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 South Central Communications Corporation Licensee of
Stations WIKY-FM, Evansville, Indiana; WABX(FM), Evansville, Indiana;
WLFW(FM), Chandler, Indiana; and WSTO(FM), Owensboro, Kentucky ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) NAL Account No.: 201432080005 FRN: 0019642719 Facility ID Nos.:
61014, 61055, 73350, and 51072 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 South Central Communications Corporation (South Central),
licensee of Stations WIKY-FM, Evansville, Indiana; WABX(FM),
Evansville, Indiana; WLFW(FM), Chandler, Indiana; and WSTO(FM),
Owensboro, Kentucky (Stations), 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 South Central apparently
liable for a forfeiture in the amount of eight thousand dollars
2. The Commission received a complaint alleging that South Central
invited listeners to participate in a golf contest entitled "Par 3
Shoot Out" (Contest), but that it 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 official rules.^
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 the Stations
conducted the Contest and aired related promotional announcements on
all of the Stations but notes that it conducted the Contest entirely
online.^ South Central further notes that instead of conducting the
Contest through its promotions department, which was its usual
practice, it conducted the Contest through its interactive sales
4. According to South Central, 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.^
5. South Central further states that it conducted the online portion of
the Contest from June 26, 2008, through early November 2008, selecting
a winner each week.^ South Central denies the allegation that it did
not award the promised golf hats, claiming that they were made
available for pick-up by the weekly winners.^ South Central
acknowledges, however, that the second phase of the Contest was
postponed in November 2008, initially due to inclement weather.^ South
Central states that it subsequently terminated the employee
administering the Contest and then "simply forgot" about the Contest.^
South Central states that receiving the LOI reminded it of this
inadvertent oversight,^ and it subsequently resumed the final phase of
the Contest.^ Prior to doing so, however, South Central changed the
Contest rules to exclude professional golfers and club pros.^ South
Central states that it changed the rules "in the interest of
fairness," although no one was actually declared ineligible as a
result of this modification.^ South Central also states that it
completed the second phase of the Contest on January 19, 2010, and
that because of the delay, it awarded additional prizes to each
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 South Central is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in
the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) 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, we note that South Central asserts throughout
its response that the Stations conducted the Contest entirely online.^
Specifically, South Central states that it did not integrate the
Contest into any of the Stations' programming, but that the promotions
aired over the Stations simply encouraged listeners to go to the
website where the Contest could be played.^ To the extent that South
Central implies that the Contest at issue is not subject to Section
73.1216, we reject that argument. Commission precedent makes clear
that the contest rule applies when a licensee "broadcasts or
advertises information about a contest it conducts."^ Moreover, the
Commission has previously found a licensee liable under Section
73.1216 in a case where the licensee aired promotional announcements
for a contest that it claimed it conducted principally via its
website.^ South Central does not claim that it did not conduct the
Contest, and the transcripts of the promotions aired over the Stations
indicate that the Stations broadcast information concerning the
Contest to the public.^ Thus, the rule applies in this case.
A. South Central Failed to Conduct Contest Substantially as Announced or
9. We find that South Central violated Section 73.1216 of the
Commission's rules by failing to conduct the Contest substantially as
announced or advertised. First, in the notification letters it sent to
contestants on December 30, 2009, South Central impermissibly altered
the rules of the Contest by excluding professional golfers and club
pros from eligibility.^ Although South Central 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 violations when licensees changed the prize,^ or altered
the time or means of selecting a winner,^ after the commencement of
the Contest. Likewise, changing a contest's eligibility requirements
after it has begun violates the rule.^
10. Secondly, we find that South Central 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 South Central finally held the event and completed the Contest.^
Under Commission precedent, such delay constitutes a failure to
conduct the Contest substantially as announced.^
11. South Central 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 South
Central, after that employee left, it "simply forgot" about the
Contest.^ South Central adds that the Contest did not have the same
safeguards in place as 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 above in
paragraph 9) we find that South Central violated the rule on other
grounds, it is not necessary for us to rely upon the delay to find
liability. Nonetheless, such delay demonstrates the breadth of the
Licensee's misconduct and therefore informs our overall calculation of
the monetary forfeiture in this case.
A. South Central Failed to Disclose Material Terms of the Contest
12. We also find that South Central 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 South Central 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 South Central intended to award. 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. South Central 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, South Central failed to accurately disclose the
material terms of the Contest over the air. While this aspect of South
Central's contest rule violation would, standing alone, warrant a
finding of liability, because (as described above in paragraph 9) we
find that South Central violated the rule on other grounds, it is not
necessary for us to rely upon South Central's deficient announcements
to find liability, and we do not do so in this case. At the same time,
this failure reflects a broad pattern of contest misconduct and
informs our overall calculation of the monetary forfeiture proposed
13. 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, South Central has submitted
persuasive evidence to the contrary. Through sworn declarations, South
Central credibly submits that all of the golf hats were made available
for pick-up by the weekly winners at the Stations.^
14. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that South Central
apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1216 of the
Commission's rules by failing to conduct the Contest 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 find that an upward adjustment to
eight thousand dollars ($8,000) is warranted because of South
Central's pattern of violative conduct,^ and because it conducted the
Contest over four stations, not one, thus posing harm to a larger
audience.^ 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
15. 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 South Central
Communications Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT
LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars
($8,000) for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section
73.1216 of the Commission's rules.^
16. 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,
South Central Communications Corporation SHALL PAY the full amount of
the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
17. 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. South Central 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
* 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.
18. 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.
19. 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
20. 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
21. 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.^
22. 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
South Central Communications Corporation, 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 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). According to the LOI Response, South Central brokers the
programming on Station WEJK(FM). Counsel represents that the response also
encompasses the actions of that Station, which we address in a concurrent
NAL also released today.
^ See id. at 2-5.
^ Id. at 2-3.
^ See LOI Response at 3, Exhibit 2.
^ Id. According to South Central, no one chose to enter as a write-in
contestant. Id. at 3.
^ Id. at 3.
^ Id. at 2-3, 5.
^ Id. at 3.
^ Id. at 4.
^ Id. at 3.
^ Id. at 4.
^ Id. at 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).
^ 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,
Inc., 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 Broad. 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.
^ 47 C.F.R. S 73.1216; see, e.g., Multicultural Radio, 22 FCC Rcd at
21558, para. 7.
^ See 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
^ LOI Response at Exhibit 3.
^ Id. 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.
^ South Central notes that it was not until it received the LOI that "it
was forcibly reminded 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)
(finding 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, South Central 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 supra, para. 9.
^ See Multicultural Radio, 22 FCC Rcd at 21551, para. 15 (finding that a
demonstrated pattern of violative conduct with regard to a licensee's
administration of its contests warranted upward adjustment of the proposed
^ 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, South
Central Communications Corporation shall be the only party to this
(Continued from previous page)
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-358
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-358