WPC0 2?BJZECourier3|o#XP\  P6QXP#HP LaserJet 4 PostScript_8202HPLA4POS.PRSx  @hhhhY\X@ X-#XP\  P6Q DXP#2)qLXCourierTimes Roman"S^2CRddCCCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`lC2CC!CCCCCCCCCCd8YYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddodYYYYYYdzYzYzYzYdddddddCdCdCCCdNCdz8zCzCzCz8dddddCCCoNoNoNoNzCzCzCdddddzYzYNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<$YYdCCddooCYd<d<$YYdCCddooCY{LZ L L X-   I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xj\  P6G;XP##X\  P6G;P#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G;XP#"S^*8DSS888S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZ8*888888888888S.xJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxJxJoJoJoJoJxSfJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSxSxS8S8S888SA8xSf.f8f8f8f.xSxSxSxSxSxo8o8o8]A]A]A]Af8f8f8xSxSxSxSxxSfJfJN:*LS8JSSSSS.4}}S2S}2JJS88SS]]8J2t^^\\^^ee*C^.wR)Ewn\1fy\r\Sxx\r"S^2CoddȧCCCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,OhC2CC!CCCCCCCCCCo8dddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzoddYYYYoYYYYdddddooNoNoNCNodCo8CCC8oooddȐYYYoNoNoNoNCCCooooȐdYYNF2ldCddddddd<d<+oodCCddddCorequire." Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.   xi503(b)(2)(D). After carefully considering your response, we continue to believe that unauthorized  x[transfers of control occurred contrary to the Communications Act and our rules. Nonetheless, we conclude that the forfeiture should be reduced from $12,000 to $10,000.   x6. Section 310(d) of the Communications Act and Section 73.3540 of the Commission's  x=Rules require the consent of the Commission prior to effectuatation of a voluntary assignment  xof license or transfer of control. Such an assignment or transfer can occur in a wide variety of  xcircumstances, including those which result only in changes in the form of the entity that  x=possesses the right to control the station's finances, personnel and programming. Thus, even  X!- xwhen an assignment results in nothing more than a change in the form of the entity holding the  xlicense and the same individual continues to control the license, the assignment must receive prior approval from the Commission. See Section 73.3540(f).   x7. Accordingly, before Monte Corporation could sell the station to the Ministry, it had  xto submit an appropriate application and obtain Commission consent. Because it did not do so,  x<an unauthorized transfer of control occurred, which is a violation of the Communications Act and"#',-(-(ZZ%"  xjour rules. Moreover, such violation was continuing in nature because Monte Corporation and  xythe Ministry never filed an assignment application and never received Commission approval of the assignment.   x8. Nonetheless, we recognize the presence of mitigating circumstances in this case.  xSpecifically, Clark attempted to ascertain the proper course to follow regarding the sale of the  xstation to the Ministry. To this end, after Clark had informed the Commission of the sale, he  xrequested a form to change the ownership of the station but not the license. Clark therefore  xapparently understood, erroneously, that, despite the sale of the station's assets, there was no need  xfor the submission of an application to assign the station's license. While Clark's understanding  X - xwas incorrect (see, e.g., Victor Valley Broadcasting, Inc., 2 FCC 2d 495 (1966)), it appears that  xhe was seeking information and forms to comply with the Commission's requirement. However,  xit was not until an inquiry letter dated May 15, 1995, that he learned that an assignment  xapplication should have been filed and Commission consent obtained prior to the sale of the  xLstation to the Ministry. Given these circumstances, we conclude that a $2,000 reduction in the  X - xforfeiture is appropriate. Cf. Hualapai Broadcasters, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 4914 (MMB 1993) (Forfeiture reduced in part because licensee relied upon legal opinion of a recognized authority).   mx9. We perceive no mitigating circumstances, however, with respect to Clark's actions  x[regarding Ulbricht. We conclude that Clark willingly allowed Ulbricht to assume control of the  xstation at least by April 1, 1995, and that he did so, in part, to ensure payments to himself  xpursuant to the LMA and the thenpending application to assign the KSWB license. Although  x=Clark's claims also reflect a belief that he has somehow been victimized by Ulbricht, there is no  x|indication that Clark ever attempted to use local legal processes to reestablish Monte  X- xCorporation's control over the station's affairs. yOQ- xԍ#]\  PCP# In this regard, it is not this agency's role to enforce agreements such as the LMA in the instant case or to enforce local civil and criminal laws involving trespass and the like. Rather, Clark allowed Ulbricht to continue to  xdominate the affairs of KSWB. Given the foregoing, we find that the unauthorized transfer of  xcontrol was willful and repeated in that it continued for more than six months, and we believe that no further reduction in the amount of the proposed forfeiture is warranted. x  Xe-  x10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the  x\Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  503(b), Monte Corporation FORFEIT  xMto the United States the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) for the willful and repeated  x{violations of Section 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.   x[310(d), and Section 73.3540 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  73.3540 as described above.  xMonte Corporation may take any of the steps outlined in the attachment to this letter regarding payment of the forfeiture pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules. "  ,-(-(ZZ"   mx11. The Mass Media Bureau will send by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested, copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Forfeiture Order to Monte Corporation.         x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhRoy J. Stewart x` `  hhChief, Mass Media Bureau x