Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************




                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                )
                                )
KYOO Communications             )            
Station KYOO (AM)               )            File No. EB-00-KC-

193
Station KYOO-FM                 )                          EB-00-

KC-194
Bolivar, Missouri  65613        )            NAL/Acct.No. 

20013256-001

           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

                                               Released:  January 
                                                         31, 2001
By the Enforcement Bureau, Kansas City Field Office:

                        I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we 
find that  KYOO Communications,  licensee of  station KYOO  (AM), 
Bolivar,  Missouri,   and   KYOO-FM,  Half-Way,   Missouri,   has 
apparently violated sections  11.35(b), 17.50, 73.1350(c)(1)  and 
73.1800(a) of the Commission's  Rules (``Rules'') for failure  to 
maintain operational Emergency Alert System (``EAS'')  equipment, 
for failure to clean  and repaint the  KYOO antenna structure  as 
often as necessary  to maintain good  visibility, for failure  to 
monitor and  control  the KYOO  transmitter  and for  failure  to 
maintain station logs.1  We conclude that KYOO Communications  is 
apparently liable  for forfeiture  in the  amount of  twenty  two 
thousand dollars ($22,000).


                         II.  BACKGROUND
 
     2.   On  December 5, 2000, Agents of the Commission's Kansas 

City  office,  inspected  broadcast  radio  stations  KYOO  (AM), 

Bolivar, Missouri and  KYOO-FM, Half-Way,  Missouri.  The  agents 

observed several violations including:  


          A.   Failure to  maintain  station  logs/records  which 

included failure to log inoperable 
               metering/equipment, failure  to  log  tower  light 

outages, and failure to log reasons why 
               EAS tests were not being received.  


          B.   Failure to maintain  operable EAS equipment.   The 

EAS encoding/decoding equipment
               was inoperable at time of     inspection.    There 

were no entries in the station logs
               documenting  when   the   EAS   equipment   became 

inoperable.  It had been in excess 
               of 68  days  since  the last  EAS  test  had  been 

received.  



          C.   Failure  to   monitor   and   control   the   KYOO 

transmitter.  No operator had taken any 
               transmitter readings for over  one month prior  to 

the  inspection. The readings taken 
               over  one   month  earlier   indicated   overpower 

operation for at least 68 days leading up to 
               and including the day of inspection. The  licensee 

stated that they had automatic 
               monitoring  devices, but the warning and  shutdown 

features of these devices had been 
               disabled.  The AM base current metering was out of  

calibration.
     
          D.   Failure to maintain  good visibility  of the  KYOO 

antenna structure.  The structure did 
               not provide good visibility to aircraft due to the 

rust on this tower and the extremely 
               faded condition of the existing paint.


     3.   On December 8,  2000, the Kansas  City office issued  a 

Notice of  Violation (``NOV'')  to  KYOO Communications  for  the 

violations detected on December 5, 2000.  On January 5, 2001, Mr. 

Stephen Paris, KYOO Communications, submitted a reply to the NOV. 




                        III.  DISCUSSION


     4.   Section 11.35(b) states that ``If the EAS Encoder or 
EAS Decoder becomes defective the broadcast station may operate 
without the defective equipment pending its repair or replacement 
for a period not in excess of 60 days without further FCC 
authority.  Entries shall be made in the station log showing the 
date and time the equipment was removed and restored to 
service.''2 At the time of inspection the EAS Encoder/Decoder was 
inoperable according to station manager/chief operator/part 
owner, Mr. Stephen Paris.  Mr. Paris stated that he had tried to 
send a test a couple weeks earlier and that he noticed at that 
time that the EAS unit was not operating properly which prevented 
him from sending a test.  A search of the station logs found no 
logged entries documenting the inoperable condition of the EAS 
equipment.  Mr. Paris admitted he had not logged the outage.  The 
station logs further indicated that no EAS test had been logged 
as received by these stations.  The logs dated back to September 
28, 2000, which was 68 days prior to the inspection.  No station 
logs were available for the period prior to September 28, 2000.  
Mr. Paris stated that he could not recall the last time an EAS 
test was received.  Mr. Paris stated that the logs prior to 
September 28, 2000 had disappeared and that this disappearance 
coincided with the dismissal of an employee on or about October 
10, 2000.  The station logs did not contain any reasons why the 
EAS tests had not been received and Mr. Paris did not know why 
tests were not being received.






     5.   Section 17.50 states that ``Antenna structures 
requiring painting under this part shall be cleaned or repainted 
as often as necessary to maintain good visibility.''3  At the 
time of inspection the KYOO antenna structure had an overall dark 
color as viewed at one quarter mile distance.  This structure was 
badly rusted and did not have alternating bands of aviation 
orange and white paint due to the severely deteriorated condition 
of the paint that had previously been on this structure.  The 
structure is located at the latitude-longitude coordinates of 
N37-37-16, W093-24-07 and has been issued registration number 
1007720.  The listed registered owner of the tower according to 
FCC records at the time of inspection was a Mr. Melvin Pulley dba 
KYOO Broadcasting Company, the previous owner of KYOO.  Mr. Paris 
stated that the structure was purchased along with KYOO and that 
the structure is owned by KYOO Communications, the licensee of 
KYOO.  In response to the NOV, Mr. Paris stated that an FCC Form 
854 had been filed with the Commission to ``correct'' the name of 
the registered owner from Mel Pulley dba KYOO Broadcasting to 
KYOO Communications.  The reply from Mr. Paris further stated 
that ``we had planned to paint the tower during the summer of 
2000 but were unable to do so for financial reasons''.  Included 
with the reply was a written agreement, dated December 27, 2000,  
from Jtronics Corporation, Buffalo, Missouri, to paint the KYOO 
antenna for an estimated cost of $1,200.00 with work scheduled 
the third week in March.

     6.   Section 73.1350(c)(1) states that ``The licensee must 
establish monitoring procedures and schedules for the station and 
the indicating instruments employed must comply with 73.1215.  
Monitoring procedures and schedules must enable the licensee to 
determine compliance with   73.1560 regarding operating power 
and AM station mode of operation, 73.1570 regarding modulation 
levels...''4  At the time of inspection the licensee had not 
established any schedules for monitoring or calibration of 
required station equipment.  Mr. Paris stated that the Sine 
Systems remote control system would call him by telephone if an 
out-of-tolerance condition occurred.  However, at the time of 
inspection the AM base current indicated an out-of-tolerance 
condition of excessive power, reading 3.886 amps (125% of 
authorized power). The licensed base current for KYOO is 3.47 
amps.  Section 73.1560(a) requires AM stations to maintain power 
between 90-105% of that authorized.  The AM base current meter at 
the base of the KYOO antenna was inoperable at the time of 
inspection, however, Mr. Paris stated that the remote AM base 
current metering was providing accurate indications of the base 
current.  The remote system had not called Mr. Paris and Mr. 
Paris did not know why the system had not called or shut down the 
transmitter due to the out-of-tolerance AM base current. The 
agents observed  that during the period of September 28, 2000 
through November 4, 2000, station operators, including Mr. Paris, 
had logged AM base current readings for KYOO that varied between 
3.818 and 4.082 amps (121-138% of authorized power).  These logs 
contained no entries after November 4, 2000.  The period of 
September 28, 2000 to the day of inspection includes 68 days. In 
response to the NOV, Mr. Paris submitted statements from his 
engineer, Shawn Baker, saying the remote KYOO AM base current 
metering was checked on December 18, 2000 (13 days after the 
inspection) at which time Mr. Baker found the metering was 
grossly out of calibration.  Mr. Baker estimated that KYOO was 
operating at 98% of authorized power on the day of inspection. 
Mr. Baker further stated that the automatic call out and shut 
down features were now enabled.

     7.   Section 73.1800(a) states that ``The licensee of each 
station must maintain a station log as required by 73.1820.  
This log shall be kept by station employees competent to do so, 
having actual knowledge of the facts required.  All entries 
whether required or not by the provisions of this part, must 
accurately reflect the station operation.''5  At the time of 
inspection the licensee was not maintaining station logs as 
required.  Station manager and designated chief operator, Mr. 
Stephen Paris, stated that he did not know what logging was 
required.  The AM base current meter for KYOO and the EAS 
Encoder/Decoder were both inoperable and this condition was known 
to Mr. Paris, however, there were no logged entries documenting 
these outages.  During the period of September 28, 2000 through 
the day of inspection on December 5, 2000, there were no entries 
documenting receipt of an EAS test and no reasons why EAS tests 
were not received.  During this same 9-week period the station 
initiated EAS tests on only three occasions with no explanation 
why tests were not sent during the other 6 weeks in this period.  
Logs were not available for the period prior to September 28, 
2000.  Mr. Paris, as chief operator, was not conducting a review 
of required station logs and no operator had reviewed the logs 
for required entries. In response to the NOV, Mr. Paris stated 
that ``we failed to maintain the logs properly''.

     8.   Based on the evidence before us, we find that KYOO 
Communications willfully6 and/or repeatedly violated Sections 
11.35(b), 17.50, 73.1350(c)(1) and 73.1800(a) of the Rules.  
Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and 
Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the 
Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 
FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base 
forfeiture amount for failure to maintain required records and 
logs [73.1800(a)] is $1,000, the base forfeiture amount for 
failure to conduct required monitoring of the operational 
parameters and calibrate the remote AM base current metering 
[73.1350(c)(1)] is $3,000, the base forfeiture amount for 
failure to maintain operational EAS equipment [11.35(b)]  is 
$8,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to clean and 
repaint the KYOO antenna structure as often as necessary to 
maintain good visibility to aircraft [17.50] is $10,000.  In 
assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into 
account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) 
of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, which 
include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the 
violation(s), and with respect to the violator, the degree of 
culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and 
other such matters as justice may require.7 Taking these factors 
into account we note that many of the violations are continuous 
in nature.  On the few instance when the transmitters were 
checked the manager/chief operator continued to log out of 
tolerance AM base current readings, yet took no action to 
discontinue the apparent overpower operation or to check the 
calibration of the remote metering while operating in this manner 
that continued for at least 68 days.  With regards to the EAS, 
the licensee took no action to determine why EAS tests were not 
being received over a prolonged period or why tests were not 
being sent weekly.  When the EAS unit was found to be incapable 
of sending a test the manager/chief operator failed to log the 
unit out of service or initiate prompt corrective action.  With 
regards to the KYOO tower painting, the licensee knew the 
structure needed painting, but refused to take the necessary 
steps to correct the violation citing financial reasons.  
However, the estimated cost of $1,200 to paint this tower does 
not appear prohibitive nor does it show cause for the licensee to 
allow an ongoing safety violation with such potential harm to go 
uncorrected.   These violations combined with the additional 
violations noted in the NOV, show an overall lack of effort on 
the part of this licensee to comply with the Rules .  Normally 
such continuous, egregious  and harmful violations would warrant 
an upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amounts.  However, 
due to the already large base forfeiture amount no upward 
adjustment will be applied to this action.  No downward 
adjustment criteria have been identified to warrant a lowering of 
the base forfeiture amount.  After applying the Forfeiture Policy 
Statement and statutory factors to the instant case, we believe a 
$22,000 forfeiture is warranted.



                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES


     9.   Accordingly, IT IS  ORDERED THAT,  pursuant to  Section 

503(b) of the  Act,8 and Sections  0.111, 0.311 and  1.80 of  the 

Rules,9 KYOO Communications, is  hereby NOTIFIED of its  APPARENT 

LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in  the amount of twenty two  thousand 

dollars  ($22,000)  for   violating  Sections  11.35(b),   17.50, 

73.1350(c)(1) and 73.1800(a) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R.  11.35(b), 

17.50, 73.1350(c)(1) and 73.1800(a).


     10.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of 
the Rules,10  within thirty  days  of the  release date  of  this 
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, KYOO Communications, SHALL PAY  the 
full amount of the  proposed forfeiture or  SHALL FILE a  written 
statement seeking  reduction  or  cancellation  of  the  proposed 
forfeiture.


     11.  Payment of the  forfeiture may be  made by credit  card 
through the  Commission's Credit  and Debt  Management Center  at 
(202) 418-1995  or  by mailing  a  check or  similar  instrument, 
payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to 
the  Forfeiture  Collection  Section,  Finance  Branch,   Federal 
Communications Commission,  P.O.  Box  73482,  Chicago,  Illinois 
60673-7482.  The payment should note the NAL/Acct. No.  20013256-
001.


     12.  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: Enforcement  Bureau -  TPSD, 
NAL/Acct. No. 20013256-001,  and must include  the NAL/Acct.  No. 
20013256-001.





     13.  The Commission will not consider reducing or  canceling 
a forfeiture in response  to a claim of  inability to pay  unless 
the petitioner  submits: (1)  federal tax  returns for  the  most 
recent  three-year  period;  (2)  financial  statements  prepared 
according to generally accepted accounting practices; or (3) some 
other  reliable  and  objective  documentation  that   accurately 
reflects the petitioner'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.

     14.  Requests for payment of the full amount of this  Notice 
of Apparent Liability  under an installment  plan should be  sent 
to: Chief, Credit  and Debt Management  Center, 445 12th  Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.11


     15.  IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED THAT  a copy of  this NOTICE  OF 
APPARENT LIABILITY  shall  be  sent  by  Certified  Mail,  Return 
Receipt Requested,  to  KYOO Communications,  304  East  Jackson, 
Bolivar, Missouri  65613.


                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         Robert C. McKinney
                         District Director
                         Kansas City Office
_________________________

1 47 C.F.R. 11.35 (b), 17.50, 73.1350(c)(1) and 73.1800(a)

2 47 C.F.R. 11.35(b)



3 47 C.F.R. 17.50

4 47 C.F.R. 73.1350(c)(1)



5 47 C.F.R. 73.1800(a)

6 Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  312(f)(1), which 
applies to Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that ``[t]he term 
`willful', when used with reference to the commission or omission 
of any act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or 
omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any 
provision of this Act. . . .''  See Southern California 
Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).

7 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D); see also Forfeiture Policy Statement, 
12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01 

8 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

9 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80.

10 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

11 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.