**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In re Application of             | *  | Facility I.D. No. 6056       |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| **Detroit Public Schools**       | ** | NAL/Acct. No. MB200641410116 |
|                                  |    |                              |
| For Renewal of License for       | *  | FRN: 0009038092              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Station WRCJ-FM                  | ** | File No. BRED-20040512AEL    |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Detroit, Michigan                | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**AND**

**NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE**

**Adopted: November 24, 2006 Released: November 27, 2006**

By the Chief, Media Bureau:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1.  The Commission has before it the captioned application of Detroit
    Public Schools (the "Licensee") for renewal of its license for
    Station WRCJ-FM, Detroit, Michigan (the "Station"). In this
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture ("NAL")* issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section
    1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the "Rules")[^1] by the Chief, Media
    Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules,[^2]
    we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly
    violated Sections 73.1943 and 73.3527 of the Rules[^3] by failing to
    retain all required documentation in the WRCJ-FM public inspection
    file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before
    us, we conclude that the Licensee is apparently liable for a
    monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars (\$2,000),
    and we grant the captioned WRCJ-FM renewal application.

**II. BACKGROUND**

2.  Section 73.3527 of the Rules requires a noncommercial educational
    broadcast licensee to maintain a public inspection file containing
    specific types of information related to station operations. The
    purpose of this requirement is to provide the public with timely
    information at regular intervals throughout the license period.[^4]
    Section 73.1943 of the Rules requires retention in the station's
    public inspection file records of certain types of political
    broadcasts.

3.  Section III, Item 3 of the WRCJ-FM license renewal application form,
    FCC Form 303-S, requests that the Licensee certify that the
    documentation required by Section 73.3527, has been placed in the
    station's public inspection file at the appropriate times. The
    Licensee indicated "Yes" to that certification.

4.  On August 30, 2004, Mr. Christopher Trey ("Trey") filed an Informal
    Objection (the "Objection") to the WRCJ(FM) renewal application.[^5]
    In a subsequent letter received December 6, 2004, Trey stated that
    he wished to withdraw his objection because the issues upon which
    his Objection was based had been resolved.[^6] In a further letter
    dated June 7, 2005, Trey averred that, in accordance with Section
    73.3588 of the Rules,[^7] he had not received any consideration for
    the withdrawal of his Objection.

5.  We have reviewed the Objection, the withdrawal request, and Trey's
    attestation regarding consideration, and we find that the withdrawal
    complies with Section 73.3588 of the Rules.

6.  Even where a petition or objection is dismissed at the filing
    party's request, however, the Commission considers the merits of
    that submission.[^8] In his Objection, Trey alleged violations by
    the Licensee of Section 73.1943 of the Rules. These alleged
    violations included the failure to note in the Station's political
    file either broadcasts by a station air personality who was
    simultaneously a candidate for the University of Michigan Board of
    Regents or the station's airing of public service announcements
    voiced by a candidate for U.S. Congress.[^9] In its Opposition, the
    Licensee admits that certain broadcasts should have been noted in
    the station's political file, but were not[^10] and states that,
    effective November 3, 2004, it established a political reporting
    policy responsive to Trey's concerns and to allow future Station
    compliance with Section 73.1943.[^11]

    **III. DISCUSSION**

7\. *Political File Rule Violation*. Although we approve withdrawal of
Trey's Objection, as noted above, the Licensee admits in its Opposition
to having acted in violation of the political file rule including: (1)
failure to note the August 2, 2004, appearance of a candidate on a
call-in show (the Licensee argues that the subject call did not
constitute the type of "use" that requires placement in the public file
because the station had no control over or prior knowledge of the call;
nevertheless, station states that it noted the appearance in the file as
soon as it came to its attention and was willing to honor any equal
opportunities requests resulting from this appearance); (2) failure to
have a record in the file on August 12, 2004, of information concerning
certain candidate requests for equal opportunities made during the 2002
General Election (the Program Director declares under penalty of perjury
that records had been in the file previously and were restored to the
file by September 9, 2004); (3) failure to note weekly appearances of an
on-air employee candidate for the 2002 election (the Licensee indicates
it took the employee off the air as soon as it found out he was a
candidate);[^12] and (4) failure to put in the file information
regarding "uses" by a 2002 candidate appearing in public service
announcements ("PSAs") (the Licensee maintains that, as soon as the
matter was brought to its attention, it placed a record of the 149
subject PSAs in the file, although it acknowledges that it does not know
how many of the PSAs contained appearances by the subject candidate).

8\. The Licensee states that these failures occurred because:

> WRCJ is a struggling, noncommercial educational FM station that has
> recently cut staff and is searching for new management. Many of its
> tasks are performed by student interns. Any past failures to place
> documents in the political file occurred as a result of either station
> staff's lack of knowledge that a guest was a candidate for political
> office, a belief that a particular program was exempt from the
> political broadcasting rules, or that an appearance or "use" was of
> such a fleeting and innocuous nature that it did not trigger the
> implementation of the station's usual political broadcasting
> procedures.[^13]

The Licensee also maintains that some of the violations were *de
minimis,* as no other candidates complained or asked for equal
opportunities and, therefore, the omissions did not result in harm to
any listeners, candidates, or eligible voters and/or did not violate any
candidate's rights. In addition, the Licensee indicates that it "has
implemented new procedures for insuring that the political file is
complete, including procedures for determining whether a guest's
appearance, however fleeting, might constitute a 'use' within the
meaning of the FCC's political broadcasting rules."[^14] In addition,
the Licensee argues that many of the alleged violations happened nearly
two years ago and are, therefore, beyond the Commission's one year
statute of limitations for imposing forfeitures, pursuant to Section
503(b)(6) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(6).

9\. Section 73.3527(e)(5) of the Rules requires noncommercial
educational broadcast licensees to maintain and make available for
public inspection, at the main studio of a station, a file of
information (public file), including such records as are required to be
kept by Section 73.1943 of the Rules (political file).[^15] That Section
and Commission policy require that this required portion of a station's
file contain a "complete record" of all requests for time made by
candidates and the disposition of those requests, as well as all other
"uses" by candidates, including those paid for by third parties and
those given free by the station. This information is to be placed in the
file as soon as possible and retained for a period of two years. The
Commission defines a "use" as a positive, identifiable appearance of a
candidate, including by voice or picture, lasting for four seconds or
more, that is not exempt under the news programming exemptions listed in
Sections 73.1941(a)(1)-(4) of the Rules.[^16] Information regarding
these "uses" requires a full description of the pertinent information
sufficient to put competing candidates on notice of exactly what "equal
opportunities" might exist for them. The station acknowledges failing to
put required information in its political file on a number of occasions,
thereby thwarting the notification purpose of the rule.

10\. As the Commission has previously stated, "\[m\]aintenance of an
accurate and complete political file is an essential element of Section
315 of the Communications Act. Except for maintaining a political file,
a station generally has no obligation to notify opposing candidates when
a candidate appears on its facility, and opposing candidates have only
seven days within which to make a request for equal opportunities."[^17]
Because of the station's failure to include the necessary information in
the political file, opposing candidates did not have requisite
information available for them to knowingly exercise their rights under
Section 315 of the Act prior to the relevant elections.

11\. We find that the claimed ignorance of WRCJ-FM's staff of the Rules
does not excuse the Licensee from complying with these provisions of the
Rules.[^18] While WRCJ-FM's staff may have been comprised of students
lacking knowledge of an individual's status as a candidate or that a
candidate's appearance constituted a "use," the Commission has
repeatedly declared that ignorance of the law is not a defense or a
mitigating circumstance to a violation.[^19] Moreover, a broadcast
licensee is responsible for the conduct of its employees.[^20] 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.[^21]

12\. We also find the Licensee's argument that certain violations were
*de minimis* because no candidates filed complaints against the station
and no candidate's request for equal opportunities was denied to be
without merit. The station's lack of receipt of candidate complaints
does not negate the fact that the Licensee violated the Commission's
political file rule. Further, a candidate would not have known to
request equal opportunities from review of the public file, as it would
have been reasonable for it to assume that the station's political file
was complete.[^22]

13\. The Licensee's argument that some of the violations at issue
occurred almost two years ago and are, therefore, beyond the statute of
limitations for issuing forfeitures is incorrect. Section 503(b)(6) of
the Act states that "No forfeiture penalty shall be determined or
imposed against any person... if the violation charged occurred (i) more
than 1 year prior to the date of issuance of the required notice or
notice of apparent liability; **or** (ii) prior to the date of
commencement of the current term of such license, **whichever is
earlier**."[^23] In this case, the earlier of the dates is prior to the
date of commencement of the Station's current license term, as that date
is October 1, 1996. Therefore, the violations that occurred in 2002 are
not beyond the statute of limitations for issuing a forfeiture.

14. *False Certification*. Based on the foregoing discussion, it appears
    that the WRCJ-FM public inspection file was not complete when the
    information contained in the subject license renewal application was
    certified to by the Licensee and the application was filed with the
    Commission. It therefore appears that the Licensee's representation
    in the application that it had placed all required documentation in
    the station\'s public file at the appropriate times was untrue. The
    Commission relies on licensees to provide truthful and accurate
    information in order to carry out its mission. When issuing a
    license, we must be assured of the accuracy of the licensee's
    representations. Recently, the Commission expanded the scope of
    Section 1.17 of the Rules,[^24] with respect to investigations and
    adjudications, to prohibit "written and oral statements of fact that
    are intentionally incorrect or misleading and written statements
    that are made without a reasonable basis for believing the statement
    is correct and not misleading."[^25] Misrepresentation involves
    false statements made with an intent to deceive.[^26] Lack of candor
    involves concealment, evasion, or other failure to be fully
    forthcoming, accompanied by an intent to deceive.[^27] While we do
    not find that the Licensee engaged in misrepresentations or
    otherwise lacked candor,[^28] we will admonish it for its public
    file certification which, by its own later admission, was
    inaccurate. We caution the Licensee to exercise diligence in
    ascertaining the accuracy of its statements made to the Commission,
    because "a false statement, even absent an intent to deceive, may
    constitute an actionable violation of Section 1.17 of the
    Rules."[^29]

15. *Proposed Forfeiture.* In this case, the Licensee has admitted to
    failing to maintain in its public inspection file materials relating
    to candidate "uses" and requests for equal opportunities. This *NAL*
    is issued pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Under that
    provision, any person who is determined by the Commission to have
    willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the
    Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall
    be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.[^30]
    Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines willful as "the conscious and
    deliberate commission or omission of \[any\] act, irrespective of
    any intent to violate" the law.[^31] The legislative history to
    Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of
    willful applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act,[^32] and
    the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b)
    context.[^33] Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that "\[t\]he
    term 'repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or
    omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act
    more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for
    more than one day."[^34]

16. The Commission's *Forfeiture Policy Statement* and Section
    1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of
    \$10,000 for violation of the public file rules**.**[^35] In
    determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the
    factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including
    "the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation,
    and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as
    justice may require."[^36]

17. In this case, the Licensee admitted its violation of Sections
    73.1943 and 73.3527. Considering the record as a whole as discussed
    above, we believe that a forfeiture of \$2,000 is appropriate for
    the willful and repeated violations in this case.[^37] Additionally,
    we note that the Commission has long held that "retention of
    effective control by a licensee of the station's management and
    operations is a fundamental obligation of the licensee, and a
    licensee's lack of familiarity with station operation and management
    may reflect an indifference tantamount to lack of control."[^38] The
    Licensee is therefore cautioned to exercise greater diligence in
    overseeing station operations in the future.

18. *License Renewal Application.* In evaluating an application for
    license renewal, the Commission's decision is governed by Section
    309(k) of the Act.[^39] That Section provides that if, upon
    consideration of the application and pleadings, we find that (1) the
    station has served the public interest, convenience, and
    necessity; (2) there have been no serious violations of the Act or
    the Rules; and (3) there have been no other violations which, taken
    together, constitute a pattern of abuse, we are to grant the renewal
    application.[^40] 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."[^41]

19. We find that the Licensee's apparent violations of Sections 73.1943
    and 73.3527 of the Rules do not constitute "serious violations"
    warranting designation of the renewal application for evidentiary
    hearing. Moreover, we find no evidence of violations that, when
    considered together, evidence a pattern of abuse.[^42] Further, we
    find that Station WRCJ-FM served the public interest, convenience,
    and necessity during the subject license term. We will therefore
    grant the license renewal application below.

**IV. ORDERING CLAUSES**

20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the
    Commission's Rules, that Detroit Public Schools is hereby NOTIFIED
    of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of two
    thousand dollars (\$2,000) for its apparent willful and repeated
    violation of Sections 73.1943 and 73.3527 of the Commission's Rules.
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's
    Rules, that, within thirty (30) days of the release date of this
    *NAL,* Detroit Public Schools SHALL PAY the full amount of the
    proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking
    reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
7.  Payment of the proposed forfeiture must be made by check or similar
    instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No.
    referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to
    Federal Communications Commission, at P.O. Box 358340, Pittsburgh,
    Pennsylvania 15251-8340. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to
    Mellon Bank/LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh,
    Pennsylvania 15251. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA
    Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account number
    911-6106.

8.  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/Acct. No. referenced above.

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

10. Requests for full payment of the forfeiture proposed in this *NAL*
    under the installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing
    Director-Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
    Washington, D.C. 20554.[^43]

11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.17 of the Rules,
    Detroit Public Schools IS ADMONISHED for its false certification
    that the documentation required by Section 73.3527 of the Rules had
    been placed in the WRCJ-FM public inspection file at the appropriate
    times.

12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Section 309(k) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, that the license renewal
    application of Detroit Public Schools for Station WCRJ-FM, Detroit,
    Michigan (File No. BRED-20040512AEL) IS GRANTED.

13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this *NAL* shall be sent, by
    First Class and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Detroit
    Public Schools, 9345 Lawton, Detroit, Michigan, and to its counsel,
    David M. Silverman, Esq., Cole, Raywid & Braverman, L.L.P., Suite
    200, 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC, 20006.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Donna C. Gregg

Chief, Media Bureau

[^1]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(k), 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.

[^2]: See 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.

[^3]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.1943, 73.3526.

[^4]: *Cf*. *Letter to Kathleen N. Benfield from Linda B. Blair, Chief,
    Audio Services Division*, 13 FCC Rcd 4102 (MMB 1997) (*citing
    License Renewal Applications of Certain Commercial Radio Stations,*
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 6400 (MMB 1993)).

[^5]: The Licensee filed an Opposition to the Informal Objection on
    October 1, 2004, to which Trey replied on November 30, 2004.

[^6]: *Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission from Christopher Trey* (Dec. 6, 2004).

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3588.

[^8]: *Stockholders of CBS, Inc.,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC
    Rcd 3733, 3739 (1995); *Booth American Company,* Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 58 FCC 2d 553, 554 (1976).

[^9]: ^?^ Trey Objection at 2, 3.

[^10]: ^?^ Licensee Opposition at 11-12, 14.

[^11]: Trey Withdrawal Letter, Enclosure 1.

[^12]: In its Opposition, the Licensee questions whether the office for
    which the employee was running \-- Member of the University of
    Michigan Board of Regents \-- is a "public office" within the
    meaning of the Rules. The Commission defers to the law of the state
    in which an election is being held when determining whether a
    particular office is a "public office." *In Re complaint by Malcolm
    Cornell, Wappinger Falls, N.Y. Concerning Section 315 Political
    Broadcast by Station WEOK, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.*, Letter, 31 FCC 2d
    649 (Bdcst. Bur. 1971). According to the Bureau of Elections,
    Michigan Department of State, a Member of the University of Michigan
    Board of Regents is a public office.

[^13]: Opposition at 16.

[^14]: Id.

[^15]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3527(e)(5).

[^16]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.1941(a)(1)-(4). *See In the Matter of Codification
    of the Commission's Political Programming Policies*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 651 (1994); 47 C.F.R. § 73.1941(b).

[^17]: *TVX Broadcast Group, Inc,* Letter, 6 FCC Rcd 7494, 7495 (1991).

[^18]: *See Bureau d\'Electronique Appliquee, Inc*., Forfeiture Order,
    20 FCC Rcd 17893, 17897 (EB 2005), citing *Profit Enterprises,
    Inc*., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2846 (1993) (a
    subject\'s inadvertent mistake regarding and/or ignorance of the Act
    or Rule requirements does not exonerate, excuse or mitigate its
    violations).

[^19]: *See Southern California Broadcasting Co.*, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387 (1991) ("*Southern California*")
    (citing *Vernon Broadcasting, Inc.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
    60 RR 2d 1275, 1277 (1986) and *Fay Neel Eggleston*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 19 FCC 2d 829 (1969)).

[^20]: *See, e.g., Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania*,
    Decision, 69 FCC 2d 1394 (1978) ("*University of Pennsylvania*") and
    *University of Southern California*, Memorandum Opinion and Order
    and forfeiture Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7239 (1996).

[^21]: *See Alpha Broadcasting Corporation,* Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 102 FCC 2d 18 (1984) (citing *Eleven Ten Broadcasting Corp.*,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 32 FCC 706 (1962) and *Gaffney
    Broadcasting, Inc.* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC 2d 912
    (1970)); *EICB-TV, LLC,* Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 18611 (EB
    2004) (quoting *Seawest Yacht Brokers*, Notice of Forfeiture, 9 FCC
    Rcd 6099 (1994)).

[^22]: *See Fleet Broadcasting, Inc. and Zephyr Broadcasting, Inc.,*
    Memorandum Opinion and Order and Forfeiture Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15372
    (MMB 1998), *recon. denied,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC
    Rcd 6695 (MMB 1999).

[^23]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(6) (emphasis added).

[^24]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.17.

[^25]: *In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission's
    Rules Concerning Truthful Statements to the Commission*, Report and
    Order, 18 FCC Rcd 4016 (2003).

[^26]: *See Fox River Broadcasting, Inc.,* Order, 93 FCC 2d 127, 129
    (1983).

[^27]: *Id*.

[^28]: *See e.g. Southern Skies Corporation*, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 11 FCC Rcd 19176, 19182 (1996).

[^29]: *Letter to John Jason Bennett et al.* 20 FCC Rcd 17193 (MB 2005),
    *citing San Francisco Unified School District*, Hearing Designation
    Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd
    13326, 13337 (2002).

[^30]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). *See also* 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a)(1).

[^31]: 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).

[^32]: *See* H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th^ Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982).

[^33]: *See Southern California Broadcasting Co.*, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388.

[^34]: 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(2).

[^35]: *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*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC
    Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), note to paragraph (b)(4),
    Section I.

[^36]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); *see also Forfeiture Policy Statement,*
    12 FCC Rcd at 17100; 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).

[^37]: *See Bay Communications, Inc.,* Letter, 12 FCC Rcd 5989 (MMB
    1997).

[^38]: *University of Pennsylvania*, 69 F.C.C.2d at 1397 (footnote
    omitted). *See also Alabama Educational Television Commission, et
    al*., Decision, 50 FCC 2d 461 (1975).

[^39]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 309(k).

[^40]: 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 Implementation
    of Sections 204(a) and 204(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
    (Broadcast License Renewal Procedures)*, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 6363
    (1996).

[^41]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(k)(2), 309(k)(3).

[^42]: 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*, Decision, 32 FCC 2d 196,
    198 (1971). Nor do we find on the record here that \"the number,
    nature and extent\" of the violations indicate that \"the licensee
    cannot be relied upon to operate \[the station\] in the future in
    accordance with the requirements of its licenses and the
    Commission\'s Rules.\" *Heart of the Black Hills Stations*, 32 FCC
    2d at 200. *See also Center for Study and Application of Black
    Economic Development*, Hearing Designation Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4622
    (1991), *Calvary Educational Broadcasting Network, Inc*., Hearing
    Designation Order, 7 FCC Rcd 4037 (1992).

[^43]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.