Federal Communications Commission DA 16-772
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
WYDC, Inc.
Licensee of Station WYDC(TV)
Corning, New York
)
)
)
)
)
Facility ID No. 62219
NAL/Acct. No.:   201641420011 
FRN:  0003778511
ORDER
Adopted:  July 7, 2016 Released: July 7, 2016
By the Video Division, Media Bureau:
1. The Video Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to WYDC, Inc. 
(Licensee), the licensee of Station WYDC(TV), Corning, New York (Station)
1
based on its apparent 
willful and/or repeated violations of Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Commission’s rules (Rules).
2
  
Based upon our review of the Licensee’s Response and the facts and circumstances surrounding it, we 
hereby rescind the NAL and cancel the proposed forfeiture.
2. Pursuant to subsection 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, each commercial television 
licensee is required to prepare and place in its local public inspection file a Children’s Television 
Programming Report (FCC Form 398) for each calendar quarter reflecting, inter alia, the efforts that it 
made during that quarter to serve the educational and informational needs of children.
3
  Licensees must
file the reports with the Commission and place them in their public file by the tenth day of the succeeding 
calendar quarter.   The NAL proposed a forfeiture of $3,000 based on the Licensee’s failure to file in a
timely manner Children’s Television Programming Reports for a period of three quarters.
4
3. The Licensee filed a timely Response on June 8, 2016.
5
  The Response contends that 
upon further investigation the reports at issue were filed on-time.  In support the Response included a
signed declaration under penalty of perjury by the Program Director for the Station, whose job 
responsibilities include preparing and filing the Station’s Children’s Television Programming Reports, 
and filing confirmation numbers that are generated upon filing.  This evidence supports the Licensee’s 
claim that the Children’s Television Programming Reports at issue were initially timely filed, but 
inadvertently overwritten and subsequently re-filed by the Licensee.
6
  Based on the information provided 
                                                     
1
WYDC, Inc., Licensee of WYDC(TV) Corning, New York, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 16-523 
(rel. May 11, 2016) (NAL).
2
47 C.F.R. § 73.3526(e)(11)(iii).
3
Id.
4
The NAL finds that the Licensee failed to file in a timely manner its reports for the first quarter of 2012, first 
quarter of 2013, and third quarter of 2013.  In fact, as noted in the NAL the Licensee itself disclosed that it had failed 
to timely file these reports.  NAL at 1-2, para. 3.  
5
Response to Notice of Apparent Liability filed by WYDC, Inc. (Jun. 8, 2016) (Response).
6
Response at 2-4.  The Licensee also notes that it has implemented safeguards to prevent reports from being 
accidently overwritten.  Response at 3.
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-772
2
in the Response, we find that the Children’s Television Programming Reports at issue were filed in a 
timely manner and that rescission of the NAL and cancellation of the proposed forfeiture is appropriate.
7
4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 
issued to WYDC, Inc., is hereby RESCINDED and the proposed $3,000 forfeiture is CANCELLED.  
5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this NAL shall be sent by First Class and 
Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to WYDC, Inc., 33 East Market Street, Corning, NY 14830 
and to its counsel, Mark Denbo, Esq., Smithwick & Belendiuk, P.C., 5028 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 
301, Washington, DC 20016. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Barbara A. Kreisman
Chief, Video Division
Media Bureau 
                                                     
7
In light of our fact based finding that the WYDC did not violate Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R, 
§ 73.3526(e)(11)(iii), we need not address WYDC’s alternative legal argument that to the extent it did commit a 
“technical violation” of the Rules its actions were not “willful and/or repeated.”  Id., at 6-7.