WPC*2 28BH ZRoman3|J (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)3|J (TT)@^?(?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,,,,OWOOOOOGOWWWWKSApple LaserWriter II NTXPT1APLAIINT.WRS&J\  P6Q"oU&P2x jt33|JTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)J\  P6Q,,"3}&P I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)2R@@B X Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT))"5@^.=K\\!==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33hhhRzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=R\R\R=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\RX%Xc.====IK=\\RRRRRzzRpRpRpRpR=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\R\\\\\f\\RRzRzRzRpRpRpR\\\\\\I\=\===\G\p3pK\\\z=zKfGfGN@.S\=R\\\\\39\7\7==RR\==\\=R=7t=ddddhdo.Iih3[\\xdCpi_w[dfdmoPpP~j_d~~tqo.=K\\!==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33hhhRzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=R\R\R=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\RX%Xc=\R\\=f===RR@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\h=\Id77=iS.=79\Rzpppp====hf\RRRRRRzRRRRR3333\\\\\\\d\\\\\\\"5@^.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=k\=\fRfR=\f3=f3f\ffRG=f\\\RH(H`.====IK=\f\\\\\RzRzRzRzRG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\\RRRzRzRzR\\\\ffIfGfG=Gf\fz3zKff\RRfGfGN@.c\=\\\\\\7<\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7t=ddddido.Iii3[\\xdCpi_w[dfdmoPpP~j_d~~tqo.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=k\=\fRfR=\f3=f3f\ffRG=f\\\RH(H`=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=.=\\\\(\=7\i=\Id77=ic.=7<\\zzzzGGGGipf\\\\\\RRRRR3333\f\\\\\d\ffff\fL2J=.,/&J\  P6Q&P.M2N=.,&N4  pQ&7PC2,W XP\  P6QXP.7UC2,PXU4  pQXCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd2@@4@tZ"5@^2BRdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BB!BBPRBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdBdBBBdNdz8zRdddBRoNoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2Boddȧ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BB!BBPRBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNBNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldBdddddd%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,-%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7OO7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7CC-O7O7O7bOI%I-=+=+N&27%177777"SS7!TT7S!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!t%<<<<>l[O6Wls[77TTTH_%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5@^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888-\HCCH=7HH!'H=YHH7HC7=HH^HH=!!/2!-2-2-!222N2222!'22H22-006!!!!()!22H-H-H-H-H-YCC-=-=-=-=-!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H-H2H2H2H2H272H2H-H-C-C-C-=-=-=-H2H2HH2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2==)H2H2H2YHC!C)7'7'N#-2!-22222KK2LL2K!!--2d!!22bd!-d!t!77778c7%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,-%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7OO7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7CC-O7O7O7bOI%I-=+=+N&27%177777"SS7!TT7S!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!t%<<<<>mBBs,?>[N6Wms[77UUUH_%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777L2J=.,/&J\  P6Q&P.M2N=.,&N4  pQ&O7PC2,W XP\  P6QXP.N7UC2,PXU4  pQXPy.C8*,gC\  P6QPQP,%,J,\  P6QJPRI(!,,(\  P6Q,PS{,C8*,3C*f9 xQX0J=.,3V^&J*f9 xQ&X=Gf\fz3zKff\RRfGfGN@.c\=\\\\\\7<\7\7==\\\==2P,%X)J,\  P6QJP0J=.X9&J*f9 xQ&X       2(2 S- X   )D X-y  #XP\  P6QW XP#Federal Communications Commission`(# FCC 97333 ă  yxdddy )  X01Í ÍX01Í ÍX01Í ÍX01Í Í#&J\  P6Q/&P#O3 Before the Federal Communications Commission  S-& Washington, D.C. 20554 ă T  S8-In the Matter of hh@) x` `  hh@)  S-The Detroit News, Inc. hh@)  S-Licensee, Station WUSA(TV)hh@)  S-Washington, DC hh@) x` `  hh@) T  S -T  S - MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TP  S -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:(>(ZZ%"  xefforts" to complete the public inspection file and to file a report within sixty days of the release of the  S-MO&O, updating the Bureau as to the status of its efforts to do so. x  S-A II. Contentions of the Parties ă  S:- ` x7.` ` In its Application for Review, UACN presents two questions for review. First, did the  x.Mass Media Bureau err by failing to designate the issues raised in UACN's pleadings for hearing and by  xfailing to impose a larger forfeiture upon Detroit News? Second, did the Mass Media Bureau err by  x.changing the requirement of Section 73.3526(a) and by permitting Detroit News to use its "best efforts"  S-to place the missing viewer letters in the WUSA(TV) public file?  Sr-  SJ - ` x8.` ` UACN first argues that the Bureau erred by failing to designate Detroit News for hearing  x-and by failing to impose a larger forfeiture against Detroit News. In support of its position, UACN asserts  xLthat Detroit News and CBS colluded to make material misrepresentations to the Commission concerning  xthe disposition of the 60 Minutes viewer letters. It contends that despite Detroit News' assertions to the  x\contrary, the letters were discarded. It states that there is sufficient evidence of misrepresentation to  xsupport designation for hearing. UACN also asserts that Detroit News has steadfastly refused to comply  xwith the Commission rule which requires stations to keep viewer letters in their public inspection files and  xthat Detroit News' explanations as to why these letters were not and cannot be placed in WUSA(TV)'s  xpublic file have lacked candor. Therefore, UACN asserts that Detroit News' lack of candor, coupled with  x=the ongoing nature of the violations, requires a higher forfeiture. In support of its position, UACN cites  xto Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which states that forfeitures should be calculated by considering the "nature, circumstance, extent and gravity of violations...."  SB- ` x9.` ` Detroit News maintains that it has evidenced every intent to comply with the  x!Commission's rules to the fullest extent practicable and that its actions with respect to rectifying  xinadvertent errors in the maintenance of its public inspection file could not rationally be construed as a  x"steadfast refusal" to comply with the Commission's rules. Further, Detroit News states that it has been  xnothing but candid and cooperative with the Commission as to the maintenance of its public inspection  x[file. In addition, contrary to UACN's allegations, Detroit News maintains that there was no "malevolent  x!intent" to its inability to retrieve from CBS copies of protest letters allegedly sent to the station.  x[Moreover, it states that although it incorrectly informed the Commission that CBS had responded to the  xviewer letters, at the time it made that statement, Detroit News believed, based upon information received  x from CBS, that such responses had been sent. Further, it indicates that upon becoming aware of the  S- xjinaccuracy, it informed the Commission.6 {O-  ԍxSee Letter to William F. Caton from Howard F. Jaeckel, Associate General Counsel for CBS, Inc., dated October 26, 1995. Finally, Detroit News states that it has paid the forfeiture and  xtaken appropriate corrective measures to improve public inspection file procedures, in that it has both  Sb-instructed and admonished personnel to ensure future compliance with the Commission's rules.  S - ` Ax10.` ` UACN next argues that the Bureau changed the standard for the public inspection file rule  xwhen it required Detroit News to use its "best efforts" to obtain copies of the 60 Minutes letters and place  S!- x[them in Station WUSA's public file.U!"6 {O&-ԍxSee 47 C.F.R.  73.3526(a).U UACN states that the Bureau erred in changing the standard of the  xrule from one of mandating that certain documents "shall" be maintained to one which merely requires"",>(>(ZZ'$"  S- xa licensee's best efforts. Detroit News asserts that the instructions in the MO&O regarding use of Detroit  xNews' best efforts to complete WUSA's public file is consistent with Section 73.3526(a) of the Commission's Rules. x  Sb-% III. Discussion  S- ` R x11.` ` Misrepresentation involves false statements of material fact made with an intent to  S- x{deceive.x6 {OR-ԍxFox River Broadcasting, Inc., 93 FCC 2d 127, 129 (1983).ppx Lack of candor involves concealment, evasion, and other failures to be fully forthcoming  S- xconcerning material facts undertaken with an intent to deceive the Commission.OZ6 {O -ԍxId.` ` O The Commission  S- x=demands candor from those who come before it and will not tolerate misrepresentations. 6 {O& -  >ԍxWOKO, Inc., 329 U.S. 223 (1946); MidOhio Communications, Inc., 5 FCC Rcd 940 (1990), affirmed, 5 FCC Rcd 4596 (1990). Detroit News  xhas consistently stated that its policy was to forward letters regarding CBS programming directly to CBS.  xLAfter being instructed by the Bureau to retrieve the letters at issue, it was able to locate only letters sent  x[directly from viewers to CBS. UACN asserts that Detroit News' statements to the Bureau, regarding its  xyrepresentation that it routinely forwards letters relating to CBS in New York and normally retains copies  xof such letters in its station's public file, and its subsequent inability to find the letters, evidence  xlmisrepresentation or a lack of candor. We do not believe, however, that the information before us  xkprovides sufficient evidence to support such a finding and, consequently, the requested hearing is not  xwarranted. There is no evidence before us that Detroit News intentionally made false statements to the  xCommission or that it engaged in concealment or evasion with an intent to deceive the Commission  xconcerning UACN's letters. It appears that at the time Detroit News made statements regarding the  S- xlocation of viewer letters, it believed the letters were located at CBS' office in New York. While Detroit  xNews has been unable to locate its letters at CBS, we do not believe this fact establishes the intent  S- xnecessary to support a finding of lack of candor or misrepresentation. Moreover, we conclude likewise  xjthat Detroit News' erroneous statement to the Bureau regarding CBS' response to viewer letters does not  x=evidence an intent to deceive. Rather, the record reveals that Detroit News simply relied on an incorrect  xstatement by CBS personnel and that it believed, at the time it so informed the Commission, that CBS  xhad responded to all viewer letters regarding the 60 Minutes broadcast. We agree with the Bureau that  x[allegations of collusion or conspiracy between Detroit News and CBS are merely speculative and are not supported by the record before us.  Sz-  SR- ` x12.` ` Next, the contention that the Bureau changed the standard for maintaining public  xyinspection files is without merit. The Bureau did not alter the requirements of Section 73.3526(a) for the  xbenefit of Detroit News. The Bureau found that Detroit News violated the public inspection file rule and  xfined Detroit News for noncompliance. It then instructed the licensee to use its "best efforts' to complete  S- xMthe public file, but recognized that Detroit News might not be able to do so. ""F6 {O$-  ԍxPursuant to the MO&O, the Detroit News filed a written report, dated May 21, 1996, detailing its efforts  xto obtain copies of these letters. According to the Assistant General Manager of Station WUSA, he was unable to  xlocate any letter addressed to WUSA(TV) referencing the 60 Minutes broadcast. However, he did locate one letter  xfrom a viewer residing in a Washington, D.C. metropolitan area suburb, which had been sent directly to CBS in New"& ,>(>('"  x=York. In addition, there were 17 form letters from WUSA(TV)'s general viewing area that were sent to CBS  {OX- xdirectly, but not to WUSA(TV). Copies of these letters were placed in the station's public inspection files. See  yO"- xiLetter to Roy Stewart, Chief, Mass Media Bureau from Robert J. Sullivan, Vice President the Detroit News, dated May 21, 1996. We are persuaded that" ,>(>(ZZ"  x[Detroit News' actions, detailed in its May 21, 1996, letter to obtain the missing letters and place them in  xWUSA's public file, represented a substantial and good faith attempt to complete the station's public file,  S- xas directed by the staff, and that no more can reasonably be asked of it in this regard. X6 yO-  >ԍxDetroit News specifies that in an attempt to locate the missing letters, the Assistant General Manager of  x[WUSA in Washington, D.C. travelled to CBS' office in New York. It further states that while there he spent approximately three hours reviewing boxes of mail regarding "The Ugly Face of Freedom."  No party can be  xpunished for not doing what its best efforts cannot accomplish. As noted above, Detroit News' initial  xLfailure to place the letters in its public file has already been determined to violate the Commission's rules and a forfeiture has been imposed and paid for that violation.  S- ` x13.` ` In view of the foregoing, we find that there is no basis for further forfeiture in connection  xwith Detroit News' public file failures. We have rejected UACN's allegations of misrepresentation and  x{lack of candor. Moreover, we do not find this to be a continuing violation. In the absence of such exacerbating factors, we find that the forfeiture amount imposed is sufficient.  S - IV. Conclusion and Ordering Clause ă  S - ` 3x14.` ` Therefore, after carefully reviewing the facts of this case, we find no merit to UACN's  S - xApplication for Review. Acco rdingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Application for Review filed on May 6, 1996, by the Ukrainian American Community Network IS DENIED. x` `  hh x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton x` `  hhActing Secretary