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 Boonville Broadcasting Company, Inc. Licensee of Station
WEJK(FM), Boonville, Indiana ) ) ) ) ) NAL Account No.: 201432080007 FRN
No.: 0003770237 Facility ID No.: 6424 File No.: EB-09-IH-1908
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: March 20, 2014 Released: March 20, 2014
By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau:
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we find
that Boonville Broadcasting Company, Inc. (Boonville), ^ licensee of
Station WEJK(FM), ^ Boonville, Indiana (Station), apparently willfully
violated Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules by failing to
conduct a contest substantially as announced, including undue delay in
concluding the contest, and by failing to fully and accurately
disclose the material terms of the contest.^ As a result, we find
Boonville apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of four
thousand dollars ($4,000).
2. The Commission received a complaint alleging that several radio
stations licensed to South Central Communications Corporation (South
Central) conducted a weekly contest entitled "Par 3 Shoot Out"
(Contest) but did not conduct the Contest substantially as announced
or advertised.^ The Complaint alleges that at least one participant
and "weekly winner" in the Contest did not receive the promised prize
of a Victoria National Golf Club hat, nor was the contestant placed in
a drawing to win a Lexus or other prizes as promised in the Contest's
3. In response to the Complaint, on December 10, 2009, the Enforcement
Bureau (Bureau) issued a letter of inquiry to South Central concerning
these allegations.^ South Central filed a response on January 22,
2010. In its response, South Central acknowledges that it conducted
the Contest and aired related promotional announcements over several
stations.^ Although Station WEJK(FM) is licensed to Boonville, South
Central provided programming to Station WEJK(FM) pursuant to a time
brokerage agreement.^ Accordingly, South Central notes, its LOI
Response addresses both licensees' actions respecting conduct of the
contest and Station WEJK(FM).^
4. According to the LOI Response, the Contest was to be conducted in two
phases. The first phase was intended to consist of an 18-week, online
golf competition, scheduled to begin on June 26, 2008, and end on
October 30, 2008.^ During this phase, a prize consisting of a hat from
the Victoria National Golf Club was to be awarded to the contestant
who achieved the best score each week.^ Each such weekly online
winner, plus one write-in contestant, would then be eligible to
participate in the second phase of the Contest, originally scheduled
for early November 2008.^ In the second phase, the remaining
contestants were to participate in an actual golf competition in which
each "finalist" would have one shot at a par three hole.^ The finalist
that hit a golf ball closest to the pin would win a $350 gift
certificate to a golf store.^ In addition, any finalist that hit a
hole-in-one would be awarded a Lexus automobile.^ The LOI Response
states that the Contest was conducted entirely online.^
5. The LOI Response further states that the online portion of the Contest
was conducted from June 26, 2008, through early November 2008, and
that a winner was selected each week.^ The LOI Response denies the
allegation that the promised golf hats were not awarded, claiming that
they were made available for pick-up by the weekly winners.^ The LOI
Response acknowledges, however, that the second phase of the Contest
was postponed in November 2008, initially due to inclement weather.^
The LOI Response states that after this postponement, the employee
administering the Contest was terminated and then staff "simply
forgot" about the Contest.^ The LOI Response claims that receiving the
LOI from the Commission was a reminder of this inadvertent oversight,^
and the Contest's final phase was subsequently resumed.^ Prior to
doing so, however, the Contest rules were changed to exclude
professional golfers and club pros.^ The LOI Response states that the
rules were changed "in the interest of fairness," although no one was
actually declared ineligible as a result of this modification.^ The
LOI Response also states that the second phase of the Contest was
completed on January 19, 2010, and that because of the delay,
additional prizes were awarded to each finalist.^
6. Pursuant to Section 503(b)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (Act), any person who is determined by the Commission to have
willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act
or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be
liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.^ Section
312(f)(1) of the Act defines willful as "the conscious and deliberate
commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent to
violate" the law.^ The legislative history to Section 312(f)(1) of the
Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both Sections
312 and 503(b) of the Act,^ and the Commission has so interpreted the
term in the Section 503(b) context.^ The Commission may also assess a
forfeiture for violations that are merely repeated, and not willful.^
"Repeated" means that the act was committed or omitted more than once,
or lasts more than one day.^ In order to impose such a penalty, the
Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability, the notice must
be received, and the person against whom the notice has been issued
must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such penalty
should be imposed.^ The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it
finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person has
willfully or repeatedly violated the Act or a Commission rule.^ As
described in greater detail below, we conclude under this procedure
that Boonville is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the
amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for its apparent willful and
repeated failure to conduct a broadcast contest substantially as
7. Under Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules, a broadcast licensee
must conduct station-sponsored contests "substantially as announced or
advertised" and must fully and accurately disclose the "material
terms" of such contests.^ Material terms include, among other things,
any eligibility restrictions, means of selection of winners, and the
extent, nature, and value of prizes.^ Regarding these requirements,
the Commission has noted that "[t]he standards are high, for while
contests are particularly susceptible to abuse, abuses can be
prevented by diligent licensee attention to the planning and the
conduct of contests."^
8. As an initial matter, to the extent that the LOI Response implies that
the Contest is not subject to Section 73.1216 because the stations
conducted the Contest entirely online,^ we reject that argument. In
this regard, the LOI Response states that while the stations promoted
the Contest, they did not actually conduct the Contest over-the-air.^
Per the LOI Response, the promotions were intended simply to encourage
listeners to visit the website where the Contest could be played.^ Yet
the Commission has previously found just such a distinction
insufficient to shield a licensee from liability, finding a violation
under Section 73.1216 in a case where the licensee aired promotional
announcements for a contest purportedly conducted principally via its
9. We note that Commission precedent limits application of the contest
rule to licensees that "broadcast or advertise information about a
contest [they] conduct."^ Although South Central devised the
Contest, the record establishes that Boonville not only participated
in the overall conduct of the Contest, but held itself out to the
public as the entity conducting the contest,^ and as such, remains
responsible. In this regard, Boonville called on listeners to visit
its own website at "1071jackfm.com," where they could then link to the
Contest website.^ Similarly, the Station listed information regarding
the Contest on the WEJK website under the "Contests" tab, where it
states: "[a]t JACK-fm, we're proud that we don't do goofy contests on
the air. Instead, we do them here."^ Thus, we find that Boonville is a
responsible licensee under the Commission's contest rule.
10. We further note that the time brokerage arrangement between Boonville
and South Central is not sufficient to shield Boonville, as the
licensee of Station WEJK(FM), from responsibility in this matter.
Indeed, the Commission's policy concerning time brokerage agreements
holds licensees primarily responsible for all programming aired on
their stations, and for maintaining compliance with Commission rules
during the life of those arrangements.^ As the Commission noted at the
time that it so stated, where stations choose to enter into time
brokerage agreements, they must "retain control over, and
responsibility for, all programming,"^ including compliance with
applicable laws and regulations.^ Therefore, while we recognize that
South Central's employees may have devised the Contest, we
nevertheless hold Boonville, as the Station's licensee, responsible
for ensuring compliance in the conduct of the Contest.^
A. Boonville Failed to Conduct Contest Substantially as Announced or
11. We find that Boonville violated Section 73.1216 of the Commission's
rules by failing to conduct the Contest substantially as announced or
advertised. First, the notification letters sent to contestants on
December 30, 2009, impermissibly altered the rules of the Contest by
excluding professional golfers and club pros from eligibility.^
Although the LOI Response characterizes this as a minor change,^ we
note that Section 73.1216 defines material terms as those including
any "eligibility restrictions."^ In prior cases, we have found contest
rule violations when licensees changed the prize,^ or altered the time
or means of selecting a winner,^ after the contest has commenced.
Likewise, changing a contest's eligibility requirements after it has
begun violates the rule.^
12. Secondly, we find that Boonville failed to complete the Contest within
the promised timeframe. According to the Contest's rules, the 18
weekly winners were to compete in a one-hole event in which the ball
stroked closest to the pin would win the grand prize, a $350.00 gift
certificate to a golf store.^ Although this event was supposed to
occur in early November 2008,^ there was "a significant delay,"^ and
the event did not take place until January 19, 2010--over one year
after the originally-scheduled date.^ Moreover, it was not until after
we received the instant Complaint and initiated this investigation
that the event was held and the Contest completed.^ Under Commission
precedent, such delay constitutes a failure to conduct the Contest
substantially as announced.^
13. The LOI Response argues that the lapse in completing the Contest was
not intentional, but rather an oversight related to the termination of
the employee involved in administering the Contest.^ According to the
LOI Response, after that employee left, the staff "simply forgot"
about the Contest.^ The LOI Response adds that the Contest did not
have the same safeguards utilized in typical broadcast contests
because it was an entirely new type of venture, operated by one
employee outside the normal chain of command.^ Neither negligence nor
inadvertence, however, can absolve licensees of liability in such
cases.^ Similarly, the award of additional prizes to the finalists who
participated in the final stage of the Contest^ does not excuse the
apparent rule violation.^ While this aspect of the rule violation
would, standing alone, warrant monetary forfeiture, because (as
described in paragraph 10) we find that Booneville violated the rule
on other grounds, it is not necessary for us to rely upon the delay as
the basis for our calculation of the monetary forfeiture in this case.
A. Boonville Failed to Disclose Material Terms of the Contest
14. We also find that Boonville failed to fully and accurately disclose
the material terms of the Contest, as required by the rule.^ As noted
above, such material terms include "the extent, nature, and value of
prizes."^ The Contest's official rules provided to the Bureau specify
that weekly winners would receive a hat from Victoria National Golf
Club, and that the Grand Prize was a $350.00 gift certificate to the
Tom Howard Golf Superstore.^ The advertisements relating to the
Contest that were broadcast over the air, however, state only that
contestants can qualify to win a Lexus automobile--they do not mention
the hat or the $350.00 gift certificate.^ As such, the on-air
announcements failed to describe the actual extent, nature, and value
of the prizes to be awarded. Moreover, none of the on-air
announcements described any of the procedures by which prizes would be
awarded, including the fact that the Lexus automobile would only be
awarded to a finalist hitting a hole-in-one.^ The on-air announcement
therefore also failed to describe the means of selection of winners.
The LOI Response contends that the most effective method of informing
potential contestants of the Contest rules was to include the rules on
the website, which it implies is mitigating or exculpating.^ Yet the
Commission requires "stations to broadcast all of the material terms
of a contest" that they conduct.^ Although rules announced through
non-broadcast means (e.g., online) can supplement broadcast
announcements, they cannot act as a substitute for broadcast
announcements.^ Thus, the Contest's material terms were not accurately
disclosed over the air. While this aspect of a contest rule violation
would, standing alone, warrant monetary forfeiture, because (as
described above in Paragraph 10) we find that the rule was violated on
other grounds, it is not necessary for us to rely upon the deficient
announcements to inform our calculation of the monetary forfeiture
proposed below, and we do not do so in this case.
15. Finally, regarding the allegation that at least one participant and
weekly winner in the Contest did not receive the promised prize of a
Victoria National Golf Club hat, the LOI Response contains persuasive
evidence to the contrary. Through sworn declarations, the LOI Response
credibly submits that all of the golf hats were made available for
pick-up by the weekly winners at each station.^
16. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that Boonville apparently
willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1216 of the Commission's
rules because the Contest was not conducted substantially as announced
or advertised. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a
base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for violation
of Section 73.1216.^ In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we
must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,
which include 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
such matters as justice may require.^ Based upon the facts and
circumstances presented here, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of
four thousand dollars ($4,000).^ We note that the forfeiture amount
assessed here does not exceed the maximum monetary forfeiture
permissible under the Act and the Commission's rules.^
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
17. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,^ and Sections 0.111, 0.204,
0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,^ that Boonville
Broadcasting Company, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT
LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars
($4,000) for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section
73.1216 of the Commission's rules.^
18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's
rules,^ that within thirty (30) days of the release date of this NAL,
Boonville Broadcasting Company, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the
proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
19. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
wire transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number
and FRN referenced above. Boonville Communications Corporation shall
send electronic notification of payment to Terry.Cavanaugh@fcc.gov,
Kenneth.Scheibel@fcc.gov and Guy.Benson@fcc.gov, on the date said
payment is made. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed FCC
Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.^ ^ When completing the
FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call
sign/other ID) and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A
(payment type code). Below are additional instructions you should
follow based on the form of payment you select:
* Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of
the Federal Communications Commission. Such payments (along with the
completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications
Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via
overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL,
1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.
* Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004,
receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. To complete the
wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds, a
completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on the
same business day the wire transfer is initiated.
* Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit
card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159
to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then
be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank -
Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
Louis, MO 63101.
20. Any request for full payment under an installment plan should be sent
to: Chief Financial Officer--Financial Operations, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
Washington, D.C. 20554.^ If you have questions regarding payment
procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by
phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
21. The response, if any, must be mailed to Theresa Z. Cavanaugh, Chief,
Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 4-C330,
Washington, D.C. 20554, and SHALL INCLUDE the NAL/Acct. number
referenced above. In addition, to the extent practicable, a copy of
the response, if any, should also be transmitted via e-mail to
Terry.Cavanaugh@fcc.gov, Kenneth.Scheibel@fcc.gov, and
22. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in
response to a claim of inability to pay unless the respondent submits:
(1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2)
financial statements prepared according to generally accepted
accounting practices (GAAP); or (3) some other reliable and objective
documentation that accurately reflects the respondent's current
financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically
identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial
23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Complaint referenced in this
proceeding IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and IS OTHERWISE
DENIED, and the complaint proceeding IS HEREBY TERMINATED.^
24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that copies of this NAL shall be sent, by First
Class Mail and Certified Mail, to Lee Petro, Esquire, Counsel for
Boonville Broadcasting Company, Inc., Drinker Biddle, 1500 K Street,
N.W., Washington, DC 20005-1209.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Theresa Z. Cavanaugh
Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division
^ See 47 C.F.R. S 73.1216.
^ Complaint to Federal Communications Commission, Form 2000E, No.
09-C00136930-1 (July 16, 2009) (on file in EB-09-IH-1908) (Complaint).
^ Letter from Kenneth M. Scheibel, Jr., Assistant Chief, Investigations
and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to South Central
Communications Corporation (Dec. 10, 2009) (on file in EB-09-IH-1908)
^ Letter from Anne Goodwin Crump and Lee G. Petro, Fletcher, Heald &
Hildreth, P.L.C., Counsel to Boonville Broadcasting Company, Inc. and to
South Central Communications Corporation, File No. EB-09-IH-1908, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Jan. 22,
2010) (on file in EB-09-IH-1908) (LOI Response). We address South
Central's conduct relating to the Contest for its licensed stations in a
concurrent NAL also released today.
^ The LOI Response also notes that Boonville is owned by one of South
Central's principals. See LOI Response at 2.
^ LOI Response at 2. Because South Central's employees acted within the
scope of the time brokerage agreement and the LOI Response expressly
encompasses the actions of Station WEJK(FM), we attribute the LOI Response
to both South Central and Boonville. See infra notes 34-35 and
^ See LOI Response at 3; Exhibit 2.
^ See LOI Response at 3.
^ Id. According to the LOI Response, no one chose to enter as a write-in
contestant. Id. at 3.
^ Id. at 3.
^ See id. at 2-5. The LOI Response further notes that instead of
conducting the Contest through the promotions department, which was the
usual practice, the Contest was conducted through the interactive sales
department. Id. at 2-3.
^ Id. at 3.
^ Id. at 2-3, 5.
^ Id. at 3.
^ Id. at 4.
^ Id. at 3.
^ Id. at 4.
^ Id. at 4-5. The additional prizes consisted of a $25.00 gift certificate
for a golf store and a catered lunch.
^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(a)(1).
^ 47 U.S.C. S 312(f)(1).
^ H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982).
^ See, e.g., S. Cal. Broad. Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd
4387, 4388, para. 5 (1991) (S. Cal. Broad.).
^ See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana, Notice of
Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362, para.
10 (2001) (Callais Cablevision) (assessing a forfeiture for a cable
television operator's repeated signal leakage).
^ S. Cal. Broad. Co., 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, para. 5; Callais Cablevision.,
16 FCC Rcd at 1362, para. 9.
^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(f).
^ See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589,
7591, para. 4 (2002) (forfeiture paid).
^ 47 C.F.R. S 73.1216.
^ Id., notes 1(b) and 2.
^ Honeyradio, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 69 FCC 2d 833, 838,
para. 12 (1978) (holding licensee responsible for mistakes made during its
conduct of a contest, and affirming a $5,000 forfeiture for violation of
Section 73.1216 of the rules) (quoting Amendment of Part 73 of the
Commission's Rules Relating to Licensee-Conducted Contests, Proposed
Rulemaking, 53 FCC 2d 934, 935, para. 4 (1975)). See generally
Multicultural Radio Broadcasting Licensee, LLC, Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 21555, 21558, para. 7 (Enf. Bur.
2007) (forfeiture paid) (Multicultural Radio) (citing Honeyradio, Inc.).
^ LOI Response at 2-5.
^ AMFM Broad. Licenses, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
24 FCC Rcd 1529, 1532, para. 8 (Enf. Bur. 2009) (forfeiture paid) (finding
Section 73.1216 applicable where licensee aired promotional announcements
for a contest that it claimed it conducted principally via its website)
(AMFM Broad.). See also Clear Channel Communications, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 343, 346, para. 6 (Enf. Bur.
2012) (forfeiture paid) (finding Section 73.1216 applicable where licensee
aired promotional announcements on the station for a contest that it
claimed it "conducted on the Station Websites") (Clear Channel).
^ 47 C.F.R. S 73.1216; see, e.g., Multicultural Radio, 22 FCC Rcd at
21558, para. 7.
^ See LOI Response at Exhibit 3.
^ See Petition for Issuance of Policy Statement or Notice of Inquiry on
Part-Time Programming, Policy Statement, 82 FCC 2d 107, 113-114, paras.
15-17 (1980) (Part-Time Programming Policy Statement) (in time brokerage
arrangements, focus for Commission enforcement of rules to remain on
licensee, not broker) citing The Cosmopolitan Broad. Corp., 59 FCC 2d 558
(1976), recons. denied, 61 FCC 2d 257 (1976) rev'd on other grounds, 581
F.2d 917 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
^ Part-Time Programming Policy Statement, 82 FCC 2d at 113, para. 15.
When the Commission decided to attribute certain such agreements under the
ownership rules, in response to the concerns expressed by some parties
that continued time brokerage would result in licensees abdicating their
responsibilities as station operators, the agency chose to continue to
allow cooperative arrangements between separately owned stations "as long
as each licensee retains control of its station and complies with the
Communications Act, the Commission's rules and policies and the antitrust
laws." Revision of Radio Rules and Policies, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd
2755, 2787, recon., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, 7 FCC Rcd 6387, 6401 (1992) ("we emphasize that the
licensee is ultimately responsible for all programming aired on its
station, regardless of its source.").
^ See Jerry Russell dba The Russell Co., Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd 48,
49-50, para. 6 (Enf. Bur. 2007) (where licensee held responsible for
lapses and consequent rule violations of time broker) recons. dismissed,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 9065 (Enf. Bur. 2007).
^ See id.
^ LOI Response at 4.
^ 47 C.F.R. S 73.1216.
^ Multicultural Radio, 22 FCC Rcd at 21560, para. 13 (finding station
failed to conduct contest substantially as advertised by awarding only two
TVs, instead of the five initially announced).
^ See, e.g., Nassau Broad. III, L.L.C., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 12347, 12350, para. 8 (Enf. Bur. 2010) (forfeiture
paid) (finding station failed to conduct contest in accordance with its
advertised material terms by selecting grand prize winner day before
announced expiration of contest entry period).
^ See Clear Channel Broad. Licenses, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 4072, 4076, para. 9 (Enf. Bur. 2006)
(forfeiture paid) (finding that licensee impermissibly changed contest
eligibility requirements by barring participants from submitting multiple
entries, where the contest rules did not specify such a restriction).
^ LOI Response at 4.
^ See id. at Exhibit 2.
^ Id. at 3.
^ See id. at 3-4.
^ The LOI Response notes that corrective actions were not taken until
receipt of the Commission's LOI that "forcibly reminded [the station] of
its inadvertent oversight." LOI Response at 4.
^ See, e.g., Saga Communications of New England, L.L.C., Forfeiture Order,
24 FCC Rcd 11934, 11936-37, para. 7 (Enf. Bur. 2009) (Saga Communications)
(where the Bureau found that unreasonable delay in awarding prizes is a
failure to conduct contest substantially as announced), aff'd, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 3289 (Enf. Bur. 2010), aff'd, Order on
Review, 26 FCC Rcd 16678 (2011). See generally Public Notice Concerning
Failure of Broadcast Licensees to Conduct Contests Fairly, Public Notice,
45 FCC 2d 1056 (1974); Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules
Relating to Licensee-Conducted Contests, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 53
FCC 2d 934 (1975); Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules Relating
to Licensee-Conducted Contests, Report and Order, 60 FCC 2d 1072, 1073
^ See LOI Response at 8-9.
^ Id. at 3.
^ See Nationwide Communications Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 9 FCC Rcd 175 (Mass Med. Bur. 1994) (forfeiture for violating
contest rules imposed, notwithstanding licensee's contention that its
failure to conduct a contest substantially as announced was due to
"inadvertence"), forfeiture reduced, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC
Rcd 2054 (Mass Med. Bur. 1994) (licensee's history of compliance with
Commission rules warranted forfeiture reduction).
^ LOI Response at 9.
^ E.g., Saga Communications, 24 FCC Rcd at 11937, para. 8 (additional
prizes awarded as recompense not mitigating); Capstar TX Ltd. Partnership
(WKSS(FM)), Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 10636,
10640, para. 9 (Enf. Bur. 2005) (forfeiture paid) (licensee's remedial
efforts undertaken after complaint lodged not mitigating) (citing AT&T
Wireless Services, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 17
FCC Rcd 21866, 21871, para. 14 (2002)).
^ 47 C.F.R. S 73.1216.
^ See supra, para. 7; 47 C.F.R. S 73.1216, note 1(b).
^ LOI Response at Exhibit 2.
^ Id. at Exhibit 3. Regarding its failure to include the automobile in the
printed rules, the LOI Response notes that the prize was not included as
part of the Contest as originally planned but was added later. Id. at 4.
^ Id. at Exhibit 3.
^ See id. at 4.
^ AK Media Group, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15
FCC Rcd 7541, 7543, para. 7 (Enf. Bur. 2000) (AK Media Group).
^ Id.; see also Clear Channel Broad. Licenses, Inc., Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 2734, 2735, para. 7 (Enf. Bur. 2000)
(holding that posting rules on the station's website, in the absence of
broadcast recitations, does not satisfy rule's requirements).
^ See LOI Response at 2-3, 5; Declarations of John P. Engelbrecht,
Timothy Huelsing, and Paul Brayfield. See Application of WorldCom, Inc.
and MCI Communications Corp. for Transfer of Control of MCI Communications
Corp. to Worldcom, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 18025,
18134, para. 193 (1998) (citing 47 C.F.R. S 1.17 (in light of their duty
to be truthful and accurate in their representations to the Commission,
statements provided by Commission licensees in response to investigatory
or adjudicatory matters within the Commission's jurisdiction are awarded
substantial weight in the absence of persuasive evidence to the
^ See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b).
^ See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(E); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(4).
^ See Clear Channel, 27 FCC Rcd at 347-48, para. 9.
^ See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b). See also Federal Civil
Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-410, 104 Stat.
890, amended by Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.
104-134, Sec. 31001, 110 Stat. 1321 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. S
2461 note (4)); Inflation Adjustment of Maximum Forfeiture Penalties,
Rules and Regulations, 73 Fed. Reg. 44663, 44664 (July 31, 2008)
(applicable for violations that occurred after Sept. 2, 2008, but before
Sept. 13, 2013); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules,
Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, Order, 28 FCC
Rcd 10785 (Enf. Bur. 2013); Inflation Adjustment of Maximum Forfeiture
Penalties, Rules and Regulations, 78 Fed. Reg. 49370 (Aug. 14, 2013)
(applicable for violations that occurred after Sept. 13, 2013).
^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b).
^ 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 1.80.
^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b); 47 C.F.R. SS 1.80, 73.1201.
^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.80.
^ An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may
be obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
^ See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.
^ For purposes of the forfeiture proceeding initiated by this NAL,
Boonville Broadcasting Company, Inc. shall be the only party to this
(...continued from previous page)
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-357
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-357