CSSI apparently liable for $10,000 public file violation
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554In the Matter of
) File No.: EB-08-IH-1459
CSSI Non-Profit Educational Broadcasting) NAL/Acct. No.: 201332080017
Licensee of Noncommercial Educational Stations
KYQX(FM), Weatherford, Texas
KMQX(FM), Weatherford, Texas
) Facility ID No.: 62040
KEQX(FM), Stephenville, Texas
) Facility ID No.: 89176
KQXS(FM), Stephenville, Texas
) Facility ID No.: 89619
KSQX(FM), Springtown, Texas, and
) Facility ID No.: 89698
KQXE(FM), Eastland, Texas
) Facility ID No.: 62041
Facility ID No.: 89692
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: March 25, 2013
Released: March 25, 2013By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau:
In this Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL), we find that CSSI Non-Profit Educational
Broadcasting Corporation (CSSI or Licensee), licensee of the six above-captioned noncommercial Texas
radio stations (Stations), apparently willfully violated Section 73.3527 of the Commission’s rules1 (Rules)
by failing to make available its public inspection files. We conclude that CSSI is apparently liable for a
monetary forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
On June 13, 2008, Graham Newspapers, Inc. (GNI) filed a complaint2 with the
Commission alleging that CSSI violated its obligations with respect to the Stations’ local public
inspection files.3 Specifically, GNI alleges that CSSI denied access to the Stations’ six public inspection
1 47 C.F.R. § 73.3527.
2 Complaint from Graham Newspapers, Inc. (Jun. 13, 2008) (on file in EB-08-1459) (Complaint). When GNI filed
the Complaint, it held the licenses of four stations: KSWA(AM) and KWKQ(FM), Graham, Texas, and KLXK(FM)
and KROO(AM), Breckenridge, Texas. The licenses for these stations were subsequently assigned to a liquidating
trust in connection with the bankruptcy of GNI’s parent company, Affiliated Media, Inc.
3 See Complaint at 13 and Exhibit G, Affidavit of David Bell, made under penalty of perjury, dated Jun. 10, 2008
(Bell 2008 Affidavit). In addition to alleged public inspection file violations that are the subject of this NAL, GNI
Federal Communications Commission
DA 13-525files (Files).4 According to GNI employee David Bell, he visited CSSI’s main studio on June 6, 2008, at
approximately 10:45 a.m., and asked to see the Stations’ Files.5 CSSI personnel told him that the general
manager (GM), John Peterson, could give him “access to [the Files]” but would not arrive until after
noon.6 When Bell returned to the studio at 12:30 p.m., however, Peterson was still absent.7 Bell states
that the receptionist “repeatedly asked if I was with the FCC” before she again called Peterson. During
that call, Peterson directed the receptionist to give Bell access to the Files.8 Bell further states that when
Peterson eventually arrived, he, too, asked Bell if he was with the FCC and inquired about the nature of
Bell’s visit before monitoring Bell’s examination of the Files.9 Based on Bell’s review of the Files, GNI
further alleges that they did not contain all required documents.10
The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) sent a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) to CSSI requesting it to
respond to the allegations and provide additional information,11 which it did.12 CSSI acknowledges that
Bell visited the studio and that he discussed viewing the Files, but denies that it refused access.13
According to CSSI, when Bell first arrived, he told the receptionist that he wanted to speak with the GM
but made no mention of reviewing the Files.14 CSSI acknowledges that the GM was out of the office
when Bell first arrived, but says the GM spoke with Bell over the phone regarding inspection of the
public file and offered to help Bell view the Files when he arrived.15 CSSI also acknowledges that when
Bell returned to the studio, the GM had not yet arrived, but explains that CSSI staff left voicemails for the
contends that CSSI violated Section 399B of the Act and Section 73.503(b) of the Rules by apparently airing
prohibited commercial material (underwriting). The alleged underwriting violations concern only one station–
KYQX(FM)–and therefore will be addressed separately.
4 See Complaint at 13.
5 See Bell 2008 Affidavit. A licensee must maintain a separate public inspection file for each station it operates, and
all such files must be maintained at the station’s main studio. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.3527(a)(2), 73.3527(b)(1). The
licensee must make such files available to members of the public upon request during normal business hours. See
47 C.F.R. § 73.3527(c). Moreover, all such files must contain the documents specified by the public file rule. See
47 C.F.R. §§ 73.3527(a)(2), 73.3527(e).
6 See Bell 2008 Affidavit.
7 See id.
8 See id.
9 See id.
10 See id. See also CSSI Motion to Strike, filed Apr. 15, 2010 (CSSI Motion to Strike) at Exhibit F (email from John
Peterson to Lee Petro dated Sep. 24, 2009, indicating that Peterson did not charge Bell for copying the documents
because Bell “only need[ed] a few copies of what was in the public file.”).
11 Letter from Kenneth M. Scheibel, Jr., Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement
Bureau, to CSSI Non-Profit Educational Broadcasting Corporation (Oct. 28, 2009) (on file in EB-08-IH-1459);
Letter from Anjali K. Singh, Acting Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement
Bureau, to CCSI Non-Profit Educational Broadcasting Corporation (May 6, 2010) (on file in EB-08-IH-1459).
12 Letter from Charles H. Beard, President, and Melinda Beard, Secretary, CSSI Non-Profit Educational
Broadcasting Corporation, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (Dec. 7, 2009) (on file in EB-08-IH-1459) (CSSI
Response); Letter from Charles H. Beard, President, and Melinda Beard, Secretary, CSSI Non-Profit Educational
Broadcasting Corporation, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (Dec. 7, 2009) (on file in EB-08-IH-1459). The
parties filed a plethora of pleadings in this proceeding, all of which were carefully reviewed and considered.
13 See CSSI Response at 7–8, 10.
14 See id. at 7–8.
15 See id.
Federal Communications Commission
DA 13-525GM, advising of Bell’s return to the studio to see the Files.16 The GM then contacted the Station and
directed an employee “to assist Mr. Bell in photocopying any documents he may need from the public
inspection file.”17 Having thus arranged for Bell’s access to the Files during his second visit, CSSI posits
that, if Bell had simply asked the receptionist to see the Files, “rather than asking to speak with the
General Manager,” he would have been given access on his first visit.18 CSSI also challenges the
reliability of Bell’s sworn statements because Bell had represented to CSSI staff that he was working on a
school project to view public inspection files.19 Based on its view of events, CSSI contends that it did not
deny access to its Files.20
As to the Files’ completeness, CSSI’s president states that on June 6, 2008, the Files
contained all required documents.21 According to CSSI, the Files contained five copies of the
“Broadcasting and the Public” manual,” EAS logs, letters from the public, and complete copies of
ownership reports and applications.22 CSSI contends that the documents supplied by GNI in its
Complaint do not, in fact, represent all the documents that were actually in the Stations’ Files at the
relevant time and instead demonstrate an insufficient attempt by GNI to obtain the entire public file.23
GNI disputes CSSI’s contention that its Files were complete24 and questions the
truthfulness of CSSI’s response.25 GNI contends that, among other things, complete issues/programs lists
and a copy of Broadcasting and the Public were missing from CSSI’s public files at the time of Bell’s
visit.26 In support, GNI provided declarations from two former CSSI personnel,27 both of whom claim
16 See id.
17 See id. at 7–8.
18 See id. at 9.
19 See id. at 7–10.
20 See id. at 10.
21 CSSI’s president further states that the quarterly issues/programs lists were located in a computer terminal located
next to the public files, and that a memo entitled “Public File Notice” (Notice) was posted near the cabinet
containing the Files and described where the hard copies were located. See Beard Declaration. Included with the
Beard Declaration is a copy of a memo labeled “Public File Notice” dated April 8, 2008, “Re: Public Files for KYQX,
KSQX, KMQX, KEQX, KQXE, KQXS, and our translators.” The Notice recites the availability of the public file at
this location, notes business hours, and explains how to obtain copies. The Notice also indicates that the public file
may be found in the bottom drawer of the filing cabinet and “in addition, we have placed our programs and lists as well
as our headline news in a folder on the desktop of the computer next to the public file.” Id.
22 Beard Declaration.
24 See Letter from Erwin G. Krasnow, Esquire, Garvey Schubert Barer, Attorney for Graham Newspapers, Inc., to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC at 4-5 (Jan. 4, 2010) (on file in EB-08-IH-1459); Letter from Daniel J. Margolis,
Esquire, Garvey Schubert Barer, Attorney for Affiliated Media, Inc., FCC Trust, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
FCC (Jun. 29, 2010) (on file in EB-08-IH-1459). GNI claims Bell was directed to the filing cabinet, not to a
computer terminal; had no recollection of any Notice posted at or near the cabinet containing the public file on June
6, 2008; and that Bell “made a complete copy of all the documents that were contained” in the Files. See Letter
from Erwin G. Krasnow, Esquire, Garvey Schubert Barer, Attorney for Graham Newspapers, Inc., to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC at 9 (Apr. 8, 2009) (on file in EB-08-IH-1459) and Exhibit E, Declaration of David Bell
dated Apr. 3, 2009 (Bell 2009 Declaration) (stating that Bell “copied all of the documents contained in the
25 See Letter from Erwin G. Krasnow, Esquire, Garvey Schubert Barer, Attorney for Graham Newspapers, Inc., to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (Feb. 3, 2010) (on file in EB-08-IH-1459) (GNI Supplement to Reply).
26 See Complaint at 13–14.
Federal Communications Commission
DA 13-525that the Stations’ Files were incomplete on June 6, 2008.28 One declarant states that CSSI did not
maintain a public inspection file;29 the other states, among other things, that Melinda Beard (a CSSI
principal) put numerous public file documents in the computer and then “backdated” the documents to
make it appear as though they had been on the computer for a longer time than they were.30 GNI also
raises a new issue, asserting that CSSI is unqualified to be a licensee based on a prior felony conviction of
one of its principals.31 CSSI challenges the accuracy and reliability of GNI’s declarants, noting that these
former “disgruntled employees” have personal motives to harm CSSI and make misrepresentations on
behalf of GNI.32
Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), provides that any
person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply substantially with the terms and conditions of any
license, or willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule,
regulation, or order issued by the Commission thereunder, shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.33
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.34 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,35 and the
Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context.36
27 See GNI Supplement to Reply at Exhibit A, Declaration of John Peterson dated Jan. 27, 2010 (Peterson
Declaration), and Exhibit B, Declaration of Frank Benton dated Feb. 3, 2010 (Benton Declaration). Peterson, the
GM at the time of Bell’s visit to access the public file, claims CSSI fired him from his position as GM on December
18, 2009. See Peterson Declaration. Benton, a consultant on underwriting compliance, claims to have ceased
volunteering at CSSI in the fall of 2009 due to a disputed underwriting announcement and because of Peterson’s
“firing.” See Benton Declaration; GNI Opposition to Motion to Strike (filed May 5, 2010) at Further Declaration of
Frank Benton, dated Apr. 29, 2010, at para. 2.
28 See Peterson Declaration at 1, para. 4, and Benton Declaration at 2, para. 9.
29 See Benton Declaration at 2, para. 9 (the purported Files were “not present in any file I checked.”).
30 See Peterson Declaration at 1, para. 4.
31 See id. at 2, para. 10; see also GNI Supplement to Reply at 1 and Exhibit C (documents related to a conviction
adjudged in 1964).
32 See, e.g., CSSI Motion to Strike at 6–10. CSSI provided independent evidence demonstrating that, contrary to
Peterson’s claims, he was not fired but rather voluntarily left CSSI’s employ. See CSSI Motion to Strike at Exhibit
C (Determination on Payment of Unemployment Benefits re John Peterson from Texas Workforce Commission,
dated Jan. 27, 2010) (finding that Peterson “quit” CSSI and denying unemployment benefits); Exhibit D (Certificate
of Ownership of West-Plex Sports filed by John Peterson on Dec. 18, 2009) (signifying Peterson had started a
business); and H (Statement from Joe Graham, General Manager, Lake Country Radio, to Hearing Officer, Texas
Workforce Commission, dated Jan. 28, 2010) (a GNI employee’s attesting to the purported veracity of Peterson’s
unemployment claim alleging that CSSI had fired him).
33 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
34 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).
35 H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982) (“This provision [inserted in Section 312] defines the terms
‘willful’ and ‘repeated’ for purposes of section 312, and for any other relevant section of the act (e.g., Section 503) .
. . . As defined[,] . . . ‘willful’ means that the licensee knew that he was doing the act in question, regardless of
whether there was an intent to violate the law. ‘Repeated’ means more than once, or where the act is continuous, for
more than one day. Whether an act is considered to be ‘continuous’ would depend upon the circumstances in each
case. The definitions are intended primarily to clarify the language in Sections 312 and 503, and are consistent with
the Commission’s application of those terms . . . .”).
36 See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6
Federal Communications Commission
Violation of Public Inspection File Requirements7.
Access to Public Files. Noncommercial stations must make their public files available
for inspection at any time during regular business hours.37 The Commission has made clear that a simple
request to see the public file is sufficient to obtain access.38 Accordingly, a licensee may not require a
member of the public to make an appointment, or return at another time, to inspect a public file.39 In
addition, licensees may not require members of the public to identify the organization they represent.40
Based on the evidence before us and as further discussed below, we find that CSSI’s failure to provide
immediate access to the Stations’ Files upon Bell’s initial visit violated the public file rule.
The record establishes that CSSI denied a member of the public access to its Stations’
Files. On June 6, 2008, in response to a request to inspect the Stations’ Files during normal business
hours, CSSI failed to provide immediate access to them.41 Although the parties contest whether Bell
initially asked the receptionist to provide the Files before she called the GM,42 it is undisputed that Bell
and the GM discussed inspection of the public file during their phone call.43 It is also undisputed that
CSSI did not provide access to its Files during Bell’s morning visit to the studio, doing so only after Bell
returned in the afternoon.44
Commission precedent makes clear that a licensee may not require a member of the
public to make an appointment or return at a later time to inspect a station’s public file.45 A request made
during normal business hours from a member of the public triggers a licensee’s obligation to provide
immediate access to its public inspection files. Accordingly, CSSI’s GM should have directed CSSI staff
to grant Bell access to the Stations’ Files when he and Bell first spoke on the telephone.46 Instead, Bell
FCC Rcd 4387, 4388, para. 5 (1991), recons. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992).
37 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.3527(c)(1).
38 Gaston College, Forfeiture Order, 25 FCC Rcd 982, 982–85 paras. 2–7 (Enf. Bur. 2010) (forfeiture paid)
(affirming forfeiture for licensee’s initial failure to make public files available to an employee of entity seeking to
acquire the licensee’s station, and licensee’s subsequent requirement that the requestor schedule an appointment to
view the file; amount reduced based on the licensee’s history of compliance with the Rules).
39 Availability of Locally Maintained Records for Inspection by Members of the Public, Public Notice, 13 FCC Rcd
17959 (1998) (Availability Public Notice).
40 Id. (citing WBRN, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 32 FCC 2d 729 (1971) (stations may require members
of the public seeking access to the public file to provide personal identification, but may not require that they
identify the organizations that they represent)).
41 See CSSI Response at 7–8.
42 The CSSI Response contains declarations from receptionist Katy Kechnie and PSA Manager Gentry Little that
purport to support CSSI’s responses to the Bureau’s LOI. The declarations, however, do not contain statements
describing the declarants’ personal knowledge of the events on June 6, 2008. This lack of specificity as to the
declarants’ personal knowledge regarding the events of June 6, 2008, and in particular whether Bell asked the
receptionist to see the Files during his first visit, limits the probative value of the declarations. See, e.g., Green
Eagle Networks, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 5732, 5737–38, paras. 11, 15 (Wireless
Telecom. Bur. 2012) (poorly executed affidavits or declarations undercut credence of petitioner’s claims). We
therefore accord little weight to these declarations.
43 See CSSI Response at 7–8.
44 See id.
45 See Availability Public Notice at 17959. See also Community Television of Southern California, Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 1107, 1109, para. 8 (Enf. Bur. 2011).
46 See Thomas P. Brunnock, 50 RR 2d 1313 (Broadcast Bur. 1982) (noting that a station’s two-hour delay in locating
its public inspection file would violate the Commission’s public inspection file rules), review denied sub. nom.
Federal Communications Commission
DA 13-525was advised to come back later, when the GM would be available.47 The fact that CSSI ultimately
provided access to its Files on Bell’s second visit to the studio in the afternoon does not negate its failure
to provide access earlier in the day. Thus, CSSI’s contention that it did not deny access to its Files is
unavailing. Based on the record, we therefore find that CSSI failed to provide access to its Files upon
Bell’s request on his initial visit, in apparent willful violation of Section 73.3527 of the Rules.
Contents of the Public Files. Licensees’ public files must contain the documents
specified by the Commission.48 The record in this case does not support a finding that CSSI’s Files
lacked the required documents. GNI’s allegations as to the Files’ completeness are based on declarations
that contain substantial inconsistencies and conflicting information.49 The infirmities of these
declarations undermine their probative value and raise questions as to the reliability and accuracy of
GNI’s allegations. After evaluating the entire record—including the declaration of CSSI’s president,50 the
documents of independent parties,51 and the documents created contemporaneously with relevant
events52—we find the evidence on this issue equivocal and inconclusive at best. Consequently, we do not
find a separate apparent violation that the Files were incomplete. Given our conclusion that CSSI denied
access to its Files, and the already voluminous record, we do not believe the completeness issue warrants
Licensee Fitness. Evidence of lack of candor, misrepresentation, or felony convictions
may raise questions as to whether a licensee possesses the character qualifications to hold a Commission
authorization.53 As described above, GNI questions the truthfulness of CSSI’s representations concerning
the completeness of its public files, raising an issue of lack of candor or misrepresentation that reflects on
CSSI’s character qualifications.54 GNI also argues that CSSI is unfit to be or remain a licensee because
one of its principals was convicted of a felony in 1964.55 GNI’s attempt to challenge CSSI’s fitness is
Complaint of Continuing Committee for Mayor Bergin against Station WATR-TV Waterbury, Connecticut,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 90 FCC 2d 813 (1982).
47 See CSSI Response at 7–8.
48 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.3527(a)(2), 73.3527(e).
49 For example, one GNI declarant avers that there were no Files “in any file he checked”; that he “never saw a
computer terminal” near the cabinets with the Files; and that the Notice was never posted. See discussion supra
para. 5, note 29; Benton Declaration at 2, para. 9. These statements are inconsistent with the record and conflict
with not only the sworn statement of CSSI’s president, but also with the sworn statements of GNI’s other witnesses
(Bell and Peterson), all of whom acknowledge the Files’ existence. Accordingly, we place little reliance on the facts
averred by this declarant (Benton).
50 Beard Declaration at 1, paras. 6–8 (Beard declares that the Files were complete and provides a detailed
explanation of the condition of the Files and the location of enumerated documents within the file cabinet and
nearby computer (as specified in the Notice)).
51 See, e.g., Peterson Declaration and discussion supra para. 5, note 32. Peterson’s claim that CSSI fired him was
not sustained by the Texas Workforce Commission, who found he left CSSI voluntarily. Peterson’s inaccuracy in
his sworn statement undermines his credibility.
52 Bell’s initial declaration, which was sworn to four days after his visit to CSSI’s studio, acknowledges that he
copied most, but not all, of the documents in the Files. Bell’s later declaration, however, inconsistently states that he
“copied all of the documents contained in the drawer.” See discussion supra para. 5, note 24; compare Bell 2008
Declaration at para. 5 with Bell 2009 Declaration at para. 4. We discount this later inconsistent declaration, which
appears unreliable in the context of other submissions.
53 See, e.g., Kaye-Smith Enterprises, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 71 FCC 2d 1402 (1979) aff’d, 90 FCC 2d 27
54 See discussion supra para. 5, note 25.
55 See discussion supra para. 5, note 31.
Federal Communications Commission
DA 13-525unpersuasive. As stated above, we find the evidence with respect to the Files’ completeness to be
equivocal and inconclusive, at best.56 We therefore cannot find that the record supports GNI’s claim that
CSSI lacked candor. Moreover, GNI neither accounts for its delay in raising the criminal conviction of
one of CSSI’s principals 18 months after filing its initial Complaint,57 nor explains the relevancy of such
stale information in light of applicable Commission precedent,58 especially given the conviction’s great
remoteness in time.59 Considering the record as a whole, we conclude that GNI has failed to raise a
substantial or material question of fact regarding CSSI’s fitness to hold a Commission license.
Pursuant to the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules,
the base forfeiture amount for a public inspection file violation is ten thousand dollars ($10,000).60 In
assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
violations, 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.61 As discussed above, CSSI failed to provide access
to the Files upon Bell’s request on his initial visit, in apparent willful violation of Section 73.3527 of the
56 See, e.g., Contemporary Media, Inc., Initial Decision, 12 FCC Rcd 14254, 14297, para. 168 (ALJ 1997)
(subsequent history omitted) (witness statement contradicted by documentary evidence and thus not credible);
Capitol City Broadcasting Company, Decision, 8 FCC Rcd 1726, 1736, para. 33 (Rev. Bd. 1993), modified and
remanded on other grounds, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 8478 (1993) (self-serving testimony not
credible in light of contradictory documentary evidence); Silver Star Communications – Albany, Inc., Initial
Decision, 3 FCC Rcd 1958, 1970–71, para. 26 (1988) (testimony discredited and found not believable where witness
was motivated by bitterness toward licensee principal); WWLE, Inc., Initial Decision, 85 FCC 2d 93, 162, para. 211,
n.146 (ALJ 1977), aff’d, Decision, 85 FCC 2d 68 (1981) (no weight accorded to testimony of former employee who
had a dispute with licensee).
57 In October 2007, CSSI filed an application to build a new station in Graham, Texas, against which GNI filed an
informal objection on June 13, 2008. See File No. BNPED-20071012AOI. GNI did not raise the fitness issue or
cite the prior felony conviction until February 2010 (see GNI Supplement to Reply at 1). The Commission generally
disfavors late-filed evidence and argument. See, e.g., In Re Regionet Wireless License, LLC, Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21266, 21272–73, paras. 10–11 (2002) (subsequent history omitted) (declining to consider
untimely filings, noting that it is in the public interest for parties to raise arguments early in a proceeding); In Re
Carol B. Ingram, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 4100, 4100, para. 3 (1996) (denying application
for review and noting party’s failure to raise issues at an earlier stage of the proceeding).
58 See, e.g., Kaiser Broadcasting Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 48 FCC 2d 142, 143, para. 4 (1974)
(denying reconsideration of license grant and noting in particular petitioner’s improper assertion of new matters and
failure to set forth any reason for its failure to have presented the matters at an earlier stage in the proceeding, as
well as its failure to state with specificity how the matters disqualify the licensee).
59 In its application, CSSI certified that none of its principals had prior felony convictions. See File No. BNPED-
20071012AOI, at Question 9. The application’s instructions require applicants to report only those convictions “that
occurred within the past ten years.” See Instructions for Form 340 at 6. Accordingly, CSSI was not required to
disclose a principal’s 40-year old conviction. See also Policy Regarding Character Qualifications, Report, Order
and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179, 1229, para. 105 (1986) (subsequent history omitted) (stating that
misconduct that occurred prior to the current license term “should not be considered, and that, even as to
consideration of past conduct indicating ‘a flagrant disregard of the Commission’s regulations and policies,’ a ten
year limitation should apply.”).
60 The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the
Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy Statement), recons. denied,
15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
61 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
Federal Communications Commission
DA 13-525Rules. Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 1.80 of the Rules, prior precedent,62 and the
statutory factors to the instant case, we conclude that CSSI is apparently liable for a total forfeiture of ten
thousand dollars ($10,000).
IT IS ORDEREDthat, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,
CSSI Non-Profit Educational Broadcasting Corporation is hereby
LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITUREin the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violations of
Section 73.3527 of the Commission’s rules.63
IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,
within fifteen (15) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and
Order, CSSI Non-Profit Educational Broadcasting Corporation
SHALL PAYthe full amount of the
proposed forfeiture or
SHALL FILEa written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the
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. CSSI Non-Profit
Educational Broadcasting Corporation shall send electronic notification to Jeffrey.Gee@fcc.gov,
Kenneth.Scheibel@fcc.gov, and Dana.Leavitt@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.64 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
62 See, e.g., Community Television of Southern California, 26 FCC Rcd at 1109, para. 9 (proposing $10,000
forfeiture for repeated and willful violation of Section 73. 3527(c) by failing to make available the station’s public
inspection files upon request); Blountstown Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd
1097 (Enf. Bur. 2007) (affirming a forfeiture of $10,000 for willful violation of the public file rule by failing to
make public inspection files available at two co-located stations).
63 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, 1.80, 73.3527.
64 An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at
Federal Communications Commission
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. 20554.65 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,
The written statement, if any, seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture
must include a detailed factual statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant
to Sections 1.80(f)(3) and 1.16 of the Rules.66 Mail the written statement 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 include the NAL/Account number
referenced above. In addition, a copy of the written statement must be transmitted via e-mail to
Terry.Cavanaugh@fcc.gov, Jeffrey.Gee@fcc.gov, Kenneth.Scheibel@fcc.gov, and
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 submitted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat the Complaint
IS GRANTEDto the extent indicated
IS OTHERWISE DENIED.67
IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat a copy of this NAL shall be sent by First Class Mail
and by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Charles H. Beard, President, and Melinda Beard,
Secretary, CSSI Non-Profit Educational Broadcasting Corporation, 905 Palo Pinto Street, Weatherford,
Texas 76086; and to Lee G. Petro, Esquire, counsel to CSSI Non-Profit Educational Broadcasting
Corporation, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, 1500 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-1209. A copy
of this NAL also shall be sent by First Class Mail to Complainant’s counsel, Erwin G. Krasnow, Esquire
and Daniel J. Margolis, Esquire, Garvey Schubert Barer, 1000 Potomac Street, N.W., Fifth Floor,
Washington, D.C. 20007.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Theresa Z. Cavanaugh
Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division
65 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
66 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.16, 1.80(f)(3).
67 See note 3, supra. For purposes of the forfeiture proceeding initiated by this NAL, CSSI Non-Profit Educational
Broadcast Corporation shall be the only party to this proceeding.