the unions; and of civic and fraternal organizations, by names of the organizations. In short, Jud's proposed finding here is unsupported by the record, and we cannot re-label the general descriptions of documents, as set forth in the addendum, into a roster of the names of officers and community leaders.

20 Q's and A's 10 and 13 (a) of the Primer; para. 39 of the Primer, in pertinent part, reads, as follows:

... An applicant may not arbitrarily avoid personal consultations with significant groups because the group lacks a highly developed formal structure. . . Additional efforts

may be needed to identify leaders of less organized groups. This may require. asking members of the particular group to identify those who they consider to be their local leaders.

21 According to Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, the word "minority" is defined, as follows: ". a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subject to differential treatment."

23 Para. 31, and Q. & A. 10 of the Primer where it is stated that "the 'significance' of a group may rest on several criteria including its size, its influence or lack of influence in the community."

The Board has taken official notice of the national unemployment rate in the 1970 U.S. Census, which is 4.4%. See note 15, supra.

24 The Board has also officially noticed the 10.7% national rate of families with incomes less than the poverty level. See note 15, supra.

do not support his opinion that "Ellwood City is not confronted with many of the social problems facing other communities," which stem from these types of community problems,25 and in any event raise questions with respect to such commonly recognized interrelated community problems as nutrition, health, etc. Cf. note 9, supra.

26. Although the Board believes that Jud's token approach to the regulatory objectives of the Primer, as set forth above, warrant a denial of its application, we have, nevertheless, examined other portions of its showing to determine whether the totality of the evidence. would justify a different result. However, careful examination of the record reveals additional serious shortcomings. First, the applicant has also failed to make a prima facie showing that the bulk (40 out of 47) of its interviews with alleged community leaders resulted in the establishment of the required dialogue with community leaders. See para. 33, Q. & A. 11(a) of the Primer. Secondly, the applicant's survey of the public is haphazard, and cannot be deemed a random selection. See para. 36, Q. & A. 11(b) of the Primer. Thirdly, the applicant's survey of the four contiguous communities, namely, Wampum Borough, Wayne Township, Franklin Township, and Ellport Borough, situated in the Greater Ellwood City Area which it proposes to serve, is, at best, a token approach. With respect to the other communities in its proposed service area, Jud does not propose to serve them. (See, para. 21, supra.) Hence, the applicant made no survey whatsoever (a) in three Greater Ellwood City Area communities, namely, Big Beaver, Koppel, New Beaver; and (b) in the other communities situated outside of the Greater Ellwood City Area, including New Castle, which is the county seat of Lawrence County where the Greater Ellwood City Area is located. However, for some unexplained reason, Ott Sedwick extended his token-type surveys to North Sewickley Township and Perry Township even though the applicant does not propose to serve these two contiguous communities. Jud also failed to make the required showing as to why it does not undertake to serve, at the least, all of the communities which constitute the Greater Ellwood City Area. Each of these additional deficiencies is discussed more fully below.

26

27. Given the stated purpose of Q. & A. 11 (a) of the Primer, requiring consultations with community leaders in order to assure that "dialogue is established between the community leaders and the decision-making personnel of the applicant", the applicant's barebone assertion that 40 of its interviews (or 83% of its total interviews) were made by telephone, accords no decisional authority with reasonable assurance of the fulfillment of this objective. This record is devoid of evidence as to the details of these telephone interviews, except that the applicant utilized a highly detailed questionnaire sheet

25 There is no list. per se, submitted in this record of all problems ascertained by Jud based upon its alleged survey of community leaders, as required by para. 54, Q. & A. 22 of the Primer. In its proposed findings (para. 90), counsel attempts to categorize the information in the 200 pages of bulk data. However, this is no substitute for the required evidentiary showing; counsel's belated attempt cannot be accepted. In addition, counsel's categorizations are not all inclusive of some of the community problems revealed in the Interview sheets.

28 Ott Sedwick testified that New Castle was not surveyed because it already had an AM license there. Note 16, supra. However, it is possible that county officials would have had some constructive suggestions relative to county needs, interests and problems, apart from information relating solely to New Castle.