Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
File No. EB-05-IH-0219
Gaston College )
NAL Account No. 200732080021
Licensee of Noncommercial )
Educational FRN No. 0009387226
Station WSGE(FM), Dallas, North Facility I.D. No. 23324
Adopted: January 29, 2010 Released: January 29, 2010
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
1. In this Forfeiture Order ("FO"), we assess a monetary forfeiture in
the amount of $8,000 against Gaston College, licensee of Noncommercial
Educational Station WSGE(FM), Dallas, North Carolina (the "Station"),
for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3527 of the
Commission's rules relating to a noncommercial licensee's obligation
to properly maintain and make available a public inspection file.
2. As discussed in detail in the Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture ("NAL") issued in this case, the Commission received a
complaint alleging that on March 7, 2005, the licensee, Gaston
College, failed to make available for public inspection the Station's
public inspection file on two separate visits to the Station's main
studio. According to the Complainant, during his first visit on March
3, 2005, he asked to review the public inspection file, but was told
by a Station employee to come back another day. After the requestor
informed the Station employee that FCC rules require that the file
must be made available on request during regular business hours, the
employee directed him to a drawer containing some Station documents,
but the drawer did not contain the Station's public inspection file.
Meanwhile, the Station employee contacted the Station's General
Manager who, upon arrival, also directed the Complainant to the same
drawer. Shortly thereafter, the College's Vice President for Finance
and Operations arrived and told the Complainant that he could not look
through the files without first making an appointment with Gaston
College's attorney. While still at the Station, he was asked to take a
call from Gaston College's attorney, who directed him to leave the
Station and the college's campus or he would be arrested. The
Complainant states that he left without viewing the public inspection
3. The Complainant further alleges that he returned the next day and was
told by the Station's General Manager that he first needed an
appointment with Gaston College's attorney to view the public
inspection file. Only after informing the General Manager that such a
policy was illegal was he permitted to review a public inspection file
binder and a hanging folder. Upon review of the binder and hanging
folder, he states that the Complainant noticed that the FCC
publication, "The Public and Broadcasting," a copy of which is
required under the rules to be maintained, was omitted from the public
inspection file. When he inquired about the absence of the
publication, he was provided with a copy. He states that he also
discovered that the required issues/programs list and equal employment
opportunity ("EEO") report were also missing from the public
inspection file, but were later provided after he inquired about them.
He asserts that the issues/programs list was incomplete.
4. The Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") issued a letter of inquiry (the
"LOI") to the licensee, which directed Gaston College to respond to,
inter alia, the allegations in the Complaint. Gaston College, through
its counsel, responded to the allegations. Although the licensee
generally did not dispute the allegations in the Complaint, Gaston
College characterized the Complainant's behavior during the first
visit as "hostile," and asked the Bureau to view the Complaint in the
context of its past dealings with the Complainant's employer, Columbia
Bible College. In this regard, Gaston College contended that Columbia
Bible College has been engaged in a "pattern of harassment and
intimidation" by pursuing FCC proceedings against Gaston College, and
that Columbia Bible College's actions, through the Complainant, are
motivated by its prior unsuccessful efforts to acquire the Station.
Gaston College alleged that Columbia Bible College is attempting to
misuse the Commission's processes to force the licensee to sell the
5. After release of the NAL, Gaston College responded on April 6, 2007.
In its response, Gaston College asserts that the proposed forfeiture
is excessive and that Gaston College should be admonished or the
forfeiture amount should be reduced. In support of this assertion,
Gaston College asserts that the proposed forfeiture is not in keeping
with Commission precedent and that, in several instances, licensees
were only admonished for public file violations. Gaston College also
asserts that the forfeiture should be reduced in light of its record
of compliance with the Commission's rules.
6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance
with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the
Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set
forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures,
Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the
nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters as justice may
require. As discussed further below, we have examined Gaston College's
response to the NAL pursuant to the aforementioned statutory factors,
our rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, and find no basis for
cancellation of the forfeiture. We find, however, that a reduction of
the forfeiture amount from $10,000 to $8,000 based on Gaston College's
prior history of compliance with the Commission's rules is
7. Section 73.3527 of the Commission's rules requires noncommercial
educational stations to maintain a public inspection file containing
specific types of information related to station operations.
Specifically, subsection (b) of the rule provides that "the public
inspection file shall be maintained at the main studio of the
station," and subsection (c) requires that "[t]he file shall be
available for public inspection at any time during regular business
hours." Some examples of specific materials that must be included in
the file are the station's quarterly issues/programs lists, equal
employment opportunity file, and a copy of the most recent version of
the manual entitled "The Public and Broadcasting." All broadcast
stations have an obligation to serve their local community's needs and
interests and to comply with certain programming and other rules.
Because we do not monitor a station's programming, viewers and
listeners are a vital source of information about the programming and
possible rule violations. The documents in each station's public
inspection file have information about the station that can assist the
public in this important role. The Commission has held that "a simple
request to see the file should be sufficient to elicit the complete
file" without the further necessity of asking for documents piecemeal.
The Commission included a relatively high base forfeiture amount of
$10,000 for public file violations in Section 1.80, recognizing the
seriousness of a licensee's failure to comply with this rule.
8. In its NAL Response, Gaston College does not contest that it violated
Section 73.3527 when it failed to provide access to its public
inspection file to a member of the public upon request and in a manner
consistent with the rule. Instead, Gaston College requests that the
Bureau impose an admonishment rather than a forfeiture or, in the
alternative, reduce the forfeiture. In support of this request, Gaston
College argues that Commission precedent dictates that only an
admonishment should be issued. Specifically, the licensee argues that
Tabback Broadcasting Co., Isothermal Community College, and College of
Staten Island -- each involving an admonishment against a
noncommercial radio station for a public file violation -- are
analogous to the instant situation and are controlling precedent, and
that the cases cited by the Investigations and Hearings Division in
the NAL are distinguishable. We reject this argument. We find that the
facts presented in Isothermal Community College are distinguishable
from the facts in the instant case. We also find that we are not bound
by, and decline to follow, the Media Bureau's decisions in Tabback
Broadcasting Co. and College of Staten Island. Indeed, as discussed
below, the Media Bureau has recently departed from earlier precedent
and has imposed significant forfeitures for public file violations by
9. The Isothermal Community College admonishment is not instructive
because the violation at issue in that case was substantially less
egregious than the instant case. In Isothermal Community College, the
Bureau admonished a station for violating the rule because its file
was admittedly not up to date. The decision admonished the licensee
for briefly delaying, by less than a half hour, a requestor's access
to the public inspection file while the staff called security due to
safety concerns. By contrast, on the requestor's first visit, Gaston
College withheld the public file altogether and threatened the
requestor with arrest. The decision to take that action also involved
several high-ranking Gaston College officials, not just staff and
security. We find that it is not reasonable to equate a half-hour
delay for security reasons, as occurred in Isothermal Community
College, and the initial wholesale failure to produce the file and the
arrest threat made in the instant case. The antagonism Gaston College
describes between it and Columbia Bible College does not excuse Gaston
10. As Gaston College asserts, in the Media Bureau letter rulings Tabback
Broadcasting Co. and College of Staten Island, licensees were
admonished for failing to make their respective public files available
to a member of the public when requested. To the extent the case facts
are reported in the letter rulings, these cases appear similar to the
facts present here. The Commission affirmed the admonishment in
Tabback stating that the Media Bureau had discretion to admonish
rather than issue a forfeiture in that case. At no point, however, did
the Commission dictate that all future public file cases should result
in admonishments. As a matter of administrative law, the Commission,
and the Bureaus operating pursuant to delegated authority, have
discretion over decisions "whether to issue a warning or assess a
forfeiture based on the nature and circumstances of the specific
violation." The courts have found that the Commission is best
positioned to weigh the benefits of pursuing an adjudication against
the costs to the agency and the likelihood of success. The
Commission's affirmation of the Media Bureau's decision in Tabback
Broadcasting Co. was based on recognition of the Media Bureau's
discretion to issue an admonishment. We similarly have discretion to
select the appropriate sanction and are not bound to issue
admonishments in the first instance for public file violations.
11. Indeed, more recent Media Bureau decisions have held that significant
forfeitures are appropriate sanctions for public file violations by
noncommercial broadcasters. For example, in Boone Biblical Ministries,
Inc., the Audio Division of the Media Bureau expressly "disavow[ed]"
an earlier decision proposing a relatively small forfeiture against a
noncommercial station for an incomplete public file. The Media Bureau
held that the base forfeiture amount, $10,000, was an appropriate
penalty against each station responsible for such violations, and
cited other cases holding similarly. The Media Bureau has followed
that approach in subsequent cases.
12. We agree with the Media Bureau that public file violations merit
strong enforcement. This case, which involves not only an incomplete
public file, but the outright refusal to produce the public file,
should receive an appropriately measured forfeiture. Accordingly, we
decline to follow the earlier approach taken in the Media Bureau's
decisions in Tabback Broadcasting Co. and College of Staten Island and
follow more recent and compelling precedent from both the Media and
Enforcement Bureaus. As explained above, the Media Bureau has taken
strong enforcement action against noncommercial stations with
incomplete public files. With respect to Gaston College's refusal to
produce the public file, we find that the situation here is similar to
Riverside Broadcasting, Inc., one of the cases cited by the
Investigations and Hearings Division in the NAL. In Riverside
Broadcasting, Inc., the requestor called the station after being
denied access to the public file and was hung up on three times. He
was then told that the station would file harassment charges if he
called again. The Bureau issued a $10,000 forfeiture as a result.
13. Our decision to impose a forfeiture for this type of conduct is well
supported by Commission precedent, and we disagree with Gaston
College's assertion that the cases cited in the NAL do not apply. The
cases cited in the NAL consistently hold that a failure to provide the
file to a member of the public on request constitutes a violation of
the rule, and each imposed a forfeiture for such violation. Gaston
College distinguishes the cases primarily on the basis that they
involve commercial as opposed to noncommercial stations, apparently
believing that noncommercial stations do not have the same obligation
as commercial stations to provide access to the station's public
inspection file. The Commission has stated that the requirements on
noncommercial stations are similar to the requirements placed on
commercial stations except for the content of the files. Indeed, as
noted earlier, the Media Bureau has imposed even larger forfeitures
than that at issue here against noncommercial stations for public file
violations. In Lebanon Educational Broadcasting Foundation, KKTK(FM),
the Enforcement Bureau explained:
Section 73.3527(c)(1) of the Rules requires noncommercial licensees to
make available for inspection all required items in the station's public
inspection file during regular business hours. Where the Rule is violated,
Section 1.80 provides that a monetary forfeiture may be imposed, and there
is no exemption or reduction based on the noncommercial status of a
We therefore reject Gaston College's assertions that the cases cited in
the NAL are not applicable here.
14. In the instant case, we affirm the NAL's decision that a forfeiture
rather than an admonishment is appropriate, considering all of the
relevant circumstances and the factors enumerated in Section
503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, including the fact that the violation
involved high-ranking officials of Gaston College threatening to have
the requestor arrested, the fact that the file was withheld wholesale
on the requestor's first visit, the fact that two visits were required
to obtain access to the file, and the need for the requestor to ask
for missing documents. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that
the Station willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the
15. As we noted in the NAL, compliance with the public file rule is
vitally important because the rule "safeguards the public's ability to
assess the station's service and to meaningfully participate at the
station's renewal process." Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules
sets a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations.
We find that the base forfeiture amount is an appropriate starting
point in this case. As noted above, Gaston College asserts that a
reduction is appropriate because its history of compliance with FCC
rules is unblemished. Based on Gaston College's history of compliance
and the circumstances of this case, we find that a reduction of the
forfeiture amount on that basis to $8,000 is appropriate.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated
by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Gaston College
IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 (Eight
Thousand Dollars) for its willful and repeated violation of Section
73.3527 of the Commission's rules.
17. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
Section 1.80 of the rules within 30 days of the release of this
Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period
specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for
collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the
forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the
order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must
include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced above.
Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank - Government
Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004,
receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For payment by
credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.
When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account number in
block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in
block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full payment under
an installment plan should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer --
Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington,
D.C. 20554. Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk
at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions
regarding payment procedures. Gaston College will also send
electronic notification on the date said payment is made to
Hillary.DeNigro@fcc.gov, Ben.Bartolome@fcc.gov, Anjali.Singh@fcc.gov
18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be
sent by Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested, and regular mail,
to the Licensee at its address of record and to its counsel, Wade H.
Hargrove, Esq., Marcus W. Trathen, Esq. and Stephen Hartzell, Esq.
Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., Wachovia Capitol
Center Suite 1600, 150 Fayetteville Street, P.O. Box 1800, Raleigh,
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
P. Michele Ellison
See 47 C.F.R. S: 73.3527.
See Gaston College, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC
Rcd 4556 (Enf. Bur., Investigations & Hearings Div. 2007).
See Letter from J. Davidson Morrison to Enforcement Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission (the "FCC" or "Commission"), dated March 4, 2005
(the "Complaint") (transmitted by letter from Robert J. Rini, Esq., Rini
Coran P.C. to FCC, Enforcement Bureau dated March 7, 2005).
See id. at 1.
See id. at 2.
See Letter from William D. Freedman, Deputy Chief, Investigations and
Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Gaston College, dated
January 20, 2006.
See Letter from Stephen Hartzell, Esq., counsel for Gaston College, to Tom
Hutton, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement
Bureau, FCC, dated March 6, 2006, (the "Response Cover Letter")
transmitting Gaston College Response and attached exhibits (the "LOI
Response"). J. Davidson Morrison responded to the College's LOI Response
by letter from J. Davidson Morrison, to Tom Hutton, Assistant Chief,
Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, dated March
22, 2006 (transmitted by letter from Robert J. Rini, Esq., Rini Coran P.C.
to Tom Hutton, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division,
Enforcement Bureau, FCC, dated March 23, 2006) ("Complainant's Reply").
See Response Cover Letter at 2.
See id. at 2-3.
See Letter from Stephen Hartzell, Esq. counsel for Gaston College, to
Hillary S. DeNigro, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, dated
April 6, 2007 (the "NAL Response").
See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b).
See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.
See Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80
of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order,
12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), reconsideration denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999)
("Forfeiture Policy Statement").
See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).
See NAL Response at 10 (asserting that Gaston College has an unblemished
history of compliance with the FCC's rules).
See 47 C.F.R. S: 73.3527. We note that comparable requirements also apply
to commercial stations. See 47 C.F.R. S: 73.3526.
47 C.F.R. S: 73.3527(b) & (c).
See 47 C.F.R. S: 73.3527(e).
The Public and Broadcasting, 1999 WL 391297 (1999) at 12.
In the Matter of Liability of KLDT-TV 55, Inc., Memorandum Opinion &
Order, 10 FCC Rcd 3198, 3198-99 (1995). See M & R Enterprise, Inc, Notice
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 5897 (Enf. Bur. 2002)
(citing KLDT-TV, 10 FCC Rcd at 3198-99), Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd
14608 (Enf. Bur. 2002).
See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17112.
See NAL Response at 3.
See In re Application of Tabback Broadcasting Co. for Renewal of License
of Station KAZM(AM), Sedona, Arizona, Letter Ruling, File No. 1800B3-JR
(Mass Media Bur., Audio Services Div. 1999), aff'd Tabback Broadcasting
Co., Memorandum Opinion & Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11899, 11900 (2000) (affirming
an admonishment against a licensee for a public file violation stating
that "we find that the staff appropriately exercised its discretion in
See Isothermal Community College, Memorandum Opinion & Order, 16 FCC Rcd
21360 (Enf. Bur. 2001).
See College of Staten Island, Letter Ruling, 22 FCC Rcd 4890 (Media Bur.,
Audio Div. 2007).
See Isothermal Community College, 16 FCC Rcd at 21362-63.
Compare id. (delay in viewing the public file was caused by "station
staff"). See Catoctin Broadcasting Corp. of New York, Decision, 2 FCC Rcd
2126, 2137-38 P:75 (Rev. Bd. 1987) (citing direct participation of station
owner in public file violations as an exacerbating factor), aff'd, 4 FCC
Rcd 2553, recon. denied, 4 FCC Rcd 6312 (1989), aff'd sub nom. Catoctin
Broadcasting Corp. v. FCC, 920 F.2d 1039 (Table) (D.C. Cir. 1990)
(affirming Commission discretion to impose appropriate sanction).
See Isothermal Community College, 16 FCC Rcd at 21364.
See NAL Response at 5-6; LOI Response at 2-3.
See Isothermal Community College, 16 FCC Rcd at 21364.
See Tabback Broadcasting Co., supra note 33.
See College of Staten Island, supra note 35.
Forfeiture Policy and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules
to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17102 (1997)
(rejecting proposal to always issue a warning to first-time violators,
except in particular cases, because doing so "would greatly undermine the
credibility and effectiveness of our overall compliance efforts."). See
C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(4), Note ("The Commission and its staff retain the
discretion to issue a higher or lower forfeiture than provided 47 in the
guidelines, to issue no forfeiture at all, or to apply alternative or
additional sanctions as permitted by the statute.").
See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985) ("an agency's decision
not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is
a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion."); New
York State Dept. of Law v. F.C.C., 984 F.2d 1209, 1213 (D.C. Cir. 1993)
(upholding the FCC's exercise of its enforcement discretion, citing
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. at 831).
See Tabback Broadcasting, Co., 15 FCC Rcd at 11900.
Boone Biblical Ministries, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 14293, 14295
(Media Bur., Audio Div. 2009) ("disavow[ing]" the approach in Faith
Christian Music Broadcast Ministries, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 20 FCC Rcd
19051 (Media Bur. 2005) ("Faith Christian"), in which the Media Bureau
imposed a $3,000 forfeiture for an incomplete public file).
Id., 24 FCC Rcd at 14295 n.11 (citing Colby-Sawyer College, Memorandum
Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC
Rcd 21682 (Media Bur. 2007) ($10,000 forfeiture for incomplete public
file); Capstar TX Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order and
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 12715, 12715
(Media Bur. 2007) (same)).
See San Jose State University, Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 14331, 14332
(Media Bur., Audio Div. 2009) (upholding a $9,000 forfeiture for an
incomplete public file by a noncommercial station, and disavowing the
Faith Christian decision). See also Linfield College, Memorandum Opinion &
Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 12429
(Media Bur., Audio Div. 2009) (proposing a $10,000 forfeiture for an
incomplete public file at a noncommercial station).
See Riverside Broadcasting, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 18322, 18323 (Enf. Bur., Investigations & Hearings
Div. 2000) (finding public file rule violations particularly serious "in
light of the hostile reaction [the complainant] encountered from station
See Paulino Bernal Evangelism KBRN(AM), Boerne, Texas, Order on Review,
FCC 08-252, 2008 WL 4722115 (rel. Oct. 28, 2008) (affirming Enforcement
Bureau forfeiture issued to a noncommercial station for, inter alia,.
failing to produce public file when the station was inspected).
See NAL Response at 3-5.
See Blountstown Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion & Order, 22 FCC
Rcd 1097 (Enf. Bur. 2007) (denying reconsideration of $10,000 forfeiture
for failure to make public file available to requesting FCC agent); M&R
Enterprises, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 14608 (Enf. Bur. 2002)
(finding a $10,000 forfeiture for failure to provide access to public
inspection file on two occasions,); Riverside Broadcasting, Inc., Notice
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 18322 (Enf. Bur.,
Investigations and Hearings Div. 2000) (finding licensee apparently liable
for $10,000 forfeiture for denying access to station's public inspection
file on two different dates) (NAL paid).
See Review of the Commission's Rules regarding the Main Studio Rule and
Local Public Inspection Files of Broadcast Television and Radio Stations,
Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15691, 15700 P: 55 (1998) ("Main Studio Rule
and Public Inspection Files"), recons. granted in part, Memorandum Opinion
& Order, 14 FCC Rcd 11113 (1999). Compare 47 C.F.R. S: 73.3526 and 47
C.F.R. S: 73.3527 (public file rules applicable to commercial and
noncommercial educational stations, respectively).
See supra note 46 and 48.
Lebanon Educational Broadcasting Foundation, KKTK(FM), Memorandum Opinion
& Order, 21 FCC Rcd 1442, 1446 (Enf. Bur. 2002) (citing Main Studio Rule
and Local Public Inspection Files, 13 FCC Rcd at 15700 (all licensees have
a duty to comply with public inspection file rules)).
See 47 U.S.C S: 503(b)(2)(E).
See 47 C.F.R. S: 73.3527.
New Life Broadcasting, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd 8641, 8643-44
P:10 (Enf. Bur., South Central Region 2006).
See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.
See supra notes 49 and 53.
See NAL Response at 10.
See, e.g., SM Radio, Inc., Order on Review, 23 FCC Rcd 2429, 2430-2431
(2008) (affirming forfeiture reduction from $7,000 to $5,600 due to
licensee's history of compliance); Radio X Broadcasting Corporation,
Memorandum Opinion & Order, 21 FCC Rcd 12209 (2006) (affirming forfeiture
reduction from $20,000 to $16,000 due to licensee's history of
See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b).
See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).
See 47 C.F.R. S: 73.3527.
See 47 U.S.C. S: 504(a).
(...continued from previous page)
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-153
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-153