Click here for Microsoft Word Version

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

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
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).


                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                 )
RIVERSIDE BROADCASTING, INC..    )    File No. EB-00-IH-0145
                                )    NAL/Acct. No. X32080033
Licensee of Station WIMX(FM)     )    Facility No. 7730
Gibsonburg, Ohio                 )    JJS


   Adopted:  September 21, 2000         Released:  September  22, 


By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement 

                        I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we 
find that Riverside Broadcasting, Inc. (``Riverside''),  licensee 
of  station  WIMX(FM),  Gibsonburg,  Ohio,  apparently   violated 
Section 73.3526 of the Commission's  rules, 47 C.F.R.   73.3526, 
by denying access to  its public inspection file  on June 13  and 
14, 2000, and  by not  maintaining a  complete public  inspection 
file at  that time.   We conclude  that Riverside  is  apparently 
liable for a ten thousand dollar ($10,000) forfeiture.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   On June  14, 2000,  the Enforcement  Bureau received  a 
complaint from Mr. Eric L. Huffman stating that on June 13, 2000, 
Mr. Huffman had visited the offices of WIMX(FM) and asked to  see 
the public inspection  file.  According  to Mr.  Huffman, he  was 
first directed to the manager on site because nobody knew what  a 
public inspection file was.  The manager then allegedly told  Mr. 
Huffman that he would have to talk to his boss to find out  where 
the file was and  whether Mr. Huffman could  view the file.   The 
manager then  called his  boss, who,  according to  Mr.  Huffman, 
``drilled me with questions wanting to  know who I was and why  I 
wanted to view the file.''  The  boss then told Mr. Huffman  that 
they would call him and let him  know if he could view the  file.  
On June 14, 2000, Mr. Huffman states that he ``was again  drilled 
for questions... and  was hung up  on - 3  times.''  The  manager 
allegedly told Mr. Huffman that  if he called again, the  station 
would call the local  police and file  harassment charges.  As  a 
result of that complaint, we  sent Riverside a letter of  inquiry 
on July 19, 2000.

     3.   Riverside  responded  to  the  Commission's  letter  of 
inquiry on  September 15,  2000.  Riverside  states that  it  has 
difficulty responding to  the specifics of  the incident  because 
the individual who discussed the public inspection file with  Mr. 
Huffman no longer works at the station.  It admits, however, that 
Mr. Huffman was improperly denied access to the public inspection 
file.    Riverside  believes that  station personnel  erroneously 
believed they could require Mr. Huffman to make an appointment to 
view the public inspection file  and that they could ask  parties 
to identify themselves and the  parties they represent.  It  then 
states, ``Regrettably, a dispute appears  to have arisen and  Mr. 
Huffman was not  provided access to  the file.''  Riverside  also 
reports that while  a public inspection  file existed, that  file 
was incomplete.   For example,  the  only EEO  employment  report 
contained in the public inspection file was the 1997 report,  and 
the file  did not  contain issues/programs  lists for  the  first 
three quarters of 1998, any portion of 1999, or the first quarter 
of 2000.  Riverside accepts responsibility for the violations and 
apologizes  to  Mr.  Huffman.   Riverside  states  that  it   has 
instructed station personnel that  the public inspection file  is 
to be made available to anyone who requests it.

                      III.      DISCUSSION

     4.   Section 73.3526(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 
 73.3526(a),  requires  all licensees  of  commercial  broadcast 
stations to maintain a public inspection file containing  certain 
designated information.  Section  73.3526(c) of the  Commission's 
rules, 47 C.F.R.   73.3526(c), states  in pertinent part,  ``The 
file shall be available for public inspection at any time  during 
regular business hours.''  Section 73.3526(e) of the Commission's 
rules, 47 C.F.R.  73.3526(e),  lists the contents of the  public 
inspection file.   Among  the materials  required  to be  in  the 
public inspection  file are  copies  of every  annual  employment 
report filed  by the  station (47  C.F.R.   73.3526(e)(7)),  and 
issues/programs lists for  each quarter  describing the  programs 
that represent  ``the  station's most  significant  treatment  of 
community issues during the  preceding three month period.''   47 
C.F.R.   73.3526(e)(12).  Both  the employment  reports and  the 
issues/programs lists are required to be maintained in the public 
inspection file  until  the  Commission  acts  on  the  station's 
renewal application. 47 C.F.R.  73.3526(e)(7) and (12).

     5.   Riverside violated Section 73.3526 of the  Commission's 
rules by denying Mr. Huffman access to the public inspection file 
on June 13 and  14, 2000. In  Availability of Locally  Maintained 
Records for Inspection By Members of the Public, 13 FCC Rcd 17959 
(MMB 1998), the Mass Media  Bureau reminded licensees ``of  their 
duty to afford ready access to the public file.  Thus, a  station 
may not require that a member  of the public make an  appointment 
in advance or return at another time to inspect the public  file, 
or that members  of the public  examine the public  file only  at 
times most convenient to the licensee or its staff.''  A  station 
is also prohibited from requiring individuals who request  access 
to the  public  inspection file  to  identify themselves  or  the 
organization they represent.  Id.  Station personnel violated the 
rule by denying  Mr. Huffman  access to  the public  file and  by 
asking him  why  he  wanted access  to  the  file.   Furthermore, 
Riverside also  violated  Section  73.3526 by  failing  to  place 
certain  materials  in  the  public  inspection  file,  including 
certain issues/programs lists and EEO Model Program Reports.

     6.   Section 503(b) of the  Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.   
503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  
1.80(a), each state that any  person who willfully or  repeatedly 
fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act  or 
the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture  penalty.  
For purposes of  Section 503(b)  of the  Communications Act,  the 
term ``willful'' means that the  violator knew it was taking  the 
action in question,  irrespective of  any intent  to violate  the 
Commission's rules.  See Southern California Broadcasting Co.,  6 
FCC  Rcd  4387,  4387-4388  (1991).   Furthermore,  a  continuing 
violation is ``repeated'' if it lasts more than one day.  Id.,  6 
FCC Rcd at 4388. 

     7.   The Commission's  Forfeiture  Policy Statement  sets  a 
base forfeiture  amount of  $10,000 for  public file  violations.  
The Commission's  Forfeiture Policy  Statement and  Amendment  of 
Section 1.80 of the Commission's  Rules, 12 FCC Rcd 17087,  17113 
(1997), recon. denied  FCC 99-407 (released  December 28,  1999).  
In  this   case,  we   believe  the   violations  were   serious, 
particularly  in  light  of  the  hostile  reaction  Mr.  Huffman 
encountered from station  personnel.  While  Riverside has  taken 
remedial actions,  those remedial  efforts  do not  excuse  prior 
violations.  See Sonderling  Broadcasting Corp., 69  FCC 2d  289, 
291 (Broadcast Bureau 1977), citing Executive Broadcasting Corp., 
3 FCC  2d 699  (1966).  Considering  the record  as a  whole,  we 
believe  that  a  $10,000  forfeiture  is  appropriate  for   the 
violations in this case.

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     8.   ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED  pursuant to Section  503(b) 
of the  Communications  Act of  1934,  as amended,  47  U.S.C.   
503(b), and Sections  0.111, 0.311 and  1.80 of the  Commission's 
rules, 47  C.F.R.    0.111,  0.311  and  1.80,  that  Riverside 
Broadcasting, Inc. is hereby  NOTIFIED of its APPARENT  LIABILITY 
FOR FORFEITURE in  the amount of  ten thousand dollars  ($10,000) 
for willfully  and repeatedly  violating Section  73.3526 of  the 
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  73.3526.

     9.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the 
Commission's rules, that  within thirty  days of  the release  of 
this Notice, Riverside SHALL  PAY to the  United States the  full 
amount of  the  proposed  forfeiture  or  SHALL  FILE  a  written 
statement seeking  reduction  or  cancellation  of  the  proposed 

     10.   Payment of  the forfeiture  may be made  by mailing  a 
check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the  Federal 
Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection  Section, 
Finance  Branch,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  P.O.  Box 
73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.  The payment should note the 
NAL/Acct. No. referenced above.

     11.   The response,  if any,  must be mailed  to Charles  W. 
Kelley, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division,  Enforcement 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street,  S.W, 
Room 3-B443, Washington DC 20554 and MUST INCLUDE the file number 
listed above.

     12.   The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling 
a forfeiture in response  to a claim of  inability to pay  unless 
the petitioner  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 petitioner's  current financial  status.  
Any claim  of inability  to pay  must specifically  identify  the 
basis for the claim by  reference to the financial  documentation 

     13.   Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice 
of Apparent Liability  under an installment  plan should be  sent 
to: Chief, Credit  and Debt Management  Center, 445 12th  Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.  See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.

     14.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice shall 
be  sent,  by   Certified  Mail/Return   Receipt  Requested,   to 
Riverside's counsel, Kenneth  E. Satten,  Esq., Wilkinson  Barker 
Knauer, LLP,  2300  N Street,  N.W.,  Suite 700,  Washington,  DC 


          Charles W. Kelley
          Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division
          Enforcement Bureau