Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

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.

*****************************************************************



                                   Before the

                       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:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    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).

   II. BACKGROUND

    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
       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 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.^

   III. DISCUSSION

    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
       announced.

    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
       website.^

    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
        Advertised

   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
       Guy.Benson@fcc.gov.

   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
       documentation submitted.

   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

   Enforcement Bureau

   ^ 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).

   ^ Id.

   ^ 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)
   (LOI).

   ^ 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
   accompanying text.

   ^ See LOI Response at 3; Exhibit 2.

   ^ See LOI Response at 3.

   ^ Id.

   ^ Id. According to the LOI Response, no one chose to enter as a write-in
   contestant. Id. at 3.

   ^ Id. at 3.

   ^ Id.

   ^ 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.

   ^ Id. at 4.

   ^ Id. at 3.

   ^ Id. at 4.

   ^ Id.

   ^ 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.

   ^ Id.

   ^ Id.

   ^ 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.

   ^ Id.

   ^ Id.

   ^ 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.

   ^ Id.

   ^ 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
   (1976).

   ^ See LOI Response at 8-9.

   ^ Id. at 3.

   ^ Id.

   ^ 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
   contrary)).

   ^ 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
   proceeding.

   (...continued from previous page)

                                                              (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 14-357

                                       2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 14-357