**DA 08-495**

*In Reply Refer to:*

1800B3-MFW

Released: March 4, 2008

Mr. Edward R. Stolz II, Executor of

the Estate of Irene M. Stolz

73-733 Fred Waring Drive\
Suite 201

Palm Desert, CA 92261

Brian M. Madden, Esq.

Leventhal, Senter & Lerman, PLLC

Suite 600

2000 K Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 200006-1809

In re: **Entercom Portland License, LLC**

KFXX(AM), Portland, Oregon

Facility ID No. 57830

File No. BR-20051003BFL

KKSN(AM), Salem, Oregon

Facility ID No. 72475

File No. BR-20051003BSJ

> KTRO(AM), Vancouver, Washington

Facility ID No. 35033

File No. Br-20051003BFU

KWJJ-FM, Portland, Oregon

Facility ID No. 13738

File No. BRH-20051003BFO

KYCH-FM, Portland, Oregon

Facility ID No. 35034

File No. BRH-20051003BEY

> **Entercom Seattle License, LLC**

KBSG-FM, Tacoma, Washington

Facility ID No. 33682

File No. BRH-20051003CCX

KKWF(FM), Seattle, Washington

Facility ID No. 6367

File No. BRH-20051003CAJ

KTTH(AM), Seattle, Washington

Facility ID No. 27023

File No. BRH-20051003CCW

> KISW(FM), Seattle, Washington Facility ID No. 47750

File No. BRH-20051003CAA

> KIRO(AM), Seattle, Washington Facility ID No. 6362

File No. BR-20051003CCU

> KMTT(FM), Tacoma, Washington Facility ID No. 18513

File No. BR-20051013CBK

> KNDD(FM), Seattle, Washington
>
> Facility ID No. 34530

File No. BRH-20051003BZT

> **Entercom Boston License, LLC**
>
> WVEI(AM), Worcester, Massachusetts
>
> Facility ID No. 74466

File No. BRH-20051201CFB

> WEEI-FM, Providence, Rhode Island
>
> Facility ID No. 71720

File No. BRH-20051201CGE

> **Entercom Buffalo License, LLC**
>
> WGR(AM), Buffalo, New York
>
> Facility ID No. 56101

File No. BR-20060201BAJ

> WKSE(FM), Niagara Falls, New York
>
> Facility ID No. 34384

File No. BRH-20060201BAC

> WLKK(FM), Wethersfield Township,
>
> New York
>
> Facility ID No. 9250
>
> File No. BRH-20060201BAY

WTSS(FM), Buffalo, New York

> Facility ID No. 34382

File No. BRH-20060201AZC

> WWWS(AM), Buffalo, New York
>
> Facility ID No. 56014

File No. BR-20060201BAR

> **Entercom Rochester License, LLC**
>
> WBEE-FM, Rochester, New York
>
> Facility ID No. 71206

File No. BRH-20060201ANC

> WBZA(FM), Rochester, New York
>
> Facility ID No. 71204

File No. BRH-20060201ANJ

> WFKL(FM), Fairport, New York
>
> Facility ID No. 37824

File No. BRH-20060201AOG

> WROC(AM), Rochester, New York

Facility ID No. 71205

File No. BR-20060201AMI

> **Entercom Wilkes-Barre/Scranton**
>
> **License, LLC**
>
> WBZU(AM), Scranton, Pennsylvania

Facility ID No. 36200

File No. BR-20060403BTY

> WDMT(FM), Pittston, Pennsylvania Facility ID No. 22925

File No. BRH-20060403BTG

> WILK-FM(FM), Avoca, Pennsylvania

Facility ID No. 22666

File No. BRH-20060403BSV

> WGGI(FM), Benton, Pennsylvania Facility ID No. 19543

File No. BRH-20060403BRL

WGGY(FM), Scranton, Pennsylvania Facility ID No. 36202

File No. BRH-20060403BRJ

> WILK(AM), Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania Facility ID No. 34380

File No. BR-20060403BQT

> WKZN(AM), West Hazleton, Pennsylvania Facility ID No. 22667

File No. BR-20060403BPQ

**Applications for Renewal of License**

**Informal Objections**

Dear Counsel:

We have before us the applications of the following subsidiaries of
Entercom Communications Corporation ("Entercom"): (1) Entercom Portland
License, LLC ("Entercom Portland"), for renewal of license for Stations
KFXX(AM), Portland, Oregon, KKSN(AM), Salem, Oregon, KTRO(AM),
Vancouver, Washington, KWJJ-FM, Portland, Oregon, and KYCH-FM, Portland,
Oregon (the "Portland Applications"); (2) Entercom Seattle License, LLC
("Entercom Seattle"), for renewal of license for Stations KSBG-FM,
Tacoma, Washington, KKWF(FM), Seattle, Washington, KTTH(AM), Seattle,
Washington, KISW(FM), Seattle, Washington, KIRO(AM), Seattle,
Washington, KMTT(FM), Tacoma, Washington, and KNDD(FM), Seattle,
Washington (the "Seattle Applications"); (3) Entercom Boston License,
LLC ("Entercom Boston"), for renewal of license for Station WVEI(AM),
Worcester, Massachusetts (the "Boston Applications"); (4) Entercom
Providence License, LLC, for renewal of license for Station WEEI-FM,
Providence, Rhode Island (the "Providence Application"); (5) Entercom
Buffalo License, LLC ("Entercom Buffalo"), for renewal of license for
Stations WGR(AM), Buffalo, New York, WKSE(FM), Niagara Falls, New York,
WLKK(FM) Wethersfield Township, New York, WTSS(FM), Buffalo, New York,
WWKB(AM), Buffalo, New York, and WWWS(AM), Buffalo, New York (the
"Buffalo Applications"); (6) Entercom Rochester License, LLC ("Entercom
Rochester"), for renewal of license for Stations WBEE-FM, Rochester, New
York, WBZA(FM), Rochester, New York, WFKL(FM), Fairport, New York, and
WROC(AM), Rochester, New York (the "Rochester Applications") and (7)
Entercom Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, LLC ("Entercom Scranton"), for renewal
of license for stations WBZU(AM), Scranton, Pennsylvania, WDMT(FM),
Pittston, Pennsylvania, WFEZ(FM), Avoca, Pennsylvania, WGGI(FM), Benton,
Pennsylvania, WGGY(FM), Scranton, Pennsylvania, WILK(AM), Wilkes-Barre,
Pennsylvania, and WKZN(AM), West Hazleton, Pennsylvania (the "Scranton
Applications"). We also have before us (1) identical Informal Objections
to each group of applications filed by Edward R. Stolz, as Executor for
the Estate of Irene M. Stolz ("Stolz"),[^1] together with related
responsive pleadings,[^2] and (2) Informal Objections to the license
renewal application of Station KYCH-FM, Portland, Oregon, filed on
January 9, 2006, by the Oregon Alliance to Reform Media and Local 99 of
the American Federation of Musicians (collectively, the "KYCH-FM
Objections" and the "KYCH-FM Objectors").[^3] For the reasons set for
below, we deny the Stolz Objection, grant the KYCH-FM Objections in
part, admonish Entercom Portland for violation of the Commission's rule
regarding maintenance of a broadcast station's public inspection
file[^4] at Station KYCH-FM, and grant each of the referenced
applications.

**Background**. In the Objections, Stolz incorporates by reference the
Petition to Deny against the Sacramento Applications.[^5] Stolz argues
that the Applications should not be granted because Entercom has shown a
"wanton disregard for the FCC's rules" as evidenced by: (a) Entercom's
violation of the multiple ownership rules in the Sacramento market by
its "unlawful" acquisition of Station KWOD(FM), Sacramento;[^6] (b) a
"veritable cornucopia of Notices of Apparent Liability and Letters of
Inquiry pertaining to FCC rule violations" issued to Entercom regarding
its stations in Sacramento, Kansas City, and Seattle;[^7] and (c)
Entercom's role as a target of "payola" investigations by the New York
State Attorney General and the Commission.[^8] Stolz asks that, at a
minimum, consideration of the Applications should be deferred until the
completion of the payola proceedings, and argues that the "aggregage" of

violations by Entercom and its subsidiaries "creates a discernable
pattern of abuse under the Act and the Commission's Rules requiring
designation in accordance with Section 309(k) of the Act.[^9]

In response to Stolz's allegations, Entercom states that Section
309(k)(1) of the Act[^10] limits the matters considered during a license
renewal proceeding to the licensee's actions with respect to the
specific station being evaluated for license renewal. Thus, Commission
actions taken against other Entercom stations have no bearing on the
particular Entercom license renewal applications under
consideration.[^11] It also states that the *Seattle* *Forfeiture
Order*, the *Kansas City NAL* and the *Wichita NAL* are each a non-final
order, and, accordingly, the Commission is prohibited under Section
504(c) of the Act from relying on these decisions to the prejudice of
Entercom. Entercom also states that Stolz's payola allegations are moot
as a result of a Consent Decree between the Commission and
Entercom.[^12] Finally, Entercom claims that Stolz has received the
relief requested, that action on the captioned applications be deferred
until resolution of the payola investigations.[^13]

**Discussion.** Pursuant to Section 309(d) and (e) of the Act, petitions
to deny and informal objections must, among other things, provide
properly supported allegations of fact that, if true, would establish a
substantial and material question of fact that grant of the application
would be *prima facie* inconsistent with Section 309(k) of the Act,
which governs our evaluation of an application for license renewal.[^14]

*The Stolz Objection.* [Section 309(k)(1) Renewal
Standard]{.underline}*.* Section 309(k)(1) provides that we are to grant
the renewal application for a broadcast station if, upon consideration
of the application and pleadings, we find that *with respect to that
station*, during the preceding term of its license: (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.[^15] 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."[^16]

The plain language and structure of this section clearly establish that
the scope of the "violations" listed in Section 309(k)(1) is limited to
the station for which license renewal is being considered. Congress has
expressly limited the scope of the license renewal inquiry to matters
occurring at the particular station for which license renewal is
sought.[^17] To the extent that Stolz claims we should consider the
activities of Entercom at stations other than those captioned here, his
Objections will be denied.

[KNDD(FM) Indecency Violation]{.underline}. Stoltz references a 2002
*NAL* issued to Entercom Seattle for the broadcast of indecent
programming on a station in this proceeding, KNDD(FM), Seattle. This NAL
was subsequently upheld by the Commission[^18] and properly is
considered in the context of the KNDD(FM) license renewal application.

In January of 2002, the Commission's Enforcement Bureau issued a
\$14,000 NAL to Entercom Seattle for the broadcast of indecent material
on two separate occasions.[^19] Entercom submitted a response to the
NAL, and the Bureau, while rejecting Entercom Seattle's assertion that
the broadcast of the indecent material was a "minor" violation,
nevertheless reduced the forfeiture amount to \$12,000 "in light of
Entercom's record of compliance."[^20] The Commission affirmed this
determination.[^21] Neither the Bureau nor the Commission found that the
broadcast of the indecent programming called into question Entercom's
qualifications, and both concluded that a monetary forfeiture alone was
the appropriate sanction; moreover, as observed above, the Enforcement
Bureau reduced the forfeiture amount based on Entercom's record of
compliance. Stolz has not proffered evidence of other adjudicated
violations at KNDD(FM) that are appropriately considered in connection
with that station's license renewal application.[^22]

Given the Commission's prior findings in the *Seattle Forfeiture Order*
and the record herein, we find that, with respect to Station KNDD(FM),
there have been no serious violations and no evidence of violations
that, when considered together, evidence a pattern of abuse.

[Payola Investigation]{.underline}*.* Stolz also argues that Entercom is
under investigation by the New York State Attorney General and the
Commission for alleged "play-for-pay" conduct.[^23] Stolz's allegations
regarding Entercom's participation in payola are barred from
consideration by the terms of a consent decree (the "Consent Decree")
entered into by the Commission and Entercom.[^24] By the terms of the
Consent Decree, Entercom agreed to undertake certain compliance measures
and to pay the United States Treasury the sum of \$4,000,000 in
consideration for the Commission terminating all investigations, and
dismissing, with prejudice, pending payola complaints against Entercom
subsidiaries. In addition, the Commission agreed to refrain from taking
any action against Entercom or any future application \-- including
renewal applications \-- to which Entercom is a party, based in whole or
in part on "alleging violation by any \[Entercom\] Station of the
Sponsorship Identification Laws with respect to any broadcast occurring
prior to the Effective Date."[^25] The Effective Date of the Consent
Decree is April 13, 2007, the date of its public release.[^26] Stolz's
Objection was filed before the Effective Date of the Consent Decree.
Accordingly, Stolz's payola allegations are barred from consideration in
connection with the Applications. Furthermore, as noted by Entercom,
Stolz received the relief requested. Consideration of the captioned
applications was, in fact, deferred until after resolution of the payola
investigation.

[Conclusion with Respect to Stolz Objections]{.underline}**.** For the
foregoing reasons, we find that Stolz has failed to raise a substantial
and material question of fact calling for further inquiry regarding the
propriety of granting the license renewal applications of the captioned
stations. We therefore deny Stolz's Objections.

*The KYCH-FM Objections*. Objectors state that they monitored KYCH-FM
for a period of several months, from August through December of 2005.
Based on "hundreds of hours of informal listening"[^27] to the Station
during this period, Objectors contend that the Station "is falling far
short of 'localism' expectations as required by the FCC"[^28] and
request that the Commission deny the KYCH(FM) renewal application.

Specifically, Objectors first take exception to the lack of locally
produced music that is aired on the Station. The Objectors also oppose
the Station's broadcasting of public affairs programming on Sunday
mornings, rather than during peak, drive-time hours. Objectors further
state that, due to the lack of any live on-air talent, they "have
concerns" about KYCH-FM's capabilities under the Commission's Emergency
Alert System ("EAS") in the event of a disaster. Objectors also assert
that "several monitors" noticed that KYCH-FM did not identify itself by
its legal call letters every hour, as required by the Rules,[^29]
although "there was no shortage of 'Charlie FM' spots, which most
listeners found to be intrusive and annoying."[^30] Finally, Objectors
assert that the KYCH-FM public inspection file did not include an
issues-programs list for the third quarter of 2005, and that a letter of
complaint sent by a volunteer from one of the Objectors' organizations
was not in the Station's public file.

The First Amendment rights of broadcasters and the noncensorship
provisions of the Act[^31] provide licensees broad discretion in the
selection and scheduling of programming best suited to address issues
facing their communities. The Commission will not take adverse action on
a license renewal application based upon the subjective determination of
a listener or group of listeners as to what constitutes appropriate
programming.[^32] Further, the Commission will not interfere with the
exercise of a licensee's programming judgment where there is no showing
that the licensee consistently and unreasonably ignored matters of
public concern.[^33] The Objectors have made no such showing. Further,
we note that, while the Objectors might prefer that the Station employ
more local on-air talent and broadcast more locally produced music, the
Station's operations complied with the law and our Rules and
policies.[^34] Likewise, the Station's decision to broadcast public
affairs programming on Sunday mornings does not violate any Rule or
policy.

With respect to the Objectors' "concerns" about KYCH-FM's EAS
capabilities, Entercom Portland states in its Consolidated Opposition
that the Objectors do not point to any violation of the Commission's EAS
Rules[^35] or any instance when the station's EAS operation failed to
function. Additionally, Entercom Portland states that it has confirmed
that KYCH-FM's EAS systems are fully functioning and are ready in the
event they are triggered by the appropriate state and federal officials.
Finally, it states that it has developed a detailed emergency plan[^36]
for all of its Portland stations, including KYCH-FM, that includes
intended responses tailored to the severity and type of the emergency
and contemplates a combined effort should a particular emergency call
for continuous news on all of the Portland Entercom stations.[^37] In
light of Entercom Portland's response, we do not believe that the
Objectors' vague "concerns" about KYCH-FM's EAS capabilities warrant
further inquiry.

With respect to Objectors' claim that the KYCH-FM public inspection file
did not include an issues-programs list from the third quarter of 2005,
Entercom Portland states that it "employs a procedure to place its
quarterly Issues and Programs list in the public files for all the
Portland stations in a timely manner" and has no reason to believe that
the third quarter 2005 Issues and Programs list was not timely placed in
the KYCH-FM public file as required by the Commission's Rules.[^38] Upon
receipt of the informal objection, Entercom Portland checked the public
inspection files for each of its stations, discovering that all of the
station files *except KYCH-FM* contained the third-quarter 2005
issues-programs list. The Licensee indicates that the third quarter 2005
issues-programs list could only have been missing "if an Entercom
Portland employee or a member of the public reviewing the file removed
the list and failed to return it to the proper place in the file."[^39]
Entercom Portland states that the third-quarter 2005 issues-programs
list for KYCH-FM was reprinted from backup electronic files and was
promptly replaced in the station's public file.

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. This requirement serves to
provide the public with timely, pertinent, information throughout the
license period.[^40] 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*.*[^41]

Section 503(b) of the Communications Act (the "Act")[^42] and Section
1.80(a) of the Rules,[^43] each state that any person who willfully or
repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules
shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b)
of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew it was
taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the
Rules.[^44] A continuing violation is "repeated" if it lasts more than
one day.[^45]

The Commission's *Forfeiture Policy Statement* sets a base forfeiture
amount of \$10,000 for violation of the public file rule.[^46] In this
case, Entercom Portland claims that it prepared and properly filed the
KYCH-FM issues-programs list for the third quarter of 2005, but it
acknowledges that, when examining the Station's public file upon receipt
of the Objections, that list was in fact missing from the KYCH-FM file.
On the other hand, the violation involves only one issues-programs list.
Considering the record as a whole, we believe that an admonishment,
rather than a forfeiture, is appropriate for the violation in this
case.[^47]

Finally, with regard to alleged failure to air proper station
identification announcements and the missing letter of complaint, the
KYCH-FM Objections is silent as to when, specifically, these defective
announcements were made[^48] and when the complaint letter supposedly
was sent. Accordingly, we are unable to ascertain if, for example, such
correspondence was submitted within the three year period for which the
public file rule requires its retention.[^49] Based on this record, we
cannot conclude that a station identification rule or an additional
public file rule violation has occurred at Station KYCH-FM.[^50]

[Conclusion with Respect to KYCH-FM Objections]{.underline}. For the
foregoing reasons, we find that the KYCH-FM Objectors have failed to
raise a substantial and material question of fact calling for further
inquiry regarding the propriety of granting the license renewal
applications of KYCH-FM. Therefore, we will grant the KYCH-FM Objections
to the extent of admonishing Entercom Portland for its apparent
violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules at Station KYCH-FM, and we
will deny the KYCH-FM Objections in all other respects.

**Conclusion/Actions**. We have evaluated the referenced Applications
pursuant to Section 309(k) of the Act,[^51] and we find that each of the
Stations has served the public interest, convenience, and necessity
during the subject license term. Moreover, we find, with respect to each
station, that there have been no serious violations of the Act or the
Rules, nor have there been violations by the Licensee of the Act or the
Rules which, taken together, would constitute a pattern of abuse.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, that the Informal Objections filed by Edward
R. Stolz, II, as Executor for the Estate of Irene M. Stolz, IS DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Informal Objections filed by the Oregon
Alliance to Reform Media and Local 99 of the American Federation of
Musicians ARE GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN and ARE DENIED IN
ALL OTHER RESPECTS.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Entercom Portland License, LLC IS ADMONISHED
for its apparent violation of Section 73.3526 of the Commission's Rules
at Station KYCH-FM, Portland, Oregon.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 309(k) of the Act,[^52] that
each of the referenced applications ARE GRANTED.

Sincerely,

Peter H. Doyle

Chief, Audio Division

Media Bureau

[^1]: Irene M. Stolz was the original objector to the Portland and
    Seattle Applications. On March 26, 2006, Ms. Stolz died. Edward R.
    Stolz, II, was substituted as the petitioner in his capacity as the
    executor of Ms. Stolz's estate. The Objections also were directed to
    the pending license renewal applications of the following Entercom
    subsidiaries: Entercom Portland: KGON(FM), Portland, Oregon,
    KNRK(FM), Camas, Washington, and KRSK(FM), Molalla, Oregon; Entercom
    Boston: WEEI(AM)and WRKO(FM), Boston, Massachusetts, WAAF(FM),
    Westborough, Massachusettts, and WMKK(FM), Lawrence, Massachusetts;
    Entercom Buffalo: WWKB(AM) and WBEN(AM), Buffalo, New York; and
    Entercom Scranton: WKRF(FM), Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, and WKRZ(FM),
    Freeland, Pennsylvania. Those applications are not before the
    Commission in this *Order*. Additionally, on November 1, 2005, Stolz
    filed a Petition to Deny the license renewal applications of
    Entercom subsidiary Entercom Sacramento License, LLC for Stations
    KCTC(AM), KDND(FM), KRXQ(FM), KSEG(FM), and KWOD(FM), all licensed
    to Sacramento, California, and KSSJ(FM), Fair Oaks, California (the
    "Sacramento Applications").

[^2]: With respect to the applications filed by these various Entercom
    subsidiaries: Portland Stations: Stolz filed an Informal Objection
    on January 23, 2006; Seattle Stations: Stolz filed an Informal
    Objection on January 23, 2006; Boston Station: Stolz filed an
    Informal Objection on February 28, 2006; Providence Station: Stolz
    filed an Informal Objection on February 28, 2006; Buffalo Stations:
    Stolz filed an Informal Objection on May 1, 2006, and an Erratum to
    the Objection on July 20, 2006; Rochester Stations: Stolz filed an
    Informal Objection on May 1, 2006, and an Erratum to the Objection
    on July 20, 2006; Scranton Stations: Stolz filed an Informal
    Objection on June 30, 2006, and an Erratum to the Objection on July
    20, 2006. Entercom filed a Consolidated Opposition to all of these
    Objections on September 28, 2007.

[^3]: Entercom Portland filed a Consolidated Opposition to the KYCH-FM
    Objections on February 26, 2008.

[^4]: 47 C.F.R § 73.3526.

[^5]: Although the Sacramento Applications are not before us here, we
    will consider the allegations contained in the Petition to the
    extent they are relevant to Stolz' claims in this proceeding.

[^6]: Sacramento Petition to Deny at 5-6; Portland/Seattle Informal
    Objection at 3.

[^7]: Sacramento Petition to Deny at 9-12, Informal Objections at 3.
    Stolz cites *Entercom Sacramento License, LLC*, Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 20129 (2004), in which a
    \$55,000 Notice of Apparent Liability was issued to station
    KXRQ(FM), Sacramento, for broadcasting indecent programming. Stolz
    also references *Entercom Kansas City License, LLC,* Notice of
    Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 25011 (2004) ("*Kansas
    City* *NAL*"), in which the Commission issued a Notice of Apparent
    Liability for indecent programming aired on stations KQRC-FM,
    Leavenworth, Kansas, and KFH(AM), Wichita, Kansas ("*Wichita*
    *NAL*"), and *Entercom Seattle License, LLC,* Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 1672 (EB 2002), Forfeiture
    Order, 17 FCC Rcd 18347 (EB 2002) ("*Seattle* *Forfeiture Order*"),
    *aff'd*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 9069 (2004), in
    which the Commission issued a \$12,000 forfeiture to Station
    KNDD(FM), Seattle, Washington for indecent programming. Stolz argues
    that Entercom has demonstrated a pattern of indecency violations
    that evidence a "scandalous and callous disregard for the public
    interest." Petition at 13. Given the "cumulative impact" of these
    violations, and the fact that Entercom has not learned from the
    first, second, or third time it was fined for indecent programming,
    Stolz argues that Entercom's stations do not serve the public
    interest. *Id.* at 13-14.

[^8]: Sacramento Petition to Deny at 12-13, Informal Objections at 4.

[^9]: Informal Objections at 4, citing 47 U.S.C. § 309(k).

[^10]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(k)(1).

[^11]: *See* Consolidated Opposition at 4-5. Entercom also states that,
    in any event, the four indecency cases have been fully investigated
    by the Commission and the broadcasts were not found to raise an
    issue as to Entercom's qualifications to remain a licensee; rather,
    the Commission determined that a monetary forfeiture was the
    appropriate sanction in each case. *Id.* at 6. Entercom notes that,
    well after the release of the *NALs* and the *Forfeiture Order*
    cited by Stolz, the Commission has granted applications for renewal
    of license for other Entercom stations, including those in Kansas
    City and Wichita (*see, e.g.,* KMBZ(AM), Kansas City, Missouri, File
    No. BR-20041001AMI, granted on January 21, 2005), applications for
    assignment of Stations WVEI-FM, Boston, and WKAF(FM), Brockton,
    Massachusetts, to Entercom (File No. BALH-20060823ACP, granted on
    December 27, 2006. *See Letter to Radio One Licenses, LLC and
    Entercom Boston License, LLC,* 21 FCC Rcd 14988 (MB 2006)). The
    grants of the renewal and assignment applications, states Entercom,
    are dispositive of the claims regarding Entercom's basic
    qualifications to remain a Commission licensee.

[^12]: Entercom Consolidated Opposition at 6.

[^13]: *Id.*

[^14]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(e). *See, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc.,* Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 193, 197 n. 10 (1990), *aff'd sub nom.
    Garden State Broadcasting L.P. v. FCC*, 996 F.2d 386 (D.C. Cir.
    1993), *rehearing denied* (Sep. 10, 1993); *Area Christian
    Television, Inc.,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 RR 2d 862, 864
    (1986) ("*Area Christian*") (informal objection must contain
    adequate and specific factual allegations sufficient to warrant the
    relief requested).

[^15]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(k)(1) (emphasis added). The renewal standard was
    amended to read as described by Section 204(a) of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56
    (1996). S*ee Implementation of Sections204(a) and 204(c) of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Broadcast License Renewal
    Procedures)*, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 6363 (1996).

[^16]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(k)(2), 309(k)(3).

[^17]: *Sagittarius Broadcasting Corp*., Memorandum Order & Opinion, 18
    FCC Rcd 22551, 22555 (2003).

[^18]: *See* Note 4, *supra*.

[^19]: *Entercom Seattle License, LLC,* Notice of Apparent Liability, 17
    FCC Rcd at 1676. The Commission's *Forfeiture Policy Statement* at
    that time set a base forfeiture amount of \$7,000 for transmission
    of indecent or obscene materials. *Id.,* citing *The Commission\'s
    Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the
    Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines*, 12 FCC Rcd 17087,
    17113 (1997), *recon. denied* 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (*Forfeiture
    Policy Statement);* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b).

[^20]: *Seattle Forfeiture Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 18351.

[^21]: *Entercom Seattle License, LLC,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19
    FCC Rcd at 9075.

[^22]: We reiterate that, under Section 309(k) of the Act, it is
    inappropriate to consider in the context of the KNDD(FM) renewal
    application Entercom's actions at any of its other stations
    *unless,* in connection with that renewal application, we were
    issuing a notice of apparent liability. In that case, Entercom's
    "history of prior offenses" may be considered in determining the
    amount of the forfeiture penalty. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b(4).

    On December 17, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau entered into a Tolling
    Agreement (the "Tolling Agreement") with Entercom Seattle. In the
    Tolling Agreement, the Bureau and Entercom agreed to toll the
    statute of limitations period specified in Section 503(b)(6) of the
    Act with respect to complaints and potential violations of the Act,
    the Rules, 18 U.S.C. § 1864, a Commission Order, and/or the terms of
    the Stations' Licenses at Entercom Seattle Stations KISW(FM),
    KIRO(AM), KMTT(FM), KNDD(FM), and KTTH(AM). *See* Tolling Agreement
    at ¶ 8. The Tolling Agreement specifically indicates that "the
    Licensee does not admit to any Potential Violation." *Id.* at ¶ 11.
    Those matters remain before the Enforcement Bureau. Accordingly, we
    decline to consider any of these unspecified "potential violations"
    in connection with this proceeding.

[^23]: Payola is a violation of the sponsorship identification
    requirements, codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 317 and 508, and 47 C.F.R. §
    73.1212. These laws requires that employees of broadcast stations,
    program producers, program suppliers and others who have accepted or
    agreed to receive payments, services, or other valuable
    consideration for airing material must disclose this fact.
    Disclosure provides broadcasters the information they need to let
    their audiences know if material was paid for, and by whom.

[^24]: *Entercom Communications Corp*., Order, 22 FCC Rcd 7910 (2007).

[^25]: Consent Decree, ¶ 8.

[^26]: Consent Decree, ¶ 2(i).

[^27]: Oregon Alliance to Reform Media Informal Objection at first
    unnumbered page.

[^28]: *Id.*

[^29]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.1201.

[^30]: KYCH Objections at 2.

[^31]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 326.

[^32]: *See WGBH Educational Foundation,* Memorandum Opinion and Order,
    69 FCC 2d 1250, 1251 (1978) (Commission will not deny renewal
    application based on the opinion of a viewer, or group of viewers,
    as to what constitutes "good" programming).

[^33]: *See, e.g., Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 51 FCC 2d 273, 277 (1975) (programming challenge
    must make specific allegations of fact showing that licensee's
    overall programming could not reasonably have met the problems,
    needs, and interests of people within the station's service area).

[^34]: *See Broadcast Localism,* Notice of Inquiry, 19 FCC Rcd 12425,
    12440 (2004) (Commission has not attempted to define the programming
    that a broadcaster should air to serve the needs and interests of
    its local community.)

[^35]: 47 C.F.R. § 11.1 *et seq.*

[^36]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 11.21, "State and Local Area Plans and FCC
    Mapbook."

[^37]: Consolidated Opposition at 6.

[^38]: *Id*. Entercom Portland describes this procedure as follows: (1)
    The News Director for the Portland Market prepares the
    issues-programs list for each of the Entercom Portland stations,
    forwarding the information to corporate headquarters for review and
    back-up storage; (2) on the tenth day of the month following the
    close of the reporting period, the News Director places the
    quarterly issues-programs list into the public inspection file of
    each Entercom Portland Station. *Id.*

[^39]: *Id.* at 7.

[^40]: *Cf*. *Letter to Kathleen N. Benfield from Linda B. Blair, Chief,
    Audio Services Division* (April 3, 1997), 13 FCC Rcd 4102 (1997),
    *citing License Renewal Applications of Certain Commercial Radio
    Stations,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 6400 (1993).

[^41]: *See Padre Serra Communications, Inc.*, Letter, 14 FCC Rcd 9709
    (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 1992).

[^42]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^43]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a).

[^44]: *See Southern California Broadcasting Co.*, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387-4388 (1991).

[^45]: *Id.*, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388.

[^46]: *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.

[^47]: *See* note to 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4). *See also Tabback
    Broadcasting Company,* Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 10384 (2000);
    *Sarkes Tarzian, Inc.,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 65 FCC 2d 127
    (1977).

[^48]: In its Consolidated Opposition, Entercom Portland indicates that
    it has programmed its station identification announcements into an
    automated system specifically designed to comply with the
    Commission's station identification rules. It indicates that it is
    unaware of any system failures.

[^49]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3526(e)(9)(i).

[^50]: *See Area Christian, supra* n. 13

[^51]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(k).

[^52]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(k).