Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Notices 12697 

subsequent phases of the risk evaluation 

process. 

EPA received six unique submissions 

for D4, including comments from 

potentially affected businesses or trade 

associations, environmental and public 

health advocacy groups, and one 

member of the general public. 

Comments addressed the overall 

approach to the risk evaluation process 

(e.g., collection, consideration, and 

systematic review of relevant 

information), the specific elements of 

the scope document (e.g., hazard, 

exposure, and potentially exposed or 

susceptible subpopulations), 

information specific to the chemical 

substance (e.g., relevant studies, 

assessments, degradation products, and 

conditions of use), and topics beyond 

the draft scope document phase of the 

process (e.g., risk management). EPA 

considered those comments, as 

applicable and appropriate, in 

developing the final scope document. 

Concurrently with the publication of the 

final scope document, EPA is 

publishing a response to comments 

document that contains a 

comprehensive summary of and 

response to public comments received 

on the D4 draft scope document. The 

comprehensive response to comments 

document is available in the docket 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2018–0443 (Ref. 3). 

IV. References 

The following is a listing of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this Federal Register 

notice. The docket for this action 

includes these documents and other 

information considered by EPA, 

including documents that are referenced 

within the documents that are included 

in the docket. For assistance in locating 

these referenced documents, please 

consult the technical person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

1. EPA. Octamethylcyclotetra-Siloxane (D4); 

Manufacturer Request for Risk 

Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA); Notice of 

Availability and Request for Comments. 

Federal Register. (85 FR 36586, June 17, 

2020) (FRL–10010–49). 

2. EPA. Octamethylcyclotetra-Siloxane (D4); 

Draft Scope of the Risk Evaluation to be 

Conducted Under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA); Notice of 

Availability and Request for Comments. 

Federal Register. (86 FR 50347, 

September 8, 2021) (FRL–8850–01– 

OCSPP). 

3. EPA. EPA Response to Public Comments 

Received on the Draft Scope of the Risk 

Evaluation for Under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 

Octamethylcyclotetra-siloxane 

(Cyclotetrasiloxane, 2,2,4,4,6,6,8,8- 

octamethyl-) (D4) CASRN 556–67–2 

(March 2022). 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04676 Filed 3–4–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[MB Docket No. 22–76; FCC DA 22–187; 

FR ID 74348] 

Application of The Marion Education 

Exchange for Renewal of License for 

Station WWGH–LP, Marion, Ohio 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This Hearing Designation 

Order, Notice of Opportunity for 

Hearing, and Notice of Apparent 

Liability for Forfeiture (Order) 

commences a hearing to determine 

whether The Marion Education 

Exchange (MEE) has committed 

violations of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended (Act) and/or the rules 

and regulations (Rules) of the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission), and, as a consequence, 

whether MEE’s application (Renewal 

Application) to renew the license of low 

power FM radio station WWGH–LP, 

Marion, Ohio (Station) should be 

granted or denied pursuant to section 

309(k) of the Act, and whether a 

forfeiture should be imposed against 

MEE. 

DATES: Persons desiring to participate as 

parties in the hearing shall file a 

petition for leave to intervene not later 

than April 6, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: File documents with the 

Office of the Secretary, Federal 

Communications Commission, 45 L 

Street NE, Washington, DC 20554, with 

a copy mailed to each party to the 

proceeding. Each document that is filed 

in this proceeding must display on the 

front page the docket number of this 

hearing, ‘‘MB Docket No. 22–76.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Albert Shuldiner, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2721. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Hearing Designation 

Order, Notice of Opportunity for 

Hearing, and Notice of Apparent 

Liability for Forfeiture (Order), MB 

Docket No. 22–76, FCC DA 22–187, 

adopted and released February 23, 2022. 

The full text of the Order is available 

online by using the search function for 

MB Docket No. 22–76 on the 

Commission’s ECFS web page at http:// 

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. 

Summary of the Order 

1. MEE was registered with the State 

of Ohio as a non-profit corporation on 

May 2, 2019, with Shawn Craft as the 

registered agent. On May 9, 2019, MEE 

and Marion Midget Football (MMF)— 

the Station’s former licensee—filed an 

application for Commission consent to 

the pro forma assignment of the 

Station’s license from MMF to MEE 

(Assignment Application). Therein, 

MEE indicated that ‘‘[t]here are no 

changes in the board members, only the 

name of the licensee.’’ MEE listed Patti 

Worcester (Worcester), Martha Maniaci 

(Maniaci), Mary Ann Stolarczyk 

(Stolarczyk), Betty Compton (Compton), 

and Marge Hazelett (Hazelett) as its 

board members, and indicated each had 

20 percent voting rights. We granted the 

unopposed Assignment Application on 

May 21, 2019. In the course of this 

license renewal proceeding, we have 

learned that Compton died on 

November 7, 2016, more than two years 

before MEE filed the Assignment 

Application that listed her as one of five 

existing and continuing members of 

MEE’s board. 

2. On May 28, 2019, MEE filed a pro 

forma transfer of control application 

(Transfer Application). MEE reported 

that ‘‘Worcester has decided to retire 

and voluntarily transfers her position to 

Shawn Craft.’’ We granted the 

unopposed Transfer Application on July 

11, 2019. 

3. On June 6, 2020, MEE filed the 

Renewal Application. Spencer Phelps 

(Phelps) then filed an Informal 

Objection. Phelps alleged that MEE had 

misrepresented its board composition in 

the Assignment Application. Phelps 

stated that the board members of MEE 

were ‘‘completely different people’’ than 

those MEE listed in the Assignment 

Application, and argued that MEE’s 

statement in that application that there 

were ‘‘no changes in the board 

members, only the name of the 

licensee’’ was false. To support his 

claim, Phelps submitted copies of 

corporate materials that MEE had filed 

with the State of Ohio. The corporate 

materials did not list Worcester, 

Maniaci, Stolarczyk, Compton, or 

Hazelett, the names listed in the 

Assignment Application. Instead, they 

listed four different individuals: Shawn 

Craft (Craft), Linda Sims (Sims), Glenn 

Coble (Coble), and Terry Tackett 

(Tackett). 

4. MEE did not respond to the 

Informal Objection. Accordingly, we 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
12698 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Notices 

sent the first of three letters of inquiry 

(First LOI) to MEE in December of 2020. 

5. The First LOI requested 

information regarding MEE’s board, and 

its officers and directors, and directed 

MEE to submit copies of all corporate 

materials related to its board 

composition, or the appointment, 

resignation or termination of MEE 

officers or directors. It also required 

MEE to provide an affidavit or 

declaration made under penalty of 

perjury in support of its response. 

6. The LOI directed MEE to respond 

no later than January 7, 2021. MEE did 

not meet this deadline. Thus, on 

February 12, 2021, we dismissed the 

Renewal Application, cancelled the 

Station’s license, and informed MEE 

that its authority to operate the Station 

had terminated. On February 16, 2021, 

MEE filed a pleading (First LOI 

Response) that served as both a petition 

for reconsideration of the actions taken 

on February 12, 2021, and a response to 

the First LOI. Upon receipt of this 

pleading, we reinstated the Renewal 

Application and reinstated the license. 

7. In the First LOI Response, MEE 

listed a board that was entirely different 

from the board it had identified in the 

Assignment Application. MEE stated 

that its board consisted of Craft, Sims, 

Coble, and Tackett, each of whom MEE 

contends had been on the MEE board 

from ‘‘2019-Present.’’ MEE indicated 

that Craft also had been its President 

from ‘‘2019-Present.’’ MEE appeared to 

explain away any inconsistencies 

between the board it identified in its 

Assignment Application and the one it 

identified in its First LOI Response by 

stating that ‘‘[s]everal of the board 

members that left [MMF] in 2019 

became ill and have since passed away 

such as . . . Maniaci, and . . . 

Hazelett.’’ However, MEE failed to 

identify specifically each former MEE 

board member and the duration of their 

tenure on the MEE board. MEE then 

obliquely explained that ‘‘there [sic] 

positions were filled with members who 

knew the radio station and have had its 

best interests and that of the community 

at heart.’’ MEE did not specify whether 

the positions filled were on its or 

MMF’s board. Furthermore, despite the 

fact that, like Maniaci and Hazelett, 

Compton was listed as an MEE board 

member in the Assignment Application, 

and despite the fact that Compton 

preceded Maniaci and Hazelett in death, 

MEE did not mention Compton in the 

First LOI Response. MEE did not 

provide either the documents required 

to be produced in response to the First 

LOI, or the supporting affidavit or 

declaration requested in the First LOI. 

Finally, MEE asserted that the Station 

‘‘has fulfilled the education 

qualification for LPFM stations very 

well’’ and that the Station is ‘‘the last 

station in Marion[,] Ohio to provide 

local news [and] weather every hour.’’ 

8. Phelps replied to the First LOI 

Response, asserting that it was 

incomplete, and repeating his 

allegations that MEE had made 

misrepresentations to the Commission. 

Specifically, Phelps argued that MEE 

had lied either in the Assignment 

Application, or in the First LOI 

Response. He also asserted that MEE 

had made additional false statements in 

the First LOI Response regarding the 

Station being the only station in Marion 

offering hourly news and weather. 

Finally, Phelps noted that MEE had 

continued to operate the Station 

between February 12, 2021, and 

February 16, 2021, after the cancellation 

of the license, and before the 

reinstatement. 

9. Having noted the inconsistencies 

between MEE’s statements in the First 

LOI Response and the Assignment 

Application, and having identified 

deficiencies in the First LOI Response, 

we sent a second letter of inquiry in 

February of 2021 (Second LOI). The 

Second LOI directed MEE to provide the 

information, documentation, and 

supporting affidavit (or declaration) 

missing from the First LOI Response. It 

also noted that, based on the 

information provided in the First LOI 

Response, it appeared MEE had made a 

false statement about its board 

composition in the Assignment 

Application. The Second LOI directed 

MEE to explain ‘‘what basis it had’’ for 

stating in the Assignment Application 

that the MEE and MMF boards were 

identical. 

10. MEE submitted a response 

(Second LOI Response), which included 

one document (its Initial Articles of 

Incorporation, which are dated April 29, 

2019), and a supporting declaration. In 

its Second LOI Response, MEE stated 

that it was incorporated in 2019 by 

Craft, Sims, Coble and Tackett. 

According to MEE, at the time the 

Assignment Application was filed on 

May 9, 2019, ‘‘it was believed and 

thought that the [MMF] board members 

would be able to continue in the same 

capacity.’’ The Second LOI Response 

listed Worcester, Maniaci, Stolarczyk, 

and Hazelett as ‘‘board members’’ but 

did not specify whether they were board 

members of MEE, MMF, or both. MEE 

indicated that Worcester had set a 

resignation/retirement date for late May 

2019. It stated that, on May 29, 2019, 

MEE’s incorporators held a meeting (5– 

29–19 Meeting) at which they ‘‘decided 

to form a new board, with Craft serving 

as President, Sims as Secretary, and 

Coble and Tackett as board members. 

According to MEE, this decision was 

made based on the ‘‘health and age of 

board members who were coming over 

from [MMF].’’ Like the First LOI 

Response, the Second LOI Response did 

not discuss Compton at all. 

11. Phelps replied to the Second LOI 

Response, noting that MEE still had not 

included all of the information or 

documents requested. Phelps also 

highlighted inconsistencies in the 

information provided by MEE and 

questioned certain statements made by 

MEE in the Second LOI Response. 

12. Because the Second LOI Response 

raised more questions than it answered, 

we sent a third and final letter of 

inquiry in March of 2021 (Third LOI). 

The Third LOI again requested that MEE 

provide the missing information. It also 

directed MEE to clarify statements made 

in the Second LOI Response. 

13. MEE submitted a response (Third 

LOI Response), which purports to list all 

current and former MEE board members 

(and the specific dates on which each 

member served on the MEE board). MEE 

also submitted copies of bylaws, a 

document recording the appointment of 

MEE’s initial board, and meeting 

minutes. MEE now indicates that 

Worcester sat on its board from April 

29, 2019, until May 28, 2019, and 

Maniaci, Stolarczyk and Hazelett were 

on the board from April 29, 2019, to 

May 29, 2019. MEE states that the initial 

board was ‘‘chosen by vote of the 

incorporators’’ and that, to MEE’s 

knowledge, no person served on the 

MEE and MMF boards at the same time. 

MEE notes that Worcester chose to 

resign/retire from MEE on May 28, 2019, 

and that Craft took over her position as 

President of MEE on that date as set 

forth in the MEE bylaws. MEE states 

that Maniaci, Stolarczyk, and Hazelett 

were invited to participate in the 5–29– 

19 Meeting but did not because ‘‘their 

health was failing.’’ MEE explains that 

they resigned from the MEE board 

effective May 29, 2019, because they 

‘‘could not attend meetings on a regular 

basis.’’ MEE reports that, at the 5–29–19 

Meeting, the incorporators ‘‘voted on 

who would fill’’ the vacant board seats. 

According to MEE, this was done as 

specified in its bylaws. In terms of 

Compton, MEE explains that she ‘‘had 

passed away’’ prior to the 5–29–19 

Meeting, but avoids specifying the date 

of Compton’s death and does not 

address the Third LOI’s question as to 

why MEE did not list Compton as an 

initial board member in the Second LOI 

Response. MEE states that ‘‘her 

successor had not been chosen at that 

time’’ (apparently meaning after her 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Notices 12699 

death but prior to the 5–29–19 Meeting). 

MEE indicates that, ‘‘when the transfer 

was being filed with the FCC 

[Compton’s death] was pointed out to an 

FCC representative.’’ According to MEE, 

the Commission representative 

‘‘explained that a certain percentage of 

board members had to change for this to 

be an issue as it would not [a]ffect the 

voting quorum.’’ MEE states that it did 

not file a pro forma transfer of control 

application regarding the board changes 

made at the 5–29–19 Meeting, ‘‘because 

we had hoped that some of the original 

board members might have been able to 

return.’’ 

14. Phelps replied to the Third LOI 

Response, accusing MEE of lying to the 

Commission about Compton, and about 

the existence of certain corporate 

documents like bylaws and meeting 

minutes. 

15. Section 309(k) of the Act, 47 

U.S.C. 309(k), provides that the 

Commission shall renew a station’s 

license if it finds that during the 

previous license term: (a) The station 

served the public interest, convenience, 

and necessity; (b) there were no serious 

violations by the licensee of the Act or 

the Rules; and (c) there have been no 

other violations by the licensee of the 

Act or Rules which, taken together, 

would constitute a pattern of abuse. If 

a licensee has not met these 

requirements, the Commission may 

deny the licensee’s application to renew 

its station’s license, or grant the 

application on such terms and 

conditions as are appropriate, including 

a short-term renewal. Prior to denying a 

renewal application, the Commission 

must provide notice and opportunity for 

a hearing conducted in accordance with 

section 309(e) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 

309(e), and consider whether any 

mitigating factors justify the imposition 

of lesser sanctions. 

16. The Commission and the courts 

have recognized that ‘‘[t]he FCC relies 

heavily on the honesty and probity of its 

licensees in a regulatory system that is 

largely self-policing.’’ Full and clear 

disclosure of all material facts in every 

application (or response to a 

Commission request for information) is 

essential to the efficient administration 

of the Commission’s licensing process, 

and the Commission’s proper analysis of 

an application is critically dependent on 

the accuracy and completeness of 

information and data that only the 

applicant can provide. 

Misrepresentation and lack of candor 

raise serious concerns as to the 

likelihood that the Commission can rely 

on an applicant, permittee, or licensee 

to be truthful. Thus, misrepresentation 

and lack of candor constitute the types 

of serious violations of the Rules that 

may be grounds for denying a license 

renewal application. 

17. Section 1.17(a)(1) of the Rules, 47 

CFR 1.17(a)(1), provides that no person 

shall, in any written or oral statement of 

fact, ‘‘intentionally provide material 

factual information that is incorrect or 

intentionally omit material information 

that is necessary to prevent any material 

factual statement that is being made 

from being incorrect or misleading.’’ A 

misrepresentation (a false statement of 

fact or false certification made with 

intent to deceive the Commission) is 

within the scope of section 1.17. 

Similarly, lack of candor (a 

concealment, evasion, or other failure to 

be fully informative, accompanied by an 

intent to deceive the Commission) is 

within the scope of the rule. A 

necessary and essential element of both 

misrepresentation and lack of candor is 

intent to deceive. Intent to deceive can 

be found where a licensee or applicant 

knowingly makes a false statement (or 

false certification), and can also be 

found from motive or logical desire to 

deceive, or when the surrounding 

circumstances clearly show the 

existence of intent to deceive. 

18. Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules, 47 

CFR 1.17(a)(2), further requires that no 

person may provide, in any written 

statement of fact, ‘‘material factual 

information that is incorrect or omit 

material information that is necessary to 

prevent any material factual statement 

that is made from being incorrect or 

misleading without a reasonable basis 

for believing that any such material 

factual statement is correct and not 

misleading.’’ Thus, even absent an 

intent to deceive, an incorrect statement 

regarding material factual information 

(or an omission of such information) 

may constitute an actionable violation 

of section 1.17 of the Rules if the 

statement (or omission) was made 

without a reasonable basis for believing 

that the material factual statement was 

correct and not misleading. 

19. Failure to Submit Full and 

Complete Responses to LOIs. We find 

there is a substantial and material 

question of fact as to whether MEE 

violated section 73.1015 of the Rules, 47 

CFR 73.1015. That Rule states: ‘‘The 

Commission or its representatives may, 

in writing, require from any applicant, 

permittee, or licensee written statements 

of fact relevant to a determination 

whether an application should be 

granted or denied, or to a determination 

whether a license should be revoked, or 

to any other matter within the 

jurisdiction of the Commission.’’ It is 

important that licensees (and applicants 

and permittees) fully respond to 

Commission requests for information, 

and do so in a timely manner. The 

failure to do so impedes the 

Commission’s ability to carry out its 

responsibilities. 

20. The First LOI made a 

straightforward request for a list of all 

MEE board members and officers, 

present and past, and the dates each 

person served on the board or as an 

officer. Despite the clarity and 

simplicity of the request, and despite 

the fact that MEE clearly was in 

possession of this information, MEE 

submitted a list of only its current board 

members and officers, and specified 

only the year (as opposed to the month, 

day, and year) in which these 

individuals were installed as board 

members and/or officers. Further, MEE 

did not submit any documentation 

related to its board composition, or the 

installation and removal of its board 

members and officers. MEE also did not 

submit the supporting affidavit or 

declaration required by the First LOI. 

21. The Second LOI again requested 

that MEE identify all individuals who 

had served as officers and directors of 

MEE since it was first incorporated. It 

again specified that MEE ‘‘must also 

state the position or positions the 

person held, and the dates on which the 

person held those positions.’’ In 

addition, it offered the guidance that ‘‘if 

John Doe was an officer or director of 

MEE, [MEE] would list his name and 

then identify the position that he held 

and when he held it (i.e., Vice President 

from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 

2020).’’ Even though the Second LOI 

included this specific guidance and 

even though it noted that, based on the 

First LOI Response, it appeared MEE 

had made false statements to the 

Commission, MEE submitted a Second 

LOI Response that contained oblique 

and unclear language regarding its board 

composition. 

22. The Third LOI directed MEE ‘‘to 

explain why Compton—who is listed as 

an MMF and MEE board member in the 

Assignment Application—is not 

included in its list’’ of board members 

who supported the changes made to the 

MEE board membership on May 29, 

2019. MEE also was instructed to 

‘‘indicate whether Compton was an 

MEE board member on May 29, 2019.’’ 

In the Third LOI Response, MEE stated 

that Compton ‘‘had passed away’’ prior 

to the 5–29–19 Meeting, but avoided 

specifying the date of Compton’s death 

and did not explain why MEE did not 

list Compton as an initial board member 

in the Second LOI Response. 

23. There are substantial and material 

questions of fact regarding whether MEE 

submitted incomplete responses to the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
12700 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Notices 

First, Second, and Third LOIs in willful 

and repeated violation of section 

73.1015 of the Rules. We therefore 

designate appropriate issues to 

determine whether MEE submitted 

incomplete responses to these three 

LOIs in willful and repeated violation of 

the Rules. 

24. Misrepresentation and/or Lack of 

Candor. In addition, we find that there 

are substantial and material questions of 

fact regarding whether MEE violated 

section 1.17(a)(1) (or violated section 

1.17(a)(2)) when it listed Worcester, 

Maniaci, Stolarczyk, and Hazelett as 

MEE’s board members in the 

Assignment Application. We note that 

the MEE board members listed in the 

Assignment Application were not those 

listed in the First LOI Response or in the 

materials filed with the State of Ohio 

upon MEE’s formation, and MEE’s 

explanation for this discrepancy has 

changed over time. Moreover, as noted 

below, questions have arisen regarding 

the authenticity of the materials that 

MEE submitted to support its claim that 

Worcester, Maniaci, Stolarczyk, and 

Hazelett were members of the MEE 

board in May 2019. 

25. We further find that there are 

substantial and material questions of 

fact regarding whether MEE’s listing of 

Compton as a board member in the 

Assignment Application constituted a 

misrepresentation in violation of section 

1.17(a)(1), or a violation of section 

1.17(a)(2). We note that, at the time MEE 

filed the Assignment Application, MEE 

appears to have been aware that 

Compton had passed away. We find that 

this raises questions as to whether MEE 

listed Compton as a board member in 

the Assignment Application in order to 

deceive the Commission. It also suggests 

that, at a minimum, MEE may have 

lacked a reasonable basis for believing 

that its inclusion of Compton in the list 

of MEE board members was correct and 

not misleading. We note that, even if, as 

MEE claims, it pointed Compton’s death 

out to an ‘‘FCC representative,’’ MEE 

did not do so prior to filing the 

Assignment Application, nor has it 

adequately explained why the 

Assignment Application nevertheless 

listed Compton as a board member of 

MMF and MEE. 

26. A substantial and material 

question of fact also exists regarding 

whether MEE lacked candor in violation 

of section 1.17(a)(1) (or violated section 

1.17(a)(2)) when it failed to disclose 

Compton’s death in the First and 

Second LOI Responses, and failed to 

divulge the date of Compton’s death in 

the Third LOI Response. Given that 

MEE divulged the deaths of Maniaci and 

Hazelett in the First LOI Response and 

indicated they had passed away at some 

point after May 29, 2019, it appears 

MEE intentionally avoided mentioning 

Compton in the First LOI Response and 

did so again in the Second LOI 

Response. Further evidence of MEE’s 

apparent intent to deceive the 

Commission can be found in the Third 

LOI Response. Therein, despite being 

instructed to address Compton’s 

involvement with MEE, MEE only 

acknowledged Compton’s passing, and 

avoided stating when Compton had 

passed away or acknowledging that 

Compton had never been involved with 

MEE. We assume that MEE believed it 

was in its interest to mislead the 

Commission about Compton’s death 

because, by revealing that Compton 

passed away in 2016, MEE would have 

made clear to the Bureau that it had 

engaged in misrepresentation and lack 

of candor in the Assignment 

Application and its LOI Responses. 

27. Moreover, there is a substantial 

and material question of fact regarding 

whether MEE violated section 1.17(a)(1) 

by fabricating the materials it submitted 

with the Third LOI Response in a post 

hoc attempt to provide evidence 

supporting the version of events set 

forth therein. We find it suspicious that 

MEE did not submit these materials 

with its earlier LOI Responses, 

particularly the Second LOI Response 

(which did include some 

documentation). If, as we suspect, the 

bylaws and meeting minutes did not 

exist at the time MEE submitted its 

earlier LOI Responses, that would 

explain why MEE did not include them 

with those responses, and why, in the 

Second LOI Response, MEE stated it had 

provided all materials in its possession. 

While MEE states in the Third LOI 

Response that it omitted these materials 

from its earlier responses because it was 

‘‘not aware that the FCC wanted to see 

them,’’ we find this explanation 

unconvincing. The first two LOIs clearly 

required such documents to be 

produced, and MEE never indicated any 

confusion over what was required in its 

responses to those LOIs. 

28. Finally, there is a substantial and 

material question of fact regarding 

whether, as Phelps alleges, MEE falsely 

stated that the Station is the ‘‘last 

station’’ in Marion, Ohio, providing 

local news and weather to listeners 

every hour. Phelps states that, contrary 

to MEE’s statement, another three 

stations (WMRN(AM), WMRN–FM, and 

WYNT–FM) licensed to the community 

of Marion provide local news and 

weather every hour, and an additional 

two stations (WDIF–LP, and WZMO–LP) 

licensed to Marion provide ‘‘weather 

every hour and local programming 

throughout their broadcast days.’’ MEE 

has offered no evidence demonstrating 

that Phelps’ statement is incorrect. 

However, we note that WYNT–FM 

actually is licensed to Caledonia, Ohio. 

The other four stations, though, are 

licensed to Marion, and, of those, at 

least one (WZMO–LP) provides hourly 

news and weather updates. 

Accordingly, we conclude that it 

appears MEE knowingly provided false 

information to the Bureau in order to 

bolster its argument that the Station’s 

license should be renewed. 

29. We note that Phelps made one 

additional allegation that MEE had 

made a false statement, but find that 

Phelps did not raise a substantial and 

material question of fact regarding this 

allegation. Specifically, Phelps alleged 

that MEE made a false statement in the 

Transfer Application regarding why 

Worcester resigned from the MEE board. 

MEE stated that Worcester’s resignation 

was voluntary, but Phelps alleged it was 

not, citing an Assurance of 

Discontinuance that Worcester (and 

Spears and MMF) entered into with the 

Ohio Attorney General. Because the 

Assurance of Discontinuance was 

related to Worcester’s involvement with 

MMF, not MEE, we find it is not 

probative of whether Worcester 

voluntarily resigned from the MEE 

board. Phelps has submitted no other 

information to support his allegation 

that Worcester’s resignation from the 

MEE board was not voluntary. 

Therefore, we find he has not raised a 

substantial and material question of fact 

that requires further investigation. 

30. To summarize, MEE appears to 

have misrepresented its board 

composition in the Assignment 

Application. Then, when we inquired 

about its board composition, MEE 

offered different and, at times 

inconsistent, explanations. This, in turn, 

reinforced our initial concern that MEE 

knowingly submitted false information 

in the Assignment Application, and 

engendered additional concerns that, in 

an attempt to cover up its original 

misrepresentation, MEE made 

additional misrepresentations to, or 

lacked candor with, the Commission in 

the LOI Responses. Our concerns about 

whether MEE is capable of honesty in 

future dealings with the Commission are 

further bolstered by MEE’s apparent 

false statement regarding its 

programming being unique in its 

community of license. 

31. Failure to File Required Form. We 

find that a question of fact exists 

regarding whether MEE intentionally 

chose not to notify the Commission that 

a pro forma transfer of control of MEE 

occurred in May 2019. If, as MEE asserts 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Notices 12701 

in the LOI Responses, its entire board 

turned over between May 28, and May 

29, 2019, then MEE should have filed a 

pro forma transfer of control application 

within 30 days of this event. It did not 

do so despite the fact that it was aware 

of the need to file such an application 

based both on the conversation with an 

‘‘FCC representative’’ that it mentions in 

the Third LOI Response, and based on 

the fact that it filed an unnecessary pro 

forma transfer of control application 

when Worcester allegedly resigned as 

President and board member on May 28, 

2019, and Craft allegedly took her place 

as President. MEE admits as much in 

the Third LOI Response. Thus, a 

question of fact exists regarding whether 

MEE intentionally chose not to notify 

the Commission. We find that this 

question of fact is both substantial and 

material, and thus should be examined 

in the hearing proceeding. We reach this 

conclusion because, if MEE 

intentionally ignored the notice 

requirement set forth in section 73.865, 

that would demonstrate a propensity for 

ignoring Commission rules and 

requirements, and could render serious 

a rule violation that might otherwise be 

considered minor. 

32. Unauthorized Operations. We 

reject Phelps’ argument that MEE 

violated section 301 of the Act, which 

prohibits any person from transmitting 

signals by radio ‘‘except under and in 

accordance with this chapter and with 

a license . . . granted under the 

provisions of this chapter.’’ Phelps 

argues that MEE violated section 301 of 

the Act because it lacked authority to 

operate the Station between February 

12, 2021 (when we dismissed the 

Renewal Application), and February 16, 

2021 (when we returned the Renewal 

Application to pending status), but kept 

the Station on the air. However, Phelps 

ignores section 307(c)(3) of the Act, 47 

U.S.C. 307(c)(3), which applies to 

renewal applications and provides that, 

‘‘[p]ending any administrative or 

judicial hearing and final decision on 

such an application and the disposition 

of any petition for rehearing pursuant to 

section 405 or section 402 of [the Act], 

the Commission shall continue such 

license in effect.’’ Because there had 

been no final decision regarding the 

Renewal Application, the Station’s 

license continued in effect, and no 

unauthorized operation occurred 

between February 12, and 16, 2021. 

33. Restricted Proceeding. This 

hearing proceeding is a ‘‘restricted’’ 

proceeding pursuant to section 1.1208 

of the Rules, 47 CFR 1.1208, and thus 

ex parte presentations to or from 

Commission decision-making 

personnel, including the presiding 

officer and her staff and Bureau staff, are 

prohibited, except as otherwise 

provided in the Rules. 

34. Electronic Filing of Documents. 

All pleadings in this proceeding, 

including written submissions such as 

letters, discovery requests and 

objections and written responses 

thereto, excluding confidential and/or 

other protected material, must be filed 

in MB Docket No. 22–76 using ECFS. 

ECFS shall also act as the repository for 

records of actions taken in this 

proceeding, excluding confidential and/ 

or other protected material, by the 

presiding officer and the Commission. 

Documents responsive to any party’s 

requests for production of documents 

should not be filed on ECFS. Such 

responsive documents shall be served 

directly on counsel for the party 

requesting the documents and produced 

either in hard copy or in electronic form 

(e.g., hard drive, thumb drive) with files 

named in such a way as it is clear how 

the documents are organized. 

35. Case Caption. The caption of any 

pleading filed in this proceeding, as 

well as all letters, documents, or other 

written submissions including 

discovery requests and objections and 

responses thereto, shall indicate 

whether it is to be acted upon by the 

Commission or the presiding officer. 

The presiding officer shall be identified 

by name. 

36. Electronic service on the 

Enforcement Bureau shall be made 

using the following email address: 

EBHearings@fcc.gov. 

37. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to sections 309(e), and 309(k) 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, and section 1.221(a) of the 

Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 1.221(a), 

the captioned application of The Marion 

Education Exchange for renewal of 

license of station WWGH–LP, Marion, 

Ohio, is designated for hearing in a 

proceeding before the FCC 

Administrative Law Judge, at a time and 

place to be specified in a subsequent 

order, upon the following issues: 

(a) To determine whether The Marion 

Education Exchange violated section 

73.1015 of the Commission’s rules, 47 

CFR 73.1015, by failing to fully and 

completely respond to Commission 

letters of inquiry. 

(b) To determine whether The Marion 

Education Exchange violated section 

1.17 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.17, by making misrepresentations to, 

and/or lacking candor with, the 

Commission both in the application for 

consent to assignment of the license of 

WWGH–LP, Marion, Ohio, and in its 

responses to letters of inquiry sent by 

the Media Bureau on December 8, 2020, 

February 17, 2021, and March 30, 2021. 

(c) To determine whether The Marion 

Education Exchange violated section 

73.865 of the Commission’s rules, 47 

CFR 73.865, by failing to notify the 

Commission of the pro forma transfer of 

control that appears to have occurred on 

May 29, 2019, and, if so, whether it did 

so intentionally. 

(d) To determine, in light of the 

evidence adduced pursuant to the 

specified issues, if the captioned 

application for renewal of license for 

station WWGH–LP should be granted. 

38. It is further ordered that, in 

addition to resolving the foregoing 

issues, the hearing shall determine, 

pursuant to section 503(b)(1) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1), whether 

an order of forfeiture should be issued 

against The Marion Education Exchange 

in an amount not to exceed the statutory 

limit of $55,052 for each violation (or 

each day of a continuing violation) of 

each Commission rule section above for 

which the statute of limitations in 

section 503(b)(6) of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 

503(b)(6), has not lapsed. 

39. It is further ordered that, in 

connection with the possible forfeiture 

liability noted above, this document 

constitutes notice pursuant to section 

503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(4). 

40. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to sections 309(e), 309(k), 312(c) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 309(e), 309(k), 

312(c), and section 1.221(c) of the 

Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 1.221(c), in 

order to avail itself of the opportunity to 

be heard and the right to present 

evidence at a hearing in this proceeding, 

The Marion Education Exchange, itself 

or by its attorney, shall file with the 

Commission, within 20 calendar days of 

the mailing of this Hearing Designation 

Order, Notice of Opportunity for 

Hearing, and Notice of Apparent 

Liability for Forfeiture, a written 

appearance stating its intention to 

appear at the hearing and present 

evidence on the issues specified above. 

41. It is further ordered that pursuant 

to section 1.221(c) of the Commission’s 

Rules, if The Marion Education 

Exchange fails to file a written 

appearance within the time specified 

above, or has not filed prior to 

expiration of that time a petition to 

dismiss without prejudice, or a petition 

to accept, for good cause shown, such 

written appearance beyond expiration of 

said 20 days, the pending application 

will be dismissed with prejudice for 

failure to prosecute. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
12702 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Notices 

42. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to section 1.221(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 1.221(d), the Chief, 

Enforcement Bureau, is made a party to 

this proceeding without the need to file 

a written appearance. 

43. It is further ordered that, in 

accordance with section 309(e) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 309(e), and section 

1.254 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 

CFR 1.254, the burden of proceeding 

with the introduction of evidence and 

the burden of proof with respect to the 

issues listed above shall be upon The 

Marion Education Exchange. 

44. It is further ordered that a copy of 

each document filed in this proceeding 

subsequent to the date of adoption of 

this Hearing Designation Order, Notice 

of Opportunity for Hearing, and Notice 

of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture shall 

be served on the counsel of record 

appearing on behalf of the Chief, 

Enforcement Bureau. Parties may 

inquire as to the identity of such 

counsel by calling the Investigations & 

Hearings Division of the Enforcement 

Bureau at (202) 418–1420. Such service 

copy shall be addressed to the named 

counsel of record, Investigations & 

Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, 

Federal Communications Commission, 

45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. 

45. It is further ordered, that The 

Marion Education Exchange, pursuant 

to section 311(a)(2) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 311(a)(2), and 

section 73.3594 of the Commission’s 

Rules, 47 CFR 73.3594, shall give notice 

of the hearing within the time and in the 

manner prescribed in such Rule, and 

shall advise the Commission of the 

publication of such notice as mandated 

by section 73.3594 of the Commission’s 

Rules. 

46. It is further ordered that a copy of 

this Hearing Designation Order, Notice 

of Opportunity for Hearing, and Notice 

of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture shall 

be sent via Certified Mail, Return 

Receipt Requested, and by regular firstclass mail to The Marion Education 

Exchange, PO Box 43302, Marion, OH 

43302, and Shawn Craft, 1366 Montego 

Drive, Marion, OH 43302. 

47. It is further ordered that the 

Secretary of the Commission shall cause 

to have this Hearing Designation Order, 

Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, and 

Notice of Apparent Liability for 

Forfeiture, or a summary thereof 

published in the Federal Register. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Thomas Horan, 

Chief of Staff, Media Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04757 Filed 3–4–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[OMB 3060–1185; FR ID 74457] 

Information Collection Being Reviewed 

by the Federal Communications 

Commission Under Delegated 

Authority 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork burdens, and as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA), the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC or Commission) 

invites the general public and other 

Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collections. 

Comments are requested concerning: 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimate; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; ways to minimize 

the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; and ways to 

further reduce the information 

collection burden on small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number. No person shall be subject to 

any penalty for failing to comply with 

a collection of information subject to the 

PRA that does not display a valid OMB 

control number. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

submitted on or before May 6, 2022. If 

you anticipate that you will be 

submitting comments but find it 

difficult to do so within the time period 

allowed by this notice, you should 

advise the contacts below as soon as 

possible. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to 

Cathy Williams, FCC, via email PRA@

fcc.gov and to Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information about the 

information collection, contact Cathy 

Williams at (202) 418–2918. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control Number: 3060–1184. 

Title: Sections 1.946(d), 27.10(d), 

27.12, 27.14 and 27.17, Service Rules for 

the Advanced Wireless Services H 

Block—Implementing Section 6401 of 

the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 

1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz 

Bands—R&O, FCC 13–88. 

Form Number: N/A. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities. 

Number of Respondents: 1 

respondent; 352 responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion 

reporting requirement and at the end of 

the license term for incumbent 

licensees. 

Obligation to Respond: Statutory 

authority for this collection are 

contained in sections 15 U.S.C. 79 et 

seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 

157, 225, 227, 303(r), 309, 310, 1404, 

and 145. 

Total Annual Burden: 352 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: No cost. 

Needs and Uses: On June 27, 2013, 

the FCC adopted: Service Rules for the 

Advanced Wireless Services H Block— 

Implementing Section 6401 of the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 

1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz 

Bands, WT Docket 12–357, Report and 

Order, 28 FCC Rcd 9483 (2013) (H Block 

R&O). The H Block R&O adopted service 

rules for the H Block and makes 

available 10 MHz of paired spectrum for 

flexible use in accordance with the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012. The H Block R&O 

contained the following information 

collection requirements which have 

already been approved by OMB. 

For the purpose of this collection, a 

winning bidder of H Block spectrum 

must comply with each of the following 

rule sections: 

(a) Section 1.946(d) requires H Block 

licensees to file a construction 

notification and certify that they have 

met the applicable performance 

benchmarks. 

(b) Section 27.10(d) requires an H 

Block licensee to notify the Commission 

within 30 days if it changes, or adds to, 

the carrier status on its license. 

(c) Section 27.12 requires H Block 

licensees to comply with certain 

eligibility reporting requirements. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES