Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-213   
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Cumulus Licensing LLC
Licensee of Stations
WPEZ(FM), Jeffersonville, Georgia 
WIFN(FM) (Formerly WAYS(FM)), 
Macon, Georgia 
WDDO(AM), Macon, Georgia 
WAYS(AM) (Formerly WWFN(AM)), 
Macon, Georgia 
WDEN-FM, Macon, Georgia 
WMAC(AM), Macon, Georgia 
WMGB(FM), Montezuma, Georgia  
WLZN(FM) (Formerly WMKS (FM)), 
Macon, Georgia
)     
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NAL/Acct. No. MB-200841410041
FRN: 0002834810
Facility I.D. No. 52551
Facility I.D. No. 68679
Facility I.D. No. 52546
Facility I.D. No. 68678
Facility I.D. No. 46996
Facility I.D. No. 46998
Facility I.D. No. 88541
Facility I.D. No. 54672
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  September 17, 2008 Released:  December 30, 2008
By the Commission:  Commissioners Copps and Adelstein issuing a joint statement.
I.     INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) issued pursuant to Section 
503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”), and Section 1.80 of the 
Commission’s Rules (the “Rules”),1 we find that Cumulus Licensing LLC (the “Licensee”), licensee of 
Stations WPEZ(FM), Jeffersonville, Georgia; WIFN(FM) (formerly WAYS (FM)), Macon, Georgia; 
WDDO(AM), Macon, Georgia; WAYS(AM) (formerly WWFN(AM)), Macon, Georgia; WDEN-FM, 
Macon, Georgia; WMAC(AM), Macon, Georgia; WMGB(FM), Montezuma, Georgia; and WLZN(FM) 
(formerly WMKS(FM)), Macon, Georgia (collectively, the “Stations” and each a “Station”), apparently 
willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.2080(c)(2), 73.2080(c)(3), 73.2080(c)(5), 73.2080(c)(6)(iii), 
73.2080(c)(6)(iv), and 73.3526(e)(7) of the Commission’s Rules2 by failing to comply with the 
Commission’s Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) record-keeping, recruitment source information, 
interviewee information, EEO initiative, self-assessment, and public file requirements.  Based upon our 
review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the Licensee is apparently liable for a 
  
1 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
2 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.2080(c)(2), 73.2080(c)(3), 73.2080(c)(5), 73.2080(c)(6)(iii), 73.2080(c)(6)(iv), and 
73.3526(e)(7).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-213   
2
monetary forfeiture in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000).  We also impose reporting 
conditions on the Licensee and any successor Licensee of any of the Stations that are or may be included 
in the employment unit, to prevent future violations of these requirements.
II.     BACKGROUND
2. Section 73.2080(c)(1) of the Rules requires that a broadcast licensee recruit for every 
full-time job vacancy in its employment unit operation.  In this regard, the Rules impose, inter alia, the 
following respective obligations on such licensees: 
· Section 73.2080(c)(2):  complete two recruitment initiatives (if in a small market) over two years; 
· Section 73.2080(c)(3):  analyze the recruitment program for the licensee’s unit on an ongoing 
basis to ensure that it is effective in achieving broad outreach to potential applicants, and address 
any problems found as a result of its analysis;  
· Section 73.2080(c)(5):  retain records of its EEO efforts; 
· Section 73.2080(c)(6)(iii):  maintain recruitment source data; and 
· Section 73.2080(c)(6)(iv):  maintain interviewee data. 
In addition, Section 73.3526(e)(7) requires commercial licensees to include certain EEO-related materials 
in their station public files, including that noted above.  
3. EEO Review. By letter dated June 7, 2006, the Media Bureau (“the Bureau”) notified the 
Licensee that it had been randomly selected for an audit of its EEO program.3 The Commission has 
before it the Licensee’s response to the audit.4 The Licensee reports that its record-keeping in the Macon, 
Georgia, market was unsatisfactory in 2004 and 2005.5 The Licensee states that poor record-keeping 
during those two years made it difficult, if not impossible, for it to accurately report on its EEO public file 
reports the number of individuals interviewed for full-time openings in 2004 and 2005 and how those that 
filled full-time positions in 2004 learned about the openings.6  Our review of the Licensee’s public file 
reports during the periods at issue (December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004, and December 1, 2004, 
through November 30, 2005) (“2004 report” and “2005 report,” respectively), reveals that the Licensee did 
not retain adequate EEO records of interviewees and referrals, as required by Section 73.2080(c)(5), and 
did not produce documentation of the recruitment initiatives it was required to complete, as required by 
Section 73.2080(c)(2). The 2004 report also fails to list any information regarding the total number of 
interviewees and the recruitment source for interviewees for each of the vacancies filled, in violation of 
Section 73.2080(c)(6)(iv).  The report shows eight vacancies filled in this time period but other records 
produced by the Licensee in its audit response indicate that two additional hires took place, so the correct 
total of hires for the 2004 report appears to be 10.  The 2005 report lists the recruitment source for all 11 
hirees in the reporting period, but does not include any information regarding the total number of 
interviewees and the interviewee referral sources for the positions filled, as required by Sections 
73.2080(c)(6)(iv) and 73.2080(c)(6)(iii).  In addition, for its hires during both reporting periods, the 
Licensee produced some of the job notices it sent to sources, but almost none of the notices indicated which 
source received the notices, thus indicating that the Licensee did not have complete copies of all job notices, 
as required by Section 73.2080(c)(5)(iii).  The Licensee was able to provide documentation showing 
completion of one recruitment initiative in the 2004-2005 year but submitted no information regarding any 
  
3 Letter from Lewis Pulley, Assistant Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau, to Cumulus Licensing, LLC (Jun. 7, 
2006). 
4 Letter and documentation from Richard S. Denning, Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel of Cumulus 
Licensing LLC, to EEO Staff, Policy Division, Media Bureau (Jul. 21,2006). 
5 Id.
6 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-213   
3
other recruitment initiatives during the 2003-2005 period, in violation of Section 73.2080(c)(2).  Also, the 
Licensee’s deficiencies in retaining records relating to its EEO requirements reveal an apparent lack of self-
assessment for EEO compliance during the 2004 and 2005 periods, in violation of Section 73.2080(c)(3).  
Finally, because of the Licensee’s incomplete records, it was not able to include all required information in 
the public inspection files of each station, in violation of Sections 73.3526(e)(7) and 73.2080(c)(6).
III. DISCUSSION
4.  We conclude that the Licensee failed to maintain adequate recruitment records for all of 
its vacancies for its 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 reporting periods, as required by Section 73.2080(c)(5).  
The Licensee filled ten vacancies in its 2003-2004 reporting period, and 11 vacancies in the 2004-2005 
reporting period.  The Licensee reported that it had no interviewee or referral information for seven of the 
eight vacancies reported in the 2004 reporting period, and the record further fails to include any 
interviewee or referral information for two hires that were not listed on the 2004 report but were indicated 
elsewhere in the Licensee’s audit response.7 In the 2005 public file report, the Licensee provided the 
recruitment referral source for its 11 hirees but was unable to provide information regarding the total 
number of job applicants interviewed and the recruitment referral source for the interviewees for those 
positions.  Also in the 2005 report, the licensee provided information for only one recruitment initiative of 
the two it was required to complete in the 2003-2005 period in accordance with Section 73.2080(c)(2).  
The Licensee admits in its response that it is unable to document all of its supplemental recruitment 
initiatives for the reporting periods at issue.8 Furthermore, the Licensee’s records for the majority of its 
job notices were incomplete, failing to indicate the sources to which they were sent, as required by 
Section 73.2080(c)(5)(iii).
5. We find that the Licensee’s 2004 and 2005 public file reports and audit response indicate 
that it did not retain adequate records of interviewees and referrals or job notices, as required by Section 
73.2080(c)(5).  We also find that the Licensee did not produce documentation of one of the two 
recruitment initiatives it was required to complete, as required by Section73.2080(c)(5).  Because of the 
Licensee’s lack of records of interviewees, referrals, and job notices, and its failure to document 
completion of one of its two required recruitment initiatives, we find that it was not possible for it to have 
adequately analyzed its recruitment program to ensure that it was effective in achieving broad outreach, in 
violation of Section 73.2080(c)(3).  Finally, we find that it failed to place all of the required information in 
the public inspection files of the stations, as required by Sections 73.3526(e)(7) and 73.2080(c)(6). 
6. The Licensee reports that it revised its EEO program “toward the end of 2005” and now 
follows an EEO program that includes advertising each full-time position over the air on all eight 
Cumulus stations in the Macon, Georgia, market, advertising each opening on its six websites, advertising 
each opening in the local Macon newspaper and mailing or e-mailing information about each full-time 
position to every entity listed on its recruitment source list.9 While these changes should result in a much 
improved EEO program for the Licensee’s Stations, we find that the Licensee’s repeated violations of our 
EEO rule, as noted above during the public file reporting periods of 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, warrant 
the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000).  
7. 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 
  
7 Letter and documentation from Richard S. Denning, Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel of Cumulus 
Licensing LLC, to EEO Staff, Policy Division, Media Bureau (Jul. 21, 2006), Response to Question 3(a).
8 Id.
9 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-213   
4
United States for a forfeiture penalty.10 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.11 The 
legislative history of Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both 
Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act,12 and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 
503(b) context.13 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.”14  
8. The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules do 
not establish base forfeiture amounts for specific EEO rule violations, such as a failure to recruit widely 
for vacancies or to self-assess EEO performance.  However, they do establish a base forfeiture amount of 
$10,000 for violation of the Commission´s public file rules, of $3,000 for failure to file required 
information, and of $1,000 for failure to maintain required records.15 In determining the appropriate 
forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering 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.”16  
9. As discussed supra, the Licensee failed to list recruitment source data on its 2003-2004 
EEO public file report; list interviewee data on its 2004 and 2005 EEO public file reports; list the total 
number of interviewees for any of the Stations’ 10 full-time vacancies on its 2004 EEO public file report 
and 11 full-time hires on its 2005 report; list two of its hires on its 2004 report; list all required 
information on its job notices; self-assess its EEO program; and place required information in the public 
inspection files of the Stations.  Accordingly, based upon the facts before us, the factors noted above, and 
pertinent precedent,17 we find that the Licensee is apparently liable for the following forfeiture amounts 
for its willful and repeated violations of these Rules:  $4,000 for its violation of Section 73.2080(c)(2); 
$2,000 for its violation of Section 73.2080(c)(3); $4,000 for its violation of Section 73.2080(c)(5);  
  
10 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B).  See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1).
11 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).
12 See H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982).
13 See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991).
14 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(2). 
15 See Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture 
Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113-15 (1997) (“Forfeiture Policy Statement”), recon. denied, 
15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), note to paragraph (b)(4), Section I.
16 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); see also Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01, ¶27; 47 C.F.R. § 
1.80(b)(4); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), note to paragraph (b)(4), Section II.  
17 In Waitt Omaha, LLC, we proposed an $8,000 forfeiture for a licensee’s violations of various EEO rules, 
specifically Sections 73.2080(c)(3), 73.2080(c)(5), 73.2080(c)(6)(iii), 73.2080(c)(6)(iv), and 73.3526(e)(7).  The 
licensee had failed to maintain required EEO records, list the recruitment source of hirees, provide data on the 
numbers of persons interviewed and referred from each recruitment source, self-assess adequately, and place 
required EEO information in its public inspection file. Waitt Omaha, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 2661 (2007) (response pending).  In the instant case, Cumulus Licensing, LLC, in addition 
to violating the rules violated in Waitt Omaha, LLC, also failed to list two hires on its 2004 public file report and 
failed to maintain complete records of job notices sent to sources.  In Viper Communications, we proposed an 
$8,000 forfeiture for a licensee’s violation of Sections 73.2080(c)(2) and (c)(3).  The licensee had failed to complete 
its one required initiative during the 18-month period of our review of its EEO record, or to self-assess adequately.  
Viper Communications, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 20254 (2005) (forfeiture paid).  In 
the instant case, Cumulus Licensing LLC also failed to perform one of its two required initiatives, but its violation of 
Section 73.2080(c)(2) is not as severe because it did perform one initiative.    
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-213   
5
$1,000 for its violation of Section 73.2080(c)(6)(iii); $2,000 for its violation of Section 73.2080(c)(6)(iv), 
and $1,000 for its violation of Section 73.3526(e)(7), for a total proposed forfeiture in the amount of 
$14,000.18  We will also impose reporting conditions as set forth below, to ensure that the Licensee and 
any successor licensee of any of the above-captioned Stations maintains an adequate EEO program in 
compliance with the Rules.  The reporting conditions will apply to the above-captioned Stations, and to 
all other stations that are part of their employment unit.  
IV.     ORDERING CLAUSES
10. 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 Cumulus Licensing LLC is 
hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of fourteen
thousand dollars ($14,000) for its apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.2080(c)(2), 
73.2080(c)(3), 73.2080(c)(5), 73.2080(c)(6)(iii), 73.2080(c)(6)(iv), and 73.3526(e)(7) of the 
Commission’s Rules. 
11.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules, that, 
within thirty (30) days of the release of this NAL, Cumulus Licensing LLC SHALL PAY the full amount 
of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the 
proposed forfeiture.  
12. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the 
order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account 
Number and FRN Number referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to 
Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by 
overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 
Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 
021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For payment by credit card, 
an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form 159, enter 
the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters “FORF” in 
block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be 
sent to: Chief Financial Officer – Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, 
Washington, D.C. 20554.  Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 
or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures.
13. The response, if any, must be mailed to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20554, ATTN:  Lewis Pulley, Assistant Chief, 
Policy Division, Media Bureau, and MUST INCLUDE the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above.
 14.  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 
  
18 In assessing the forfeiture amounts for the Licensee’s various violations, the Commission did not consider any 
violations that occurred before March 26, 2004, because the Stations’ renewal applications were granted on that 
date. See File Nos. BRH-20031208BTC, BRH-20031208BUZ, BR-20031208BVV, BR-20031208BUG, BRH-
20031208BUI, BR-20031208BVT, BRH-20031208BVE, and BRH-20031208BVN; see also 47 U.S.C. 
§ 503(b)(6)(A) (Commission is barred from issuing an NAL to broadcast licensees in this circumstance.) 47 C.F.R. 
§ 73.3526(e)(7) requires EEO information to be kept in a station’s public inspection file until final action has been 
taken on the station’s next license renewal application. The renewal grant becomes final 40 days after public notice 
of the grant of the renewal application, unless a petition for reconsideration or application for review is timely filed 
or the Commission otherwise sets aside the grant. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106, 1.115, 1.117.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-213   
6
(“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. 
15.  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, SW, Room 
1-A625, Washington D.C. 20554.19
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Cumulus Licensing LLC and any successor licensee 
for any or all of Stations WPEZ(FM), WIFN(FM) (formerly WAYS (FM)), WDDO(AM), WAYS(AM) 
(formerly WWFN(AM)), WDEN-FM,  WMAC(AM), WMGB(FM), and WLZN(FM) (formerly 
WMKS(FM))20 shall submit to the Federal Communications Commission, Media Bureau, EEO Staff, an 
original and one copy of the following information on January 4, 2010; January 3, 2011; and January 3, 
2012, with respect to those and all other stations that may be in its employment unit: 
(a)  the unit’s most recent EEO public file report; 
(b)  dated copies of all advertisements, bulletins, letters, faxes, e-mails, or other communications 
announcing each full-time vacancy for the preceding reporting year;  
(c)  the recruitment source that referred the hiree for each full-time vacancy; and
(d)  the total number of interviewees for each full-time vacancy for the preceding reporting year 
and the referral source for each interviewee.  
17.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 73.3526(e)(10) of the 
Commission’s Rules, Cumulus Licensing LLC shall place a copy of this NAL in the public inspection 
files of Stations WPEZ(FM), WIFN(FM), WDDO(AM), WAYS(AM), WDEN-FM,  WMAC(AM), 
WMGB(FM), and WLZN(FM).
18.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this NAL shall be sent, by First Class and 
Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Cumulus Licensing LLC, c/o Richard S. Denning, Vice 
President, Secretary and General Counsel, 3535 Piedmont Road, Building 14, Suite 1400, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30305.    
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
  
19 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
20 In the event of an assignment of any of the Stations, this continuing obligation will run to the assignee with regard 
to each Station assigned.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-213   
7
JOINT STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS 
AND
COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN
Re:  Dickey Broadcasting Company, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture; Urban Radio I, LLC, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture; Puerto Rico Public 
Broadcasting Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture; W.S. Communications, L.L.C., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture; Cumulus Licensing L.L.C., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture; Fox 
Television Stations, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
The Commission’s enforcement of Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) rules related to self-
assessment, recordkeeping, recruitment source information, interviewee information, and public file 
requirements is one of the principal ways we strive to promote employment diversity and opportunities in 
the communications industry.  While this is unquestionably the right thing to do, Sections 334 and 634 of 
the Communications Act specifically authorize the Commission to take steps to promote equality of 
employment opportunities for women and members of racial and ethnic minority groups.  Our EEO rules, 
for example, require wide dissemination of job vacancies in order to attract all qualified employees.  
According to reports, from 1971 to 1997, employment of people of color in broadcasting increased from 5 
to 19 percent, and from 12 to 43 percent for women during the same period.
In recent years, however, Commission enforcement of EEO rules has been inconsistent and, as 
one consequence, employment in broadcasting does not reflect America.  As the Minority Media and 
Telecommunications Council has found, while the average forfeiture amount for EEO violations has 
increased, the Commission’s EEO docket has decreased by 96 percent. Between 1994 and 1997, the 
Commission decided 251 cases, resulting in 86 forfeitures.  Between 2004 and 2007, however, the 
Commission decided only 10 cases, resulting in 8 forfeitures.
Lax EEO enforcement has yielded less diversity in employment.  The most recent report on
employment trends in broadcasting by the Radio and Television News Directors Association/Hofstra 
University found that, while the minority population in the United States has risen 8.1 percent in the past 
18 years, minority workforce in TV news is up 5.8 percent, and the minority workforce in radio is up by 
just 1 percent. 
So it is clear that the Commission’s recent efforts to promote employment diversity have been 
woefully inadequate.  If we are truly committed to employment diversity, as required by law, we must get 
serious about restoring an effective and rational EEO enforcement program.  This level of commitment is 
currently lacking at the FCC. 
There are other, more pro-active, steps we should consider. At a minimum, we should make our 
process more transparent by compiling and releasing FCC Form 395 data, as well as developing annual 
and longitudinal employment reports.  As we work with industry and advocacy groups in a cooperative 
manner, these initial steps should help us better understand employment trends in the communications 
industry and permit us to better craft more effective oversight.
Having a communications industry that reflects our nation’s diversity would best serve a wide 
range of consumer and societal interests.  It is not only a legal obligation, it is also the right thing to do.