Federal Regulatory Agencies
Federal Regulatory Agencies
News releases, reports, statements and associated documents from federal regulatory agencies ranging from the Securities Exchange Commission to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission
Featured Stories
SEC Issues Order Involving Steven E. Larson
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following order (No. 3-21289) on Jan. 30, 2023:* * *
In the Matter of STEVEN E. LARSON, Respondent.
ORDER INSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND SECTION 203(f) OF THE INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940, MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS
I.
The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following order (No. 3-21289) on Jan. 30, 2023: * * * In the Matter of STEVEN E. LARSON, Respondent. ORDER INSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND SECTION 203(f) OF THE INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940, MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS I. The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act") against Steven E. Larson ("Larson" or "Respondent").
II.
In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer of Settlement (the "Offer") which the Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the findings herein, except as to the Commission's jurisdiction over him and the subject matter of these proceedings and the findings contained in paragraph III.2 below, which are admitted, Respondent consents to the entry of this Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions ("Order"), as set forth below.
III.
On the basis of this Order and Respondent's Offer, the Commission finds that:
1. From August 30, 2011 until May 13, 2016, Larson was associated with Oakbridge Financial Services, Inc., a firm registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer. From December 19, 2016 until February 12, 2018, Larson was also associated with Private Label Money Management, Inc., a firm registered with the Commission as an investment adviser. Larson passed his FINRA Series 7, 24, 63, and 65 examinations. Larson held securities licenses from Missouri and twenty-nine other states. He is age 73 and a resident of Nisswa, Minnesota.
2. On May 11, 2018, an order against Larson was entered by the Missouri Commissioner of Securities, entitled In the Matter of Oakbridge Financial Services, Inc. et al, Case Number AP-16-11 ("Consent Order"). The Consent Order bars him from registering as an investment adviser, investment adviser representative, broker-dealer or agent in Missouri. Additionally, it permanently enjoins and restrains Larson from engaging in violations of Sections 409.4-412 and 409.5-502 of the Statutes of Missouri. Finally, Larson is permanently enjoined and restrained fom offering and selling any securities in Missouri.
3. The Consent Order alleges, among other things, that Larson engaged in dishonest and unethical conduct in the securities business by over-concentrating reverse convertibles in his customers' accounts in violation of Section 409.4-412(13) of the Statutes of Missouri. Additionally it alleges that Larson engaged in fraudulent activity in connection with disseminating fraudulent and misleading statements to customers with regard to church bond securities values in violation of Missouri Code Section 409.5-502. Finally the Order alleges that Larson failed to reasonably supervise a Missouri-registered agent subject to Larson's supervision.
IV.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to impose the sanctions agreed to in Respondent Larson's Offer.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, and Section 203(f) of the Advisers Act, that Respondent Larson be, and hereby is barred from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization; and
It is further ORDERED pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, that Respondent Larson be, and hereby is barred from participating in any offering of a penny stock, including: acting as a promoter, finder, consultant, agent or other person who engages in activities with a broker, dealer or issuer for purposes of the issuance or trading in any penny stock, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any penny stock.
Any reapplication for association by the Respondent will be subject to the applicable laws and regulations governing the reentry process, and reentry may be conditioned upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, compliance with the Commission's Order and payment of any or all of the following: (a) any disgorgement or civil penalties ordered by a Court against the Respondent in any action brought by the Commission; (b) any disgorgement amounts ordered against the Respondent for which the Commission waived payment; (c) any arbitration award related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission Order; (d) any self-regulatory organization arbitration award to a customer, whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission Order; and (e) any restitution order by a self-regulatory organization, whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission Order.
By the Commission.
Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2023/34-96766.pdf
Pierrette McIntire Named as EEOC's New Chief Information Officer
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 (TNSper) -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release on Jan. 30, 2023:The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has announced the appointment of Pierrette McIntire to a key Senior Executive Service (SES) position at the agency. McIntire has been named as the new chief information officer (CIO) of the EEOC.
"The EEOC is fortunate to have Pierrette McIntire in this important role," said EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows. "Her experience, expertise, and commitment to our mission make her well equipped to guide the continued growth ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 (TNSper) -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release on Jan. 30, 2023: The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has announced the appointment of Pierrette McIntire to a key Senior Executive Service (SES) position at the agency. McIntire has been named as the new chief information officer (CIO) of the EEOC. "The EEOC is fortunate to have Pierrette McIntire in this important role," said EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows. "Her experience, expertise, and commitment to our mission make her well equipped to guide the continued growthand evolution of the EEOC's technology programs."
McIntire has been with the EEOC for over 34 years. She joined the agency in 1988 as a database / Unix programmer within the EEOC's Office of Information Technology (OIT). Since then, she has held the roles of director of the Charge Data System Division and director of the Technology Planning and Management Division, and later served as the EEOC's chief information security officer for 16 years. Most recently, McIntire has served as the EEOC's deputy chief information officer.
"We have a great team at the EEOC, and strong partnerships both inside and outside the government," said McIntire. "I look forward to working together to further the EEOC's mission through the continuous improvement of technology."
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at http://www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/pierrette-mcintire-named-eeocs-new-chief-information-officer
FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection Issues Criminal Liaison Unit Report Detailing Efforts to Ensure Wrongdoers Face Accountability
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release on Jan. 30, 2023:The Criminal Liaison Unit of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP CLU) has issued its 2022 Criminal Liaison Unit Report, describing the history of the BCP CLU, its program operations, and major accomplishments over the past five years. In an effort to ensure criminal prosecution of appropriate consumer fraud cases, the BCP CLU refers cases to partner agencies with criminal jurisdiction, including U.S. Attorney's Offices across the county, Divisions of the Department ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release on Jan. 30, 2023: The Criminal Liaison Unit of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP CLU) has issued its 2022 Criminal Liaison Unit Report, describing the history of the BCP CLU, its program operations, and major accomplishments over the past five years. In an effort to ensure criminal prosecution of appropriate consumer fraud cases, the BCP CLU refers cases to partner agencies with criminal jurisdiction, including U.S. Attorney's Offices across the county, Divisions of the Departmentof Justice (DOJ) and others.
"For the worst individual and corporate wrongdoers, civil remedies may not be sufficient to protect the public from further harm," said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "Government works best when agencies work together toward a common goal, and we are proud that our partnership with criminal enforcers leads to justice for bad actors and a safer marketplace for us all."
The FTC, which is not authorized to bring criminal law enforcement actions, established the BCP CLU in 2002 to bring the "worst of the worst" offenders to the attention of prosecutors. As it grew, the BCP CLU worked to establish relationships with prosecutors and educate them about the Commission's consumer fraud and deception cases. Success in initial cases proved that criminal consumer protection cases were not only viable, but could result in substantial prison sentences.
Over the past five years, the report notes, BCP CLU referrals have led to criminal charges against 107 new defendants, 145 total convictions, and 181 defendants sentenced for consumer fraud. The total sentence time for all defendants was 746 years, with the average sentence being 51 months (approximately 4.3 years) of incarceration.
The BCP CLU Report: 2018-2022
As the BCP CLU has grown over the past 20 years, the program has worked to address prosecutors' concerns by communicating regularly to understand their priorities and to strategically refer cases most likely to be attractive to them, according to the report. The result has been an established reputation for presenting prosecutors with solid cases that will make the most of their limited time.
The BCP CLU also has established annual awards, which recognize the FTC's best partners for their criminal prosecution efforts on behalf of U.S. consumers. In 2021, because of the importance of this work as well as BCP CLU's success to date, the Commission issued a Statement Regarding Criminal Referral and Partnership Process, where the agency recommitted itself to a robust program of criminal referrals across both its competition and consumer protection missions.
The 2022 BCP CLU Report includes information on:
* Significant early BCP CLU cases and their results;
* An overview of BCP CLU program operations;
* A description of BCP CLU cooperative efforts with other law enforcers;
* A list of BCP CLU Award recipients;
* A summary of BCP CLU accomplishments between 2018 and 2022; and
* A look forward to the future of the program, including current priorities.
More information about the BCP CLU can be found here (https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/criminal-liaison-unit) on the FTC's website.
Sarah Waldrop, the BCP CLU Chief, was the lead staffer on this report.
The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition and protect and educate consumers. Learn more about consumer topics at consumer.ftc.gov, or report fraud, scams, and bad business practices at ReportFraud.ftc.gov.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/ftcs-bureau-consumer-protection-issues-criminal-liaison-unit-report-detailing-efforts-ensure
FCC Wireless Bureau Issues Public Notice on Guard Band Licensee and Band Manager Annual Reports Due March 1, 2023
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued the following public notice (Docket No. DA 23-88) involving Guard Band Licensee and Band Manager Annual Reports Due March 1, 2023:* * *
Reports Must Be Filed Through The Universal Licensing System
* * *
By this Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) reminds 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees1 and 220 MHz Band Managers2 (hereafter Licensees) of their obligation to file timely annual reports on or before Wednesday, March 1, 2023.3 In the annual reports, Licensees must provide ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued the following public notice (Docket No. DA 23-88) involving Guard Band Licensee and Band Manager Annual Reports Due March 1, 2023: * * * Reports Must Be Filed Through The Universal Licensing System * * * By this Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) reminds 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees1 and 220 MHz Band Managers2 (hereafter Licensees) of their obligation to file timely annual reports on or before Wednesday, March 1, 2023.3 In the annual reports, Licensees must provideinformation about the manner in which the spectrum in each of their markets is being utilized.4 The information provided should accurately convey the current level of service being offered in each licensed area, including information regarding coverage provided by Licensees' operations and any spectrum lease agreements. Failure to file an annual report as required5 may result in enforcement action.
Filing Annual Reports
Licensees must file the required annual report information for each license held through the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS) at https://www.fcc.gov/universal-licensing-system. Under "Filing" click on the "Submit a Pleading" link. Thereafter, select "700 MHz Guard Band/Band Manager Report" under the "Pleading Type" dropdown menu, and follow the system's instructions to provide the requisite contact and filer information. After filling out filer and contact information, choose "Callsign" and enter the call sign(s) that are to be associated with an annual report. After entering the applicable call sign(s), follow directions to attach and submit the annual report(s).
Accessing Annual Reports
The annual reports may be viewed at https://www.fcc.gov/annual-guard-band-reports or by ULS license search at http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchLicense.jsp. When accessing annual reports in ULS, search for the license by call sign and view the report in license details under attachments.
For additional information on filing this annual report, please contact Thomas Reed of the Bureau's Mobility Division at 202-418-0531, or Thomas.Reed@fcc.gov.
* * *
1/ See 47 CFR 27.607.
2/ See Request for Waivers to Provide Band Management Services Utilizing Licenses in the 220-222 MHz Band, WT Docket 02-224, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 20464, 20470 (WTB 2002) (Access 220 MO&O); Access 220, LLC., Assignor, and Spectrum Equity, Inc., Assignee, Application for Assignment of 220 MHz Licenses and Request for Waiver, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 9321 (WTB 2012).
3/ Section 27.607(b) provides that the annual reports must be filed by March 1. 47 CFR. 27.607(b).
4/ See In the Matter of Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299, 79 (2000); 47 CFR 27.607(b).
5/ See 47 CFR 27.607(c); Access 220 MO&O, 17 FCC Rcd at 20470; see also 700 MHz Guard Band Managers' First Annual Report is Due October 1, 2002, Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 8577 (WTB 2002). The basic information required in the annual reports was revised in April 2007. See Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 06-150, Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket No. 01-309, Biennial Regulatory Review - Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket 03- 264, Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 06-169, Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band, PS Docket No. 06-229, Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 8064 (2007).
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-88A1.pdf
FCC Media Bureau Issues letter on University of Rhode Island Order to Show Cause
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 (TNStalk) -- The Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau issued the following letter (Docket No. DA 23-82):* * *
To: University of Rhode Island, c/o Allan G. Moskowitz, Esq., 10854 Tuckahoe Way, North Potomac MD 20878, amoskowitz@amoskowitzlaw.com
Rhode Island Public Radio, c/o John Wells King, Esq., Law Office of John Wells King, PLLC, 4051 Shoal Creek Lane East, Jacksonville FL 32225, John@JWKingLaw.com
In re: WRIU(FM), Kingston, Rhode Island, Facility ID No. 69206
WNPK(FM), Portsmouth, Rhode Island, Facility ID No. 53078, Application File No. 161410
Order ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 (TNStalk) -- The Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau issued the following letter (Docket No. DA 23-82): * * * To: University of Rhode Island, c/o Allan G. Moskowitz, Esq., 10854 Tuckahoe Way, North Potomac MD 20878, amoskowitz@amoskowitzlaw.com Rhode Island Public Radio, c/o John Wells King, Esq., Law Office of John Wells King, PLLC, 4051 Shoal Creek Lane East, Jacksonville FL 32225, John@JWKingLaw.com In re: WRIU(FM), Kingston, Rhode Island, Facility ID No. 69206 WNPK(FM), Portsmouth, Rhode Island, Facility ID No. 53078, Application File No. 161410 Orderto Show Cause
Dear Counsel:
We have before us the above-referenced application (Application) for a minor modification of the facilities of noncommercial educational (NCE) station WNPK(FM), Portsmouth, Rhode Island (WNPK or Station), filed by Rhode Island Public Radio d/b/a The Public's Radio (TPR) on September 30, 2021. In the Application, TPR requests waiver of section 73.509(a) of the Commission's rules (Rules)/1 to allow otherwise prohibited contour overlap with second-adjacent channel NCE station WRIU(FM), Kingston, Rhode Island (WRIU). The University of Rhode Island (URI), licensee of WRIU, filed an informal objection to the Application on May 11, 2022 (Objection)./2 In accordance with section 316(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), we hereby notify URI of our proposed actions and afford it 30 days to respond./3
URI relocated the WRIU transmitter to its present site in 1981, where it received, and continues to receive, prohibited contour overlap from WNPK (formerly WJHD) pursuant to a pre-Raleigh section 509(a) waiver./4 In November 2021, TPR acquired WNPK/5 and filed the Application, seeking authorization to move the Station off the Portsmouth Abbey School campus./6 The proposed WNPK facility violates section 73.509(a) with respect to WRIU because it would: (1) increase and move the existing area of contour overlap caused by WNPK to WRIU (Caused Overlap Area); and (2) create a new area of contour overlap received by WNPK from WRIU (Received Overlap Area)./7 Therefore, TPR requests waivers of section 73.509(a) to both cause and receive prohibited overlap with WRIU./8
The Commission's rules may be waived for good cause shown./9 When an applicant seeks waiver of a rule, it must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances which warrant such action./10 The Commission must give waiver requests "a hard look," but an applicant for waiver "faces a high hurdle even at the starting gate"/11 and must support its waiver request with a compelling showing./12 Waiver is appropriate only if both (1) special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and (2) such deviation better serves the public interest./13
Raleigh waiver request. With respect to the Received Overlap Area, TPR requests a so-called Raleigh waiver to allow WNPK to receive-not cause-contour overlap from second-adjacent channel station WRIU./14 The Commission has held that a Raleigh waiver is justified where an NCE station seeks to: (1) receive overlap from (2) second- or third- adjacent channel stations, and (3) the benefit of increased NCE service heavily outweighs the potential for interference in a very small area./15 The Commission has delegated authority to the Bureau to waive Section 73.509 when the overlap received is 10% or less of the proposed service area./16 Granting waivers in these limited circumstances provides flexibility for NCE stations to modify their service areas while protecting existing service from interference.
When a station receives a Raleigh waiver, it routinely accepts a condition on its license acknowledging that future modifications to the station causing the overlap will not constitute a per se modification of the receiving station's license./17 The rationale for this condition is "to avoid perpetually restricting such stations [causing interference] to their current facilities."/18 The condition does not limit the size or location of any future modified caused overlap area.
Here, TPR states that the proposed modification will increase WNPK's coverage area by 338.4%, from 232.1 square kilometers to 1017.6 square kilometers, and will provide service to an additional population of 105,222 persons within its 60 dBu contour (a 297.4% increase in population served)./19 TPR also states that: (1) the proposed area of received overlap from WRIU is 21.1 square kilometers, or 2.07% of the total area and 4.65% of the population served by the proposed WNPK facility./20 Finally, TPR contends that there are no alternative transmitter sites that do not result in the same contour overlap issue or "are unsuitable for other reasons."/21 In these circumstances, TPR concludes, the basic requirements for a Raleigh waiver are met-i.e., the proposed increase in NCE service would heavily outweigh the potential for second-adjacent channel interference in a very small area.
Caused overlap waiver. In addition to the Raleigh waiver, TPR requests a separate waiver of section 73.509(a) to allow it to expand the Caused Overlap Area (the existing area of contour overlap caused by WNPK to WRIU-approximately 4.4 square kilometers with a population of 243) and move the Caused Overlap Area closer to the WRIU transmitter site. TPR argues that the proposed increase in the existing overlap is de minimis because the proposed Caused Overlap Area "represents 0.8 percent of [WRIU's] primary service area and 1.5% of the population within its service area. As in [Raleigh], these are very small numbers indeed. They warrant waiver in the public interest."/22 URI contends that the Caused Overlap Area is not de minimis because, at 9.2 square kilometers and 2,195 persons, it will "more than double the existing area size and [cover] more than eight times the existing population."/23 In addition, URI argues, the proposed Caused Overlap Area should not be permitted because it will be "much closer to the WRIU transmitter site."/24 (URI does not provide any technical details on how this proximity might affect the respective stations' operation or reception.) URI also challenges TPR's assertion that no alternative transmitter sites exist, alleging that "at least 4 suitable transmitter sites exist substantially closer to Portsmouth, one only 1.7 km from WNPK's existing transmitter site which is currently available."/25 URI objects that TPR failed to consider alternative frequencies as well as alternative transmitter sites./26 Finally, citing to a pre-Raleigh decision, Atlanta, URI argues that an increase in coverage is insufficient as the sole basis for a contour overlap waiver/27
In response, TPR points out that, in Raleigh, the Commission not only granted a waiver of overlap received but also allowed the station causing the overlap to subsequently modify and expand the caused overlap area./28 TPR also provides an engineering analysis of available channels, concluding that "WNPK is completely precluded from considering an alternative frequency."/29 Regarding expanded service as a basis for NCE waivers, TPR argues that Raleigh changed the Commission's policy on such waivers, "effectively eclipsing Atlanta."/30
Tentative conclusions. We tentatively conclude that grant of TPR's waiver requests and the Application would be consistent with the policy set out in Raleigh and subsequent decisions. With respect to the proposed Received Overlap Area, the basic requirements for a Raleigh waiver are met-i.e., the proposed increase in NCE service would heavily outweigh the potential for second-adjacent channel interference in a very small area./31 This part of the waiver request does not present any novel issues, so we propose to approve the Received Overlap Area.
Regarding the relocation and expansion of the existing Caused Overlap Area, we find that TPR's proposal fits within the Raleigh framework even though the existing contour overlap between these two stations predates Raleigh. Under the Raleigh policy, the Commission has consistently rejected proposals involving caused overlap, except where the interfering contour of the requesting station was previously partially or wholly encompassed by the voluntary expansion of the protected service contour of the other station under a received overlap waiver./32 In such cases, the encompassed station is permitted to modify the caused overlap area in the future, and a condition is placed on the requesting station's license stating that future modifications to the other station causing the overlap will not constitute a per se modification of its license./33 Although in this case WRIU's original prohibited contour overlap received from WNPK was authorized in 1981, prior to Raleigh, and thus no condition was appended to the WRIU license, the reasoning set out in Raleigh and subsequent cases still applies. WRIU voluntarily sought and obtained a waiver to receive overlap from WNPK, and WNPK's interfering contour was consequently encompassed by the expansion of WRIU's protected contour. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in Raleigh, we decline to perpetually restrict WNPK to its original site (or to section 73.509(d)-compliant sites only). We propose to grant TPR's request to relocate and increase the area of the existing Caused Overlap Area. For the reasons stated above, we find that TPR has demonstrated sufficient public interest benefits to justify the issuance of this Order to Show Cause. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to Section 316(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.87 of the Commission's Rules, the University of Rhode Island SHALL SHOW CAUSE why the license of WRIU(FM), Kingston, Rhode Island, SHOULD NOT BE MODIFIED to permit WNPK(FM), Portsmouth, Rhode Island, to operate at the site proposed in the Application.
Pursuant to section 1.87, URI may, not later than March 1, 2023, file a written statement showing with particularity why the license of WRIU should not be modified as proposed./34 Under Section 316(c) of the Act,/35 a protest to a license modification is subject to the requirements of Section 309 of the Act36 for petitions to deny, namely, the affected station must demonstrate a substantial and material question of fact to obtain a hearing under Section 316(a)(2)./37 The Commission may call upon URI to furnish additional information. Upon review of the statements and/or additional information furnished, the Commission may grant the modification, deny the modification, or set the matter of modification for hearing. If no written statement is filed by the date specified above, URI will be deemed to have consented to the modification and its license will be modified as proposed in this Order to Show Cause./38
Further action on the subject application will be withheld for thirty days from the date of this letter to provide an opportunity to reply. Responses must either be submitted electronically in LMS as a pleading under the Application file number (our recommended option) or mailed to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, D.C. 22045, ATTN: Albert Shuldiner, Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, with a copy served on the applicant. Regardless of the filing option chosen, electronic copies of any such pleading must also be sent to rodolfo.bonacci@fcc.gov and christine.goepp@fcc.gov. Please note that copies of any responses must all be served on all parties.
Sincerely,
Albert Shuldiner
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau
* * *
Footnotes:
1 See 47 CFR 73.509(a).
2 Pleading File No. 190453. On May 23, 2022, TPR filed an opposition to the Objection (Pleading File No. 191291) (Opposition). On June 3, 2022, URI filed a reply to the Opposition (Pleading File No. 192908) (Reply).
3 See 47 U.S.C. 316(a), 47 CFR 1.87; Modification of FM and Television Licenses Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, Order, 2 FCC Rcd 3327 (1987). Section 316(a) permits the Commission to modify a license or construction permit if such action is in the public interest, after notifying the affected station of the proposed action, stating the grounds and reasons for the proposed action, and affording the affected licensee at least 30 days to respond. This provision applies to both "direct" and "indirect" modification of station licenses. Western Broadcasting Company v. FCC, 674 F.2d 44, 49 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
4 See Application File Nos. BPED-19810129AJ (new location) and BPED-19821013AO (power increase). The Bureau issued a license to cover the WRIU Modification Applications on September 20, 1985. Application File No. BLED-19830921AD; Broadcast Actions, Public Notice, Report No. 41291 (Sept. 23, 1985).
5 See Application File No. 160713 (granted Nov. 17, 2021).
6 WNPK is licensed to operate as a Class A NCE station on 90.7 MHz with power of .36 kw and an antenna height of 24 meters above average terrain. The Application, as amended, seeks authority to move the WNPK transmitter site to a location 19.4 km from their licensed transmitter location. In addition, TPR seeks a power increase to 5 kw using a directional antenna, and an antenna height increase to 88 meters above average terrain. The first site TPR proposed did not place the required 60 dBu signal over at least 50% of the Station's community of license. See 47 CFR 73.515; informal objection filed by Connecticut Public Broadcasting, Inc. on October 29, 2021, (Pleading File No. 165298) (CPB Objection). On December 10, 2021, TPR filed an opposition to the CPB Objection, explaining that an amendment had been concurrently filed to specify the current proposed site. (Pleading File No. 177096).
7 See 47 CFR 73.509(a) (Section 73.509(a)). Prohibited overlap occurs when a station's interference contour overlaps another station's service contour. The terms "overlap caused" and "overlap received" are used in reference to a specific station proposing a facility change. If Station A is proposing to expand its service contour and the new service contour will be overlapped by Station B's interference contour, Station A is said to receive overlap from B. If station B is proposing to increase its facilities so that its proposed interference contour would overlap Station A's service contour, Station B is said to cause overlap. Under some circumstances, as here, a proposal may both cause and receive overlap.
8 Application Technical Exhibit at 4.
9 47 CFR 1.3.
10 WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157, para. 2 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (WAIT Radio).
11 WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1157, para. 2.
12 Greater Media Radio Co., Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7090, 7094, para. 9 (1999) (citing Stoner Broadcasting System, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 49 FCC 2d 1011, 1012 (1974)).
13 NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 125-128 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citing Northeast Cellular Telephone Co., 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (1990)).
14 See Educational Information Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 2207, 2208 (1991) (Raleigh).
15 Raleigh, 6 FCC Rcd at 2208.
16 Changes in the Rules Relating to Noncommercial, Educational FM Broadcast Stations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 50 FR 27954, 27960 (1985).
17 See Raleigh, 6 FCC Rcd at 2209; see also, e.g., Dennis J. Kelly, Esq., Letter Decision, 32 FCC Rcd 7441, 7444 (MB 2017).
18 See Raleigh, 6 FCC Rcd at 2209.
19 Id. at 2208.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Opposition at 2.
23 Informal Objection at 3; Reply at 2.
24 Informal Objection at 3; Reply at 2.
25 Informal Objection at 3; Reply at 2-3.
26 Informal Objection at 3.
27 Id. at 4 (citing Board of Education of the City of Atlanta (WABE-FM), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 82 FCC 2d 125, 127, para. 7 (1980) (Atlanta) (denying a waiver request for an NCE station to receive prohibited overlap)).
28 Opposition at 2.
29 Opposition at 3, Technical Exhibit.
30 Opposition at 2.
31 TPR's proposal does not satisfy the exception for stations with grandfathered prohibited overlap set out in 47 CFR 73.509(d), which allows facility modifications "that would not aggravate the existing interference." Changes in the Rules Relating to Noncommercial Educational FM Broadcast Stations, Third Report and Order, FCC 84-515, 57 R.R.2d 107, 116, paras. 42-44 (1984). Specifically, section 73.509(d) allows a station with existing prohibited overlap to relocate if: (1) the total area of overlap with the subject station would not increase; (2) the area of overlap with any other station would not increase; (3) the area of overlap does not move significantly closer to the station receiving the overlap; and (4) no area of overlap would be created with any station with which the overlap does not now exist). 47 CFR 73.509(d). Here, the Application does not satisfy conditions (1) and (3).
32 Educational Information Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 6917, 6918 (1997) (rejecting a waiver request to cause contour overlap where none had previously existed); Centenary College, Letter Decision, 23 FCC Rcd 17317, 17320 (MB 2008) (same).
33 See supra, note 17.
34 See 47 CFR 1.87(a).
35 47 U.S.C. 316(c).
36 47 U.S.C. 309.
37 See Paul and Nancy Schumacher, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 7148 n.1 (MMB 1988); Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 17 FCC Rcd 20900, 20906 (2002) (requiring affidavit to support factual allegations).
38 See, e.g., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 98, 101-102 (WTB 2001).
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-82A1.pdf
FCC Media Bureau Issues letter on KOKS(FM) License Renewal
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 (TNStalk) -- The Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau issued the following letter (Docket No. DA 23-83):* * *
To: Gerald Woolverton, President, Calvary Educational Broadcasting Network, Inc., 2773 Barron Road, Poplar Bluff, MO 63901, KOKSRA80@GMAIL.COM, (via email to:)
Charles R. Naftalin, Esq., Holland & Knight, 800 17 St, N.W., Suite1100, Washington, DC 20006, CHARLES.NAFTALIN@HKLAW.COM
Mrs. Doris L. Smith, 1417 Vine Streetm, Poplar Bluff, MO 63901
In re: KOKS(FM), Poplar Bluff, MO
Facility ID No. 8439
File No. 0000122765
Application for License Renewal
Informal ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 (TNStalk) -- The Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau issued the following letter (Docket No. DA 23-83): * * * To: Gerald Woolverton, President, Calvary Educational Broadcasting Network, Inc., 2773 Barron Road, Poplar Bluff, MO 63901, KOKSRA80@GMAIL.COM, (via email to:) Charles R. Naftalin, Esq., Holland & Knight, 800 17 St, N.W., Suite1100, Washington, DC 20006, CHARLES.NAFTALIN@HKLAW.COM Mrs. Doris L. Smith, 1417 Vine Streetm, Poplar Bluff, MO 63901 In re: KOKS(FM), Poplar Bluff, MO Facility ID No. 8439 File No. 0000122765 Application for License Renewal InformalObjection
Dear Licensee, Counsel, and Objector:
The Media Bureau (Bureau) has before it the referenced application (Application) of Calvary Educational Broadcasting Network, Inc. (CEB) to renew the license of noncommercial educational (NCE) radio station KOKS(FM), Poplar Bluff, Missouri (Station) and an objection (Objection) thereto from Doris Smith (Smith), a resident of that community. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Objection and, in accordance with a 2020 Consent Decree between CEB and the Bureau,/1 grant the Application conditioned upon CEB's continued compliance with the Consent Decree.
Background. The Station has a long history of rule violations that began with initial licensure in 1989 and continued to varying degrees for almost 30 years while CEB was managed by members of the Stewart family, who are now deceased./2 The most prominent violation was CEB's failure to correct extensive FM blanketing interference caused to surrounding homes, i.e., a phenomenon whereby the strong signal from a nearby broadcast tower can completely overwhelm receivers in the FM and TV bands./3 The Commission's rules (Rules) require licensees to remedy such interference/4 but the Stewarts lacked the technical expertise and financial resources to do so. As a result, some local residents, including Smith, were unable to receive interference-free broadcast signals and purchased cable or satellite service instead. Potential reimbursement of those costs is the primary focus of the Objection.
In 1994, following a hearing before an administrative law judge, the Commission's then-existing Review Board renewed the Station's license for a one-year term with the expectation that the Station would come into compliance through an engineering solution within that time./5 The Review Board also accepted a proposal by CEB to potentially achieve compliance in an alternate manner by reimbursing affected neighbors for the cost of cable or satellite if CEB determined that an engineering solution was not possible./6 CEB, however, neither corrected the interference nor reimbursed the neighbors at that time. The Bureau, thus, could not find that CEB was operating in the public interest without serious violations and held in abeyance several subsequent license renewal applications that CEB filed in 1995, 2005, and 2012./7 Smith objected to some of these applications on behalf of herself and as a spokesperson for neighbors.
In 2017, the Bureau sought to update the record of CEB's efforts to address the blanketing interference problem. The Bureau requested information from CEB as well as from eight residents who had previously received blanketing interference./8 Of the residents, only Smith indicated a continuing interest. Although she was not receiving blanketing interference at that time, she could not determine whether interference might return because the Station was then operating at substantially reduced power due to failing equipment./9 CEB's response was filed in early 2018 by Gerald Woolverton (Woolverton) who had, as a volunteer, been donating time and money to keep the Station operating and who the Bureau later determined had been exercising de facto control of the Station in the role of CEB President because Nina Stewart was in poor health./10 Woolverton indicated that the Station's finances were dire, with the Station's utility bills unpaid and land in danger of foreclosure./11 About this time the Bureau learned, through Commission inspections, of additional rule violations that arose with the failing health and finances of Nina Stewart including tower lighting outages that had not been properly reported to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), reduced power without authority, lack of station logs, and an incomplete public inspection file./12
In 2019, Woolverton sought Bureau consent to transfer control of CEB to a new governing board controlled by members of the Woolverton family. He argued that the station's compliance was improving under his leadership but acknowledged that problems remained./13 Woolverton expressed a desire to bring the Station into full Rule compliance but stated that CEB did not have the substantial funds necessary and that he would be unable to donate funds to CEB if uncertainty remained about whether CEB's license applications would be designated for hearing due to past violations./14 Woolverton, on behalf of CEB, contacted households that had received blanketing interference, including Smith, and offered to pay a small amount of money toward their cable bills in exchange for a release from their claims. No party accepted that offer./15
The Bureau and the proposed new CEB board entered into a Consent Decree in September 2020 in which CEB admitted to past rule violations and agreed to a plan for potential resolution without hearing./16 Pursuant to the Consent Decree, the Bureau granted CEB's applications to transfer control to the new board, to construct facilities with downgraded power, to operate with reduced power pursuant to special temporary authority pending completion of the downgrade, and to renew (conditioned upon compliance with the Consent Decree) the Station's license through February 1, 2021, when all radio stations in Missouri were set to expire./17 The Consent Decree provided, however, that the Bureau would leave pending for at least a year a future license renewal application that the Station, like all Missouri licensees, was due to file by October 1, 2020./18 Grant of the Application or, alternatively, automatic and permanent termination of the Station's operating authority, would depend upon CEB's performance during a one-year probationary period./19
During the probationary period, CEB would attempt to bring the Station into full compliance with all broadcast rules, statutes, and policies (not just those for which it admitted past violations) and with the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree. CEB also agreed to take specific actions including, for example, to complete a downgrade of the Station's class and power which it expected to address the blanketing interference,/20 to place a prominent notice on its web site informing the public of its responsibility for addressing interference and to resolve any such complaints, to procure a new fully functioning transmitter, to train its staff to abide by operating and recordkeeping procedures established in a compliance manual written by counsel, to hire consultants to remediate tower lighting on an ongoing basis, to correct public inspection file violations, and to file periodic progress reports./21 CEB was required under the Consent Decree to report and explain any non-compliance within 15 days of discovery./22 The Bureau indicated that, although it ordinarily would have imposed a monetary civil penalty for the past violations admitted in the Consent Decree, it was not doing so because: (1) CEB had submitted financial documentation including tax returns demonstrating an inability to pay; and (2) the Bureau believed that CEB would best direct its limited resources to fulfilling obligations under the Consent Decree, which would require substantial expenditures./23 The Consent Decree did not specifically reference or address reimbursement of residents for past satellite and cable service./24
Under the terms of the Consent Decree, the Bureau must consider CEB's probation period performance and arrive at a "probationary outcome."/25 If the Bureau finds that CEB successfully brought the Station into full Rule compliance and if the Bureau also finds that the Application is otherwise grantable, the Bureau will grant the Application conditioned upon CEB's continued compliance with the Consent Decree, including continued filing of compliance reports through September 2025./26 In making that determination the Bureau will, as with all license renewal applications, apply renewal standards and consider any submissions from the public./27 Alternatively, if the Bureau determines that CEB did not achieve compliance, all of the Station's authorizations would automatically terminate without a hearing proceeding or administrative/judicial review, all of which CEB waived, the Station would be permanently removed from the air, and that the Bureau would dismiss the Application./28
License Renewal Standards. As set forth below, we find that CEB has met the requirements for license renewal. It has satisfied the Consent Decree requirements by taking significant corrective actions to come into Rule compliance. None of its responses to standard questions on the Application raise any additional concerns. We have considered Smith's Objection but do not find any matter therein to preclude license renewal under applicable standards.
Section 309(k) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), establishes that the Commission, in order to renew the license of a broadcast station routinely, must determine that the station has had no serious violations and/or violations that, when taken together, constitute a pattern of abuse./29 We first address CEB's performance under the Consent Decree because, as described previously, CEB has stipulated that its prior admitted violations would not satisfy the section 309(k) renewal standard absent required Consent Decree compliance actions, and that failure to come into compliance would result in termination of all Station authority./30
Consent Decree Performance During Probation Period. CEB has, within the probationary period, taken all actions required under the Consent Decree. CEB modified its facilities by reducing power and class, applied for a covering license which the Bureau granted, and replaced its transmitter./31 CEB's compliance reports, which it has been filing quarterly, reflect that it is using its compliance manual, training its staff to follow the procedures therein, and having quarterly compliance meetings with counsel. The reports also show that CEB has been keeping daily technical logs of transmitter performance, checking its tower lighting, and consulting an engineer when a problem arises.32 CEB indicates that it engaged an engineer on a part-time basis during the probationary period and that, in response to some scheduling delays resulting from that part-time arrangement, it hired a full-time engineer in 2022./33
The Bureau viewed the Station's web site several times following the Consent Decree. The site contains information, as required under the Consent Decree, about how the public can seek help from the station if they experience blanketing interference./34 According to compliance reports filed with the Bureau, the Station has received no complaints about interference or any other matter during the probationary period or thereafter. It, thus, appears that the recently authorized reduction in power and the transmitter replacement have been effective. CEB reports an inquiry (though not a complaint) from Smith during the probationary period. Specifically, CEB states that it received a telephone call on January 13, 2021 in which Smith reportedly asked for information about the power of the Station's new transmitter and sought assurance, which the Station provided, that CEB did not intend to return to the higher operating power used while the Stewarts were in control. CEB states that Smith indicated that she had not yet checked for broadcast interference at that time, but that CEB advised her that it would fix any interference she might discover if she called back to report it, and that Smith had not called back since./35
Smith raises related concerns in her Objection, and we will address them below in that context. With respect to tower lighting and marking, the Station's reports show that CEB monitored tower lighting during the probationary period forward and, upon noticing a problem notified the FAA and took corrective action within FAA deadlines./36 The reports also show that CEB repainted the tower during the probationary period at a reported cost of $10,000./37
The Station's online public inspection file for the probationary period (and through present) is complete, including those elements for which there were prior violations. For example, CEB filed a biennial ownership report in October 2021; the next report is not due until October 2023. CEB placed donor lists in the file each quarter. CEB's Issues/Programs lists during the period improved in format and reflect that the station has expanded its informational programming in terms of length, type, and source./38
CEB reported some issues of non-compliance during the probation period, all concerning late filings. For example, CEB was late in reporting that it operated at reduced power for 12 days from February 11-23, 2021, when the tower froze in an ice storm./39 CEB was approximately two weeks late in filing a compliance report for Fourth Quarter 2021 due to a family health emergency which it states was related to the COVID pandemic. Late-filing of information also continued after the probationary period. For example, CEB was late in placing its issues/programs and donor lists for Third Quarter 2022 in its online public inspection file, reportedly due to trouble accessing needed information following replacement of its computers. Although these matters are not so "serious" as to prevent license renewal under Section 309(k) of the Act and CEB provides explanations for the lateness, we find that CEB must promptly improve the timeliness of its filings with the Commission. Such improvement should not be difficult. We will require that CEB amend its existing compliance plan, perhaps with the assistance of counsel or another consultant, to meet deadlines even if unexpected emergencies arise./40 CEB must devise the plan within 60 days and place the details of that plan in the "FCC Investigations or Complaints" section of its online public inspection file within 14 days thereafter. CEB must also continue to report any non-compliance within 15 days under the terms of the Consent Decree. Failure to meet future deadlines on a regular basis could result in sanctions.
Probationary Outcome. As set forth above, we find that CEB has met its obligations under the Consent Decree. Accordingly, CEB's "probationary outcome" is satisfactory and further consideration of its license renewal Application can proceed. We next consider whether there are any other matters, including petitions and objections, potentially affecting the Application. None of CEB's answers to the questions on the renewal form raise any additional concerns. The Application is, however, contested as a result of Smith's Objection, which we consider below.
Smith Objection. We find that Smith's Objection does not raise any matter that would prevent favorable action on the Application. Smith does not allege that CEB failed to comply with the Consent Decree or has committed any new violation of the Rules./41 Rather, she argues that the changes CEB has made under the Consent Decree are "too little, too late."/42 Smith raises two main concerns. First, she states that CEB has not reimbursed her for years of satellite service which she obtained while the Station was causing interference to her television signals. Second, she is concerned that CEB might in the future sell the Station to someone who might attempt to increase power back to that which existed under former management. She asks whether the Bureau can guarantee that will not happen./43
We will not require CEB's new management to reimburse Smith for the satellite service she obtained in response to blanketing interference under former management. It is certainly unfortunate that Smith experienced long term interference, incurred satellite expenses, and that CEB did not reimburse as the Stewarts had proposed. Nevertheless, Smith is incorrect in her contention that reimbursement is a requirement of Commission Rules. The Rules require stations to remedy interference, which is generally accomplished through engineering solutions./44 Reimbursement for cable and satellite was a creative, short-term option proposed by CEB in 1994, as a potential compliance alternative solely for the instant Station. The FCC's Review Board did not view the potential reimbursement as a permanent, ongoing measure but, rather, as a basis for grant of one license renewal application in the early 1990s. Thus, the Review Board stated that the Commission would reevaluate the matter in connection with subsequent license renewal applications./45
When the Bureau evaluated CEB's 1995, 2005, and 2012 license renewal applications and granted them pursuant to the Consent Decree in 2020, the Bureau did not add a cable/satellite reimbursement requirement, consistent with CEB's documented financial difficulties. Smith argues in her Objection that KOKS is not a "poor station" and should be required to reimburse her from funds Woolverton purportedly obtained from a recent sale of some of the Station's land./46 We disagree. NCE stations are licensed to non-profit organizations, not to individuals./47 The record reflects that the Station's licensee, CEB, is a financially fragile corporation that relies on donations, with essential bills having gone unpaid under prior management, and Woolverton personally purchasing land once belonging to CEB to prevent bank foreclosure./48 If, as Smith alleges, Woolverton later sold some of the land that he purchased as an individual, the proceeds would belong to him personally and not to CEB. While corporate laws vary from state to state, it is a generally recognized business principle that officers or directors of a corporation are not personally liable for corporate debts./49 Accordingly, even if we were to assume for sake of argument that CEB wrongfully failed to reimburse Smith in the 1990s and that such a claim is not time-barred, we would not accept her suggestion that action on the Station's 2020 license renewal Application is dependent upon Woolverton's use of his personal assets to reimburse Smith for a CEB failure that occurred years before he became associated with the corporation.
Smith's second concern is that the Station might increase power if sold to another entity. This concern is speculative and not material to our review of the Application because license renewal decisions are based on past performance. In any event, we note that existing Commission procedures would address Smith's concerns. First, CEB agreed in the Consent Decree that its terms would be binding on any successors and assignees./50 Second, CEB would not be able to sell or upgrade the Station unilaterally; it would need Commission consent./51 In an application for consent to assign a license, the potential assignee must demonstrate its qualifications and any interested party, including Smith, would have an opportunity to object. Similarly, any NCE licensee desiring to increase power through a minor facility change would have to file an application making appropriate engineering showings./52 Again, there would be an opportunity for public input. If a power increase were approved, Commission Rules would require the licensee to address any interference caused by the upgraded facilities./53 We recognize that this requirement has not worked well for Smith in the past because the Stewarts had neither the expertise nor finances to comply with blanketing remediation requirements. That is, however, highly unusual. In our experience, licensees do satisfy the requirement to remediate any blanketing interference following a facility modification.
Ordering Clauses.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the application of Educational Broadcasting Network, Inc. to renew the license of station KOKS(FM), Poplar Bluff, Missouri license renewal application (File No. 0000122765) IS GRANTED with the following CONDITIONS:
Grant of this license is conditioned upon the licensee's continued compliance with the Consent Decree published at 35 FCC Rcd 10243- 63, including but not limited to the requirements to abide by a compliance plan and to file compliance reports in accordance with para. 30 thereof. This requirement shall remain in effect through September 15, 2025.
Grant of this license is conditioned upon licensee's amendment of its compliance plan within the next 60 days to establish procedures for meeting all Commission filing deadlines even if unexpected emergencies arise. Licensee shall file the revised section of the plan in the "FCC Investigations or Complaints" section of its online public inspection file within 14 days thereafter. Licensee shall report any non-compliance within 15 days of discovery, as provided by the Consent Decree. The annual compliance reports due under para. 30 of the Consent Decree shall also include a section identifying any missed filing deadlines.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the informal objection of Doris Smith IS DENIED.
Sincerely,
Albert Shuldiner
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau
* * *
Footnotes:
1 See Calvary Ed. Broad. Network, Inc., Order, 35 FCC Rcd 10236 (MB 2020) (Order) and attached Consent Decree, 35 FCC Rcd. 10240 (MB 2020) (Consent Decree).
2 See Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 10236-37, paras. 2-3; Consent Decree, 35 FCC Rcd at 10243, para. 3.
3 See Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 10237, para. 3; Consent Decree 35 FCC Rcd at 10244, para. 3.
4 47 CFR 73.318.
5 See Calvary Ed. Broad. Network, Inc., Initial Decision, 8 FCC Rcd 4789, 4803-07, paras. 101, 117 (ALJ 1993), aff'd., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 575, paras. 48-49 (Rev. Bd. 1994), opportunity for further response, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1834 (Rev. Bd.), aff'd in relevant part, 9 FCC Rcd 6412 (Rev. Bd.) (Order on Review).
6 Order on Review, 9 FCC Rcd at 6412, para. 12. The Review Board stated that any need for continuing cable service would be reviewed with subsequent renewal applications, along with CEB's overall compliance with the blanketing rule. Id.
7 Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 10237, para. 3; Consent Decree, 35 FCC Rcd at 10245, para. 6. During the pendency of the renewal applications the Station was permitted to operate pursuant to section 558(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act). See 47 U.S.C. 558(c).
8 Consent Decree, 35 FCC Rcd at 10246, paras. 8-9.
9 Id. at para. 9. The Station's primary transmitter was broken and unrepairable and it was operating with a back-up transmitter that was only partially functional. Id. at 10248, para. 14.
10 Id. at 10246, 10252, paras. 8, 26.
11 Id. at 10246, para. 8. Woolverton claimed to have donated approximately $53,500 between 2016 and 2018 to bring CEB's tax and electric bills current and stated that he had stopped foreclosure on the tower site by personally purchasing the Station's land. Id. at 10247, n.37.
12 Id. at 10246-49, paras. 10-15.
13 Id. at 10247-48, para. 13.
14 Id. at 10248 paras. 12, 14.
15 Id. at 10246, para. 8.
16 Id. at 10250, para. 23. CEB stipulated in the Consent Decree that, absent its coming into compliance with the terms thereof, its admitted violations would be serious matters and/or a pattern of abuse, failing the renewal standard of section 309(k) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(k). The Rules violated include: (a) section 73.318 by failing to comply with Commission directives to resolve blanketing interference complaints; (b) section 17.6 with respect to tower lighting and related recordkeeping and notification requirements intended to protect air safety; (c) section 73.1400 governing transmitter operation; (d) sections 73.1350, 73.1800, 73.1840, and 73.1870 by failure to keep station logs; (e) section 73.1560(b) by operation at substantially reduced power without authority, thereby limiting the public's ability to receive public service programming and EAS signals; (f) sections 73.3615 and 73.3527(e)(4) by failure to file at least five ownership reports over a 10-year period; (g) section 73.3527(b)(2)(ii) by failure to maintain a complete public inspection file at the Station prior to March 1, 2018 and online as of March 1, 2018, especially with respect to lists of donors and issue-responsive programming; (h) section 73.3540 through a de facto transfer of control from the Stewarts to Woolverton on or about December 11, 2017 without prior Commission consent; and (i) section 1.17 through carelessness or negligence but without any intent to deceive, by falsely certifying to having a complete public file and to be in accordance with the blanketing rules. Id. at 10251-52, para. 26.
17 Id. at 10251, para. 25.
18 Id., para. 24.
19 Id. at 10253, para. 29.
20 The Station would downgrade from a directional, Class C1 station with 100 kW Effective Radiated Power (ERP) to become an omnidirectional, Class C2 station with 30 kW ERP.
21 Consent Decree, 35 FCC Rcd at 10254-60, para. 30.
22 Id. at 10260, para. 30(q).
23 Id. at 10250, para. 18.
24 However, in partially granting Smith's objections to the prior license renewal applications, the Bureau stated that the grant of the objections was limited to the Bureau's requiring CEB to take actions under the Consent Decree and that it was otherwise denying the objections. Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 10239, para. 11. Thus, to the extent that Smith's prior objections were based on reimbursement, the Bureau implicitly denied those arguments.
25 Consent Decree, 35 FCC Rcd at 10254, para. 29(c).
26 Id.
27 Id. at 10253, para. 29(b). Smith filed her Objection to the Application on September 23, 2021.
28 Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 10238, para. 5.
29 47 U.S.C. 309(k).
30 See supra at 3, note 16.
31 See Application File No. 0000122629 (filed Sept. 28, 2020, granted Sept. 29, 2020).
32 E.g., Compliance Rep. 3 (Jun. 12, 2021).
33 Compliance Rep. 8 (Sept. 15, 2022).
34 See https://www.koksradio.org/public-notices.php (accessed Dec. 29, 2022). We note that the Station's web site also indicates that CEB voluntarily participated in the Missouri Association of Broadcasters' Alternative Broadcast Inspection Program during the probationary period, although not required to do so under the Consent Decree, and received a certificate of compliance from that organization, valid through November 2023.
35 Compliance Rep. 2 (Mar. 14, 2021).
36 See, e.g., Compliance Rep. 4 (Sept. 5, 2021) (light extinguished and replaced), Compliance Rep. 5 (Jan. 2, 2022) (non-blinking middle light repaired).
37 Id.
38 Prior to the Consent Decree, CEB's issues/programs lists reported a single 30-minute daily syndicated program, Focus on the Family, covering a variety of topics. Following the Consent Decree its issues/programs lists also include three new programs on issues related to local health, public safety, and federal benefits. Specifically, The Butler Country Highway Patrol Safety Program is a live local program aired once monthly at 10 a.m. for 45-60 minutes; The Butler County Health Department is a live local program broadcast once monthly for 30 minutes; and a Social Security Program is a national program airing weekly for 3 to 15 minutes. In addition, the Station states that it has added daily local public service announcements.
39 Compliance Rep. 3 (Jun. 12, 2021), Compliance Rep. 2 (Mar. 14, 2021), 47 CFR 73.1560, 1740(a)(4) (requiring notification of limited operations lasting for more than 10 days).
40 For example CEB might, on a secondary basis, delegate responsibility to others who it has made aware of the filing deadlines and has provided with access to any information needed to meet those requirements.
41 With respect to blanketing interference, Smith believes that "we most likely do have radio interference" but does not state that she has actually checked for such interference, identify any stations she cannot receive, or indicate that she has made an interference complaint to the Station under its new management. See Objection at 1. Rather, she states that her household no longer listens to the radio because prior interference from the Station limited her household's ability to receive listenable service for many years and her radio-listening children are now adults no longer at home. Id.
42 Id.
43 Id. at 2.
44 The Rules anticipate restoration of over-the-air service and, thus, contain no mention of reimbursement for service by other delivery methods. See 47 CFR 73.318. In 1994, the Review Board accepted a proposal by CEB's former management that in especially difficult situations where CEB could not arrive at an engineering solution, it could be considered in compliance if it reimbursed affected parties for cable or satellite service.
45 See Order on Review, 9 FCC Rcd at 6412, para. 12.
46 See Objection at 1-2.
47 47 CFR 75.503(a).
48 Consent Decree, 35 FCC Rcd at 10247, n.37.
49 See generally George E. Cameron, Jr. Communications, Decision, 91 FCC2d 870, 903 (Rev. Bd. 1982), recon. denied, 93 FCC2d, 789 (Rev. Bd. 1984), app. for review dismissed, 56 RR2d 825 (1985) (discussion in license renewal case the personal liability of licensee's principals for station debts because licensee was formed as a partnership rather than as a corporation).
50 Consent Decree, 35 FCC Rcd at 10262, para. 38.
51 47 CFR 73.7540. CEB has specifically recognized this obligation. See Consent Decree, 35 FCC Rcd at 10258, para. 30(j).
52 47 CFR 73.1690(b)(6)(1), 73.3538.
53 Id. 73.318.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-83A1.pdf
FCC Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Issues Public Notice: Comment Sought on Application of ClearCaptions for Full Certification as a Provider of Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau issued the following public notice (Docket No. 03-123):The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB or Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) seeks comment on the application of ClearCaptions, LLC (ClearCaptions) for full certification as a provider of Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS)./1
ClearCaptions has redacted portions of its application for which it requests confidential treatment. Access to the redacted material is governed by ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau issued the following public notice (Docket No. 03-123): The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB or Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) seeks comment on the application of ClearCaptions, LLC (ClearCaptions) for full certification as a provider of Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS)./1 ClearCaptions has redacted portions of its application for which it requests confidential treatment. Access to the redacted material is governed bythe Third Protective Order in this docket./2
Filing Requirements. Interested parties may file comments on ClearCaptions's application on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document./3 All filings must reference CG Docket No. 03-123. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS)./4
* Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings.
* Paper Filers:
- Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
- Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
- Currently, the Commission does not accept any hand delivered or messenger delivered filings as a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. In the event that the Commission announces the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions, a filing window will be opened at the Commission's office located at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, Maryland 20701./5
- Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
- U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail may be addressed to 45 L Street, NE, Washington, DC 20554.
- During the time the Commission's building is closed to the general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
Ex Parte Requirements. The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a "permit-but- disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./6 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must2 be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Accessible Materials. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
Additional Information. For further information, please contact Joshua Mendelsohn at (202) 599- 7304 or by e-mail at Joshua.Mendelsohn@fcc.gov, or Ike Ofobike at (202) 744-3916 or by e-mail at Ike.Ofobike@fcc.gov. Individuals who use videophones and are fluent in American Sign Language (ASL) may call the FCC's ASL Consumer Support Line at (844) 4322275.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ See Internet-Based TRS Certification Application of ClearCaptions LLC, CG Docket No. 03-123 (Apr. 18, 2016) https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/60001538984/1; see also Twelfth Amendment to Application of ClearCaptions, LLC for Certification to provide Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service, CG Docket No. 03-123 (Dec. 19, 2022) (incorporating all previous amendments by reference), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1219277910078/1, and Supplement to Twelfth Amendment to Application of ClearCaptions, LLC for Certification to provide Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service, CG Docket No. 03-123 (Jan. 20, 2023) (providing unredacted ownership information), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10120023215792/1. ClearCaptions, the transferee of an authorization originally granted to Purple, is operating pursuant to conditional certification. See Notice of Grant of Conditional Certification for Purple Communications, Inc., to Provide Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service, CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 13728 (CGB 2014); Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Purple Communications, Inc.: Application for Certification to Provide Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service, CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51, Order, 29 FCC Rcd 14889 (CGB 2014); Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 36 FCC Rcd 7246, 48, 54, paras. 5, 17 (2021) (granting conditional certification to provide fully automatic IP CTS through April 12, 2023).
2/ See Misuse of Internet Protocol (IP) Captioned Telephone Service; Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 13-24, 10-51, and 03-123, Order and Third Protective Order, 33 FCC Rcd 6802, 6803, para. 4 (CGB 2018).
3/ See 47 CFR 1.1, 1.45, 1.49.
4/ Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998).
5/ See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (OMD 2020).
6/ 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-86A1.pdf