Nal, Stations Wcsm(Am),Wcsm-Fm, Celina, Ohio
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554In re Application of
Facility I.D. Nos. 26470, 26471
Hayco Broadcasting, Inc.)
NAL/Acct. Nos. MB201241410051,
For Renewal of License for
File Nos. BR-20120530AJO, BRH-
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITUREAdopted: December 3, 2012
Released: December 4, 2012By the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau:
The Media Bureau (“Bureau”) has before it the applications of Hayco Broadcasting, Inc.,
(“Licensee”) for renewal of its licenses for Stations WCSM(AM) and WCSM-FM, Celina, Ohio
(“Stations”). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
(“NAL”),1 we find that Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the
Rules2 by failing to retain all required documentation in the Stations’ public inspection files. Based upon
our review of the record before us, we conclude that Licensee is apparently liable for a monetary
forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars per station, for a total amount of twenty thousand dollars
Section 73.3526 of the Rules requires a commercial broadcast licensee to maintain a
public inspection file containing specific types of information related to station operations. The purpose
of this requirement is to provide the public with timely information about the station at regular intervals
throughout the license period.3 Among the materials required for inclusion in the file are the station’s
quarterly issues/programs lists, which must be retained until final Commission action on the station’s next
license renewal application.4
Section III, Item 3 of the license renewal application form, FCC Form 303-S, requests
that the licensee certify that the documentation required by Section 73.3526, has been placed in the
station’s public inspection file at the appropriate times. Licensee answered “No” to that certification and
1 This NAL is issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(“Act”), and Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules (“Rules”). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(k), 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
The Bureau has delegated authority to issue the NAL under Section 0.283 of the Rules. See 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.
2 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.3526.
3 Cf. Letter to Kathleen N. Benfield, 13 FCC Rcd 4102 (MMB 1997), citing License Renewal Applications of
Certain Commercial Radio Stations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 6400 (MMB 1993).
4 See 47 C.F.R. 73.3526(e)(12).
Federal Communications Commission
attached an Exhibit to its applications explaining that issues/programs lists for the fourth quarter of 2004,
through the fourth quarter of 2006 were missing from each of the Stations’ public files.5 Licensee also
states that all such reports were properly prepared and placed in the respective public inspection files, but
subsequently were inadvertently removed, and that it has not been able to locate all of the missing
documents.6 Licensee also states that it has a history of compliance with the Commission’s Rules, and
that it aired programming that was responsive to the community’s interests.7
Proposed Forfeiture. As Licensee has acknowledged, during periods within the license
term, the Station’s public inspection file did not contain many of the items required to be retained in the
file by Section 73.3526 of the Rules. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file,
neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial
actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee’s rule violation.8
Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act, a person who is found 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.9 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.10 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,11 and the Commission has so
interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context.12 Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that “[t]he term
‘repeated,’ when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or
omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one
The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules
establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of the public file rule.14 In determining the
appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the
factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including “the nature, circumstances, extent and
5 Application, Exhibit 12.
8 See Padre Serra Communications, Inc., Letter, 14 FCC Rcd 9709 (MMB 1999), citing Gaffney Broadcasting, Inc.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC 2d 912, 913 (1970) and Eleven Ten Broadcasting Corp., Notice of
Apparent Liability, 33 FCC 706 (1962); Surrey Front Range Limited Partnership, Letter, 7 FCC Rcd 6361 (FOB
9 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). See also 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a)(1).
10 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).
11 See H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982).
12 See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991),
recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992).
13 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(2).
14 See Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture
Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113-15 (1997) (“Forfeiture Policy Statement”), recon. denied,
15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), note to paragraph (b)(4), Section I.
Federal Communications Commission
gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.”15
In this case, although Licensee has admitted to violating Section 73.3526, it did so only in
the context of the question contained in its license renewal applications that compelled such disclosure.
Moreover, the violations were extensive, occurring over a two year span from 2004 through 2006, and
involving at least 9 issues-programs lists at each station. We find that no reduction for Licensee’s history
of compliance with the Rules is warranted here, because the violations occurred at two co-owned stations.
Where stations are commonly owned, findings of violations at one station negate the history of
compliance of the other stations.16 Considering the record as a whole, we believe that a proposed
forfeiture in the base amount of $10,000 per station is appropriate for the 73.3526 violations in this case.17
License Renewal Application. In evaluating an application for license renewal, the
Commission’s decision is governed by Section 309(k) of the Act.18 That Section provides that if, upon
consideration of the application and pleadings, we find that: (1) the station has served the public interest,
convenience, and necessity; (2) there have been no serious violations of the Act or the Rules; and (3)
there have been no other violations which, taken together, constitute a pattern of abuse, we are to grant
the renewal application.19 If, however, the licensee fails to meet that standard, the Commission may deny
the application – after notice and opportunity for a hearing under Section 309(e) of the Act – or grant the
application “on terms and conditions that are appropriate, including a renewal for a term less than the
maximum otherwise permitted.”20
We find that Licensee’s apparent violations of Section 73.3526 of the Rules do not
constitute “serious violations” warranting designation for evidentiary hearing. Moreover, we find no
evidence of violations that, when considered together, evidence a pattern of abuse.21 Further, we find that
the Stations served the public interest, convenience, and necessity during the subject license term. We
15 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); see also Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100; 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).
16See Opus Broadcasting Tallahassee, LLC, Forfeiture Order, 27 FCC Rcd 11154, 11155-56 (MB 1012)
(simultaneous finding of violations at four commonly owned stations negates the history of compliance at each
station); see also Media Associates, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd 3703, 3705 (MB 2011) (rejecting argument
that station's history of compliance deserved a reduction of the monetary forfeiture because the Bureau had issued a
NAL to another Media Associates-owned station on the same day and for the same violations); Urban Radio, III,
LLC, Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 8215, 8217 n. 14 (MB 2009) (“Findings of violations, or apparent violations, by
parent, sister or commonly controlled companies are imputed to, and also negate the past history claim, of the
company under investigation”).
17 See, e.g., Double O South Carolina Corporation, Forfeiture Order, 27 FCC Rcd 8370 (MB 2012) ($10,000
forfeiture issued for 10 missing issues/programs lists) South Atlanta Broadcasting, Inc. Memorandum Opinion and
Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, 21 FCC Rcd 8471 (MB 2006) ($10,000 forfeiture assessed for nine missing
18 47 U.S.C. § 309(k).
19 47 U.S.C. § 309(k)(1).
20 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(k)(2), 309(k)(3).
21 For example, we do not find here that Licensee's Station operation "was conducted in an exceedingly careless,
inept and negligent manner and that the licensee is either incapable of correcting or unwilling to correct the
operating deficiencies." See Heart of the Black Hills Stations, Decision, 32 FCC 2d 196, 198 (1971). Nor do we
find on the record here that "the number, nature and extent" of the violations indicate that "the licensee cannot be
relied upon to operate [the station] in the future in accordance with the requirements of its licenses and the
Commission's Rules." Id. at 200. See also Center for Study and Application of Black Economic Development,
Hearing Designation Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4622 (1991), Calvary Educational Broadcasting Network, Inc., Hearing
Designation Order, 7 FCC Rcd 4037 (1992).
Federal Communications Commission
will therefore grant the license renewal applications by separate action upon the conclusion of this
forfeiture proceeding if there are no issues other than the apparent violation that would preclude grant of
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES10.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules, that Hayco Broadcasting, Inc., is
hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty
thousand dollars ($20,000) for its apparent willful and repeated violations of Section 73.3526 of the
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, Hayco Broadcasting, Inc., SHALL PAY the full
amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation
of the proposed forfeiture.
Payment of the proposed forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable
to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Acct. No.
and FRN No. referenced in the caption above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to
Federal Communications Commission, at P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by
overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank—Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005
Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number
021030004, receiving bank: TREAS NYC, BNF: FCC/ACV--27000001 and account number as expressed
on the remittance instrument. If completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account number in block
number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters “FORF” in block number 24A (payment type code).
Licensee will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to
Penelope.Dade@fcc.gov and Victoria.McCauley@fcc.gov.
The response, if any, must be mailed to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington DC 20554, ATTN: Peter H. Doyle, Chief, Audio
Division, Media Bureau, and MUST INCLUDE the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above.
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.
Requests for full payment of the forfeiture proposed in this NAL under the installment
plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director-Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room
1-A625, Washington, DC 20554.22
22 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
Federal Communications Commission
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this NAL shall be sent, by First Class and
Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Hayco Broadcasting, Inc., P.O. Box 492, Celina, OH 45822
and its counsel, Coe W. Ramsey, Esq., Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey, and Leonard, LLP, P.O.
Box 1800, Raleigh, NC 27602.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.