March 31, 2006

**DA 06-758**

*In Reply Refer To:* 1800B3-RDH

Released: March 31, 2006

**[CERTIFIED MAIL -- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED]{.underline}**

Blue Chip Broadcasting Licenses Ltd.

1821 Summit Road

Suite 400

Cincinnati, Ohio 45237

Radio One of Dayton Licenses, LLC

5900 Princess Garden Parkway

Lanham, Maryland 20706-2925

Lee W. Shubert, Esq.

Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman

1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.

East Lobby, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20007-5201

In re: Blue Chip Broadcasting Licenses, Ltd.

**WDHT(FM), Springfield, Ohio**

**Facility ID No. 60252**

File No. BRH-20040521ADQ

Application for Renewal of License

NAL/Account No. MB200641410007

FRN: 0005004874

**WGTZ(FM), Eaton, Ohio**

**Facility ID No. 25043**

File No. BRH-20040521ADK

Application for Renewal of License

NAL/Account No. MB200641410008

FRN: 0005004874

**WING(AM), Dayton, Ohio**

**Facility ID No. 25039**

File No. BRH-20040521ADR

Application for Renewal of License

NAL/Account No. MB200641410009

FRN: 0005004874

Radio One of Dayton Licenses, LLC

**WRNB(FM), West Carrolton, Ohio**

**Facility ID No. 26451**

File No. BRH-20040521ACE

Application for Renewal of License

Dear Sirs:

This letter concerns the captioned applications filed by Blue Chip
Broadcasting Licenses, Ltd. ("Blue Chip") to renew the licenses of
Stations WGTZ(FM), Eaton, Ohio, WDHT(FM), Springfield, Ohio, WING(AM),
Dayton, Ohio, and by Radio One of Dayton Licenses, LLC ("Radio One
Dayton") to renew the license of Station WRNB(FM), West Carrolton, Ohio
(collectively, the "Stations").[^1] Also on file is an "Objection to
License Renewals" ("Objection") filed August 25, 2004, on behalf of
Robin M. Rothschild ("Petitioner") directed to the Applications and a
responsive pleading filed November 18, 2004, by Radio One. Petitioner
has subsequently withdrawn her Objection.[^2] However, in accordance
with longstanding practice, when a petition that raises serious
allegations is withdrawn, we consider these matters to ensure that the
public interest will be served by grant of those applications.[^3] For
the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the Objection, propose a
forfeiture of \$12,000 against Blue Chip and admonish Blue Chip and
Radio One, and grant the renewal applications.

On May 21, 2004, Radio One filed its captioned renewal applications.
Subsequently, Petitioner filed an Objection to these applications
alleging that Radio One had violated Section 73.3526 of the Commission's
Rules[^4] by failing to maintain complete public inspection files.
Moreover, Petitioner alleged that Licensee has made misrepresentations
to the Commission by answering Section III, Item 3 of the Stations'
renewal applications in the affirmative. This question requires an
applicant to certify whether the material required to be placed in its
station's public inspection file by that rule had been inserted "at the
appropriate times." Exhibit 11 of each referenced license renewal
application includes the following statements:

> "\[Licensee\] recently conducted an inspection of the station public
> file in conjunction with its license renewal application.
>
> \[Licensee\] has answered Section III, Question 3 of this renewal
> application in the affirmative upon the belief that the station's
> public file *currently* contains all documents for which \[Licensee\]
> is responsible as the licensee." (Emphasis added.)

Petitioner contends that Licensee tried to mislead the Commission by
simply claiming its public files were complete as of the time it filed
its renewal applications. Petitioner contends that this renewal question
plainly required the Licensee to disclose that its public files were
incomplete during the license term.[^5]

In it Opposition to the Objection, Licensee contends that Petitioner has
failed to demonstrate that she has standing to challenge these Stations'
license renewal applications.[^6] Additionally, Licensee contends that a
legal assistant in its corporate headquarters had more issues/programs
lists than Petitioner claimed were in the Stations' files. This, the
Licensee contends, supports its view that the public file was more
complete than the Petitioner alleges. While unable to confirm that its
Stations' public inspection files were complete at the time of
Petitioner's visits, Licensee argues that it has taken steps to train
the staff who are responsible for public file maintenance. Finally,
Licensee explains that its response to item Section III, Item 3 and
supporting exhibit evidence not misrepresentation but forthrightness and
honesty "in responding to a question that . . . solicits a virtually
impossible certification when read in its broadest sense."

*Public Inspection File.* Section 73.3526 of the Commission's Rules
requires broadcast licensees to maintain a public inspection file
containing specific types of information related to station operations.
This rule serves the critical function of providing the public with
timely information at regular intervals throughout the license
period.[^7] In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public
file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or
agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the Licensee,
excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation.[^8] In the instant case,
it is clear from the material supplied by Licensee that the public
inspection files at three of the Stations were incomplete during their
license terms. For example: 1) WDHT(FM)'s public inspection file lacked
any issues/programs lists for 1999, 2000 and three quarters in 2001; 2)
WGTZ(FM)'s public inspection file lacked any issues/programs lists for
1999, and for three quarters in 2000 and 2001; and 3) WING(AM)'s public
inspect file lacked issues/programs list for three quarters in 1999, and
for the entirety of 2000 and 2001.[^9] These three stations were
acquired by Radio One in April 1999.[^10] While Licensee states that
corrective action began in 2002, prior to the filing of renewal
applications for the Stations, such action does not excuse or nullify
the rule violations. It appears that a proposed forfeiture against Blue
Chip is warranted for its rule violations.

*Misrepresentation.* The trait of truthfulness is one of the key
elements of character necessary to establish the requisite basic
qualifications to hold an authorization to operate a broadcast
station.[^11] Acts of willful misrepresentation and lack of candor raise
immediate concerns as to whether a licensee will be truthful in future
dealings with the Commission.[^12] Misrepresentation involves false
statements of fact made with an intent to deceive whereas lack of candor
involves concealment, evasion, and other failures to be fully
forthcoming.[^13] Intent to deceive is a factual question that can be
greatly informed by a motive or logical desire to deceive.[^14]

Section III, Item 3 of the renewal application (FCC Form 303-S) states:

> **Local Public File.** Licensee certifies that the documentation,
> required by 47 C.F.R. Sections 73.3526 or 73.3527, as applicable, has
> been placed in the station's public inspection file at the appropriate
> times.

Licensee responded to this item in the affirmative in each captioned
renewal application and attached an "Exhibit 11," described above. A
"No" response is required to this question when the licensee knows or
has a reasonable belief that required material(s) had not been placed in
the public file at the appropriate time(s). Thus, although the
certification was false, we cannot conclude that licensee intentionally
attempted to deceive the Commission when its own Exhibit 11 alerted the
Commission to the possibility that its public files were incomplete at
some times during the license period. Nonetheless, the manner in which
Licensee responded to Section III, Item 3 seems designed to obfuscate
the true state of affairs with respect to its public inspection files
and to avoid the Commission scrutiny which a "No" response would have
elicited. We admonish the Licensee for its manner of responding to
Section III, Item 3 of each renewal form.

*Proposed Forfeiture.* Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's
Rules,[^15] each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails
to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's 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
Commission's Rules.[^16] A continuing violation is "repeated" if it
lasts more than one day.[^17]

The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture
amount of \$10,000 for violation of the public file rule.[^18] In this
case, the apparent violations took place at three of the Licensee's
stations, over a period of several years. On the other hand, the
Licensee has corrected the violations and implemented a program to
assure compliance with the public inspection file rule and did so prior
to the Commission being alerted to the shortcomings of the public files
at the stations in question. Additionally, the Licensee voluntarily
supplied the documentation that illustrated its noncompliance during a
portion of the Stations' license terms. Considering the record as a
whole, we believe that a proposed forfeiture of \$4,000 for each of
Stations WDHT(FM), WGTZ(FM), and WING(AM) is appropriate for the
violations, a total apparent liability of \$12,000.[^19] We will not
impose a forfeiture with respect to WRNB(FM) as it was not acquired by
Radio One Dayton until July 2003 and no issue has been raised regarding
the completeness of its public inspection file for that portion of the
license term during which Radio One Dayton was its licensee.

*License Renewal Application.* In evaluating an application for license
renewal, the Commission's decision is governed by Section 309(k) of the
Act. That section provides that if, upon consideration of the
application and pleadings, we find that (1) the station has served the
public interest, convenience, and necessity; (2) there have been no
serious violations of the Act or the Commission's Rules; and (3) there
have been no other violations which, taken together, constitute a
pattern of abuse, we are to grant the renewal application.[^20] 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."[^21]

As noted above, the public inspection file rule serves the critical
function of making available to the public important information
regarding programs that provided a station's most significant treatment
of community issues during the license term. On balance, however, we
find that neither the violation of Section 73.3526 by Stations WDHT(FM),
WGTZ(FM) and WING(AM) nor the qualified and non-responsive reply to
Section III, Item 3 of the Stations' respective renewal applications
constitute "serious violations" of the Commission's rules warranting
designation for evidentiary hearing. Moreover, we find no evidence of
violations that, when considered together, evidence a pattern of
abuse.[^22] Further, we find that Stations WDHT(FM), WGTZ(FM), WING(AM),
and WRNB(FM) each served the public interest, convenience, and necessity
during its respective license term. We will therefore grant their
license renewal applications below.[^23]

*Conclusion/Actions.* ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
Section 503(b), and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,
47 C.F.R. Sections 0.283 and 1.80,Blue Chip Broadcasting Licenses, Ltd.,
is hereby advised of its total apparent liability for forfeiture of
\$12,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3526 of the
Rules at Stations WDHT(FM), Springfield, Ohio, WGTZ(FM), Eaton, Ohio,
and WING(AM), Dayton, Ohio.

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

Payment of the proposed forfeiture may be made by credit card through
the Commission's Revenue and Receivables Operations Group at (202)
418-1995 or by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the
order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture
Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission,
P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. The Payment for each
station should Note the appropriate NAL/Acct. Number and the FCC
Registration Number ("FRN") referenced above.

The response, if any, must be mailed to Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20554, Attn: Peter H. Doyle, Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, and
MUST INCLUDE the NAL/Account numbers (Account Nos. MB200641410007,
MB200641410008, MB200641410009) and the FRN (0005004874) referenced
above.

The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in
response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:
(1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2)
financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting
practices ("GAAP"); or (3) some other reliable and objective
documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current
financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically
identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial
documentation submitted.

Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice of Apparent
Liability under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Revenue
and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
Washington, D.C. 20554.[^24]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the "Objection to License Renewals" filed,
and later withdrawn, by Robin M. Rothschild IS DISMISSED.

Additionally, IT IS ORDERED, that the applications (File Nos.
BRH-20040521ADK, BRH-20040521ADQ, and BRH-20040521ADR) of Blue Chip
Broadcasting Licenses, Ltd. for renewal of license for Stations
WGTZ(FM), Eaton, Ohio, WDHT(FM), Springfield, Ohio, and WING(AM),
Dayton, Ohio, respectively, and the application (File No.
BRH-20040521ACE) of Radio One of Dayton Licenses, LLC, for renewal of
license for Station WRNB(FM), West Carrolton, Ohio, ARE GRANTED.

Finally, we ADMONISH Blue Chip Broadcasting Licenses, Ltd. and Radio One
of Dayton Licenses, LLC for their false and non-responsive responses to
Section III, Item 3 on their license renewal applications for the
above-captioned stations.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY
shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt
requested, to: Blue Chip Broadcasting Licenses Ltd., 1821 Summit Road,
Suite 400, Cincinnati, Ohio 45237; Radio One of Dayton Licenses, LLC,
5900 Princess Garden Parkway, Lanham, Maryland 20706-2925 and their
counsel, Richard J. Bodorff, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, 1776 K
Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006. It shall also be sent by first class
mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Petitioner's
counsel, Lee W. Shubert, Esq., Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman, 1025 Thomas
Jefferson Street, N.W., East Lobby, Suite 700, Washington, DC
20007-5201.

Sincerely,

Donna C. Gregg

Chief, Media Bureau

cc:

Richard J. Bodorff, Esq.

Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP

1776 K Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

[^1]: Both Blue Chip and Radio One Dayton are subsidiaries of Radio One,
    Inc. Accordingly, hereinafter those licensees will be referred to
    collectively as "Licensee" or "Radio One."

[^2]: *See Declaration*, filed by Robin M. Rothschild, February 7, 2005.

[^3]: *See, e.g., Quincy D. Jones,* 11 FCC Rcd 2481, 2484 (1995)*;
    Stockholders of CBS Inc.,* 11 FCC Rcd 3733, 3741 (1995)*; BBC
    License Subsidiary L.P. (WLUK-TV),* 10 FCC Rcd 7926 (1995) (all
    citing *Booth American Company,* 58 FCC 2d 553, 554 (1976)).

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3526.

[^5]: Petitioner claims she made four visits to the Licensee's stations.
    Three of those were prior to the filing the stations' renewal
    applications and she contends that the files were incomplete or
    missing at these times. She also states that she visited the
    stations after the stations' renewal applications were filed and
    found the public inspection files "to essentially be reconstituted."

[^6]: Licensee is correct that Petitioner has not demonstrated standing.
    However, her pleading is styled as an "Objection" and not a
    "Petition to Deny" which would have required a showing that she is a
    party in interest. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1). Because Petitioner
    has styled her pleading as an "Objection" and because she has not
    made a showing that she has standing, we will treat her filing as an
    informal objection filed pursuant to Section 73.3587 of the
    Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. § 73.3587. *See, e.g., USA
    Broadcasting Inc.,* 19 FCC Rcd 4253 (2004); *Sagittarius
    Broadcasting Corp.,* 18 FCC Rcd 22551 (2003).

[^7]: *Cf. Letter to Kathleen N. Benfield from Linda B. Blair, Chief,
    Audio Services Division,* 13 FCC Rcd 4102 (1997) *citing* *License
    Renewal Applications of Certain Commercial Radio Stations,* 8 FCC
    Rcd 6400 (1993).

[^8]: *See Padre Serra Communications, Inc.,* 14 FCC Rcd 9709 (1999)
    (*citing Gaffney Broadcasting, Inc.,*23 FCC 2d 912, 913 (1970) and
    *Eleven Ten Broadcasting Corp.,* 33 FCC 706 (1962)); *Surrey Front
    Range Limited Partnership,* 71 RR 2d 882 (FOB 1992).

[^9]: *See, e.g.,* Exhibit D, Attachments 2 - 4 to Radio One's
    "Opposition to Objection."

[^10]: WRNB(FM) was not acquired by Radio One until May 2003.

[^11]: *Letter to John Garziglia, Esq., et al.,* 2005 WL 1630120
    (F.C.C.), *citing Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in
    Broadcast Licensing,* 102 FCC 2d 1178, 1209-1210 (1986).

[^12]: *Id.*

[^13]: *See Fox River Broadcasting, Inc.,* 93 FCC 2d 127, 129 (1983),
    *recon. dismissed,* FCC 831-43 (released April 20, 1983).

[^14]: *See Black Television Workshop of Los Angeles, Inc.,* 8 FCC Rcd
    4192, 4198 n. 41 (1993), *citing California Public Broadcasting
    Forum v. FCC,* 752 F.2d 670, 679 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

[^15]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a).

[^16]: *See KRP California Broadcasting Co.,* 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387-88
    (1991).

[^17]: *Id.,* 6 FCC Rcd at 4388.

[^18]: *See* *The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment
    of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture
    Guidelines,* 12 FCC Rd 17087, 17115 (1997) ("Forfeiture Policy
    Statement"), recon denied 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. §
    1.80(b).

[^19]: *See Jeffrey L. Timmons, Esq.*, 19 FCC Rcd 11218 (Media Bur.
    2004); *Harry C. Martin, Esq.*, 19 FCC Rcd 11234 (Media Bur. 2004).

[^20]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(k)(1). 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). *See Order*,
    Implementation of Sections 204(a) and 204(c) of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Broadcast License Renewal
    Procedures), 11 FCC Rcd 6363 (1996).

[^21]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(k)(2), 309(k)(3).

[^22]: For example, we do not find here that the Licensee's station
    operation "was conducted in an exceedingly careless, inept and
    negligent manner and that the licensee is either incapable of
    correcting or unwilling to correct the operating deficiencies." *See
    Heart of the Black Hills Stations,* 32 FCC 2d 196, 198 (1971). Nor
    do we find on the record here that "the number, nature and extent"
    of the violations indicate that "the licensee cannot be relied upon
    to operate \[the stations\] in the future in accordance with the
    requirements of its licenses and the Commission's Rules." *Heart of
    the Black Hills Stations,* 32 FCC 2d at 200. *See also Center for
    Study and Application of Black Economic Development,* 6 FCC Rcd
    4622(1991); *Calvary Educational Broadcasting Network, Inc.,* 7 FCC
    Rcd 4037 (1992).

[^23]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(k).

[^24]: See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.