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                )
                                )
KASA Radio Hogar, Inc.          )    File No. EB-00-SD-295
                                )
Licensee of Station KDAP(AM)   )     NAL/Acct. No. 200132940002
                                )
Douglas, Arizona               )     FRN 0004-3246-87

                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

     Adopted:  March 22, 2002                Released:  March 27, 
2002   

By the Commission:

                          INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order"), we deny 
an application for review filed by KASA Radio Hogar, Inc. (``KASA 
Radio''), licensee of Radio  Station KDAP(AM), of the  Memorandum 
Opinion and Order ("MO&O")1 issued  by the Enforcement Bureau  in 
this   proceeding.    Pursuant   to   Section   503(b)   of   the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act"),2 and  Section 
1.80 of  the Commission's  Rules ("the  Rules"), the  Enforcement 
Bureau found KASA Radio liable  for a monetary forfeiture in  the 
amount of $15,000 for willful violation of the following sections 
of the  Rules:  73.54(d)  (failure  to  provide  a  copy  of  the 
station's antenna resistance and reactance measurements during an 
inspection); 73.1350(c)(1) (failure to have the proper monitoring 
equipment installed at the duty operator position); 73.1590(a)(6) 
(failure to conduct  annual equipment performance  measurements); 
and  73.3526(a)(2)  (failure  to  maintain  a  public  inspection 
file).3  For  the  reasons stated  below,  we deny  KASA  Radio's 
application for review.   

                              BACKGROUND

     2.   On November 17, 2000,  the FCC's San Diego,  California 
Field Office  ("San Diego  Office")  conducted an  inspection  of 
Radio Station  KDAP(AM) in  Douglas, Arizona,  after it  received 
information  from   the  Enforcement   Bureau's  High   Frequency 
Direction  Finding  Center  that  KDAP(AM)'s  carrier   frequency 
measurement exceeded  the  frequency tolerance  in  violation  of 
Section 73.44(b)  of  the  Rules.   The  inspection  revealed  10 
different rule  violations, including  the violation  of  Section 
73.44(b).  On December 19, 2000, the District Director of the San 
Diego Office  issued  a  Notice  of  Violation  ("NOV")  for  the 
violations.  On January 26, 2001, KASA Radio submitted a response 
to the NOV.  On February 15,  2001, the District Director of  the 
San Diego  Office  issued  a Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  for 
Forfeiture (``NAL'')4  to  KASA  Radio for  the  rule  violations 
referenced in paragraph  one above.  On  February 16, 2001,  KASA 
Radio submitted a supplement to its January 26, 2001 response  to 
the NOV.

     3.   After being granted an extension of time to respond  to 
the NAL, KASA Radio  submitted its response to  the NAL on  April 
19, 2001.   In  its response,  KASA  Radio did  not  dispute  the 
violations.  Rather,  it sought  rescission or  reduction of  the 
forfeiture amount because of KDAP(AM)'s financial condition.   On 
June 7, 2001, the Enforcement  Bureau issued a Forfeiture  Order5 
in which  it denied  KASA Radio's  request and  imposed the  full 
forfeiture amount of $15,000.  On July 6, 2001, KASA Radio  filed 
a Petition  for Reconsideration  ("Petition") of  the  Forfeiture 
Order.  In  its  Petition,  KASA  Radio  again  argued  that  the 
forfeiture amount  was  beyond  KDAP(AM)'s  ability  to  pay  and 
requested the Enforcement Bureau  to reconsider its action  taken 
in the Forfeiture Order.  On  September 4, 2001, the  Enforcement 
Bureau issued a MO&O in which it denied KASA Radio's Petition and 
rejected  its  request  for   rescission  or  reduction  of   the 
forfeiture based on KASA Radio's purported inability to pay.   In 
response to the MO&O, KASA Radio filed an application for  review 
on October 4, 2001.   In its application  for review, KASA  Radio 
still does not dispute the violations, but it argues that it  had 
either remedied or taken steps  to remedy the violations as  soon 
as possible.  Again, as it  asserted in its Petition, KASA  Radio 
contends that  the  Commission is  not  required by  any  law  or 
regulation to  weigh  the  financial information  for  all  of  a 
licensee's  operations   in   determining  whether   a   proposed 
forfeiture should be reduced because of a licensee's inability to 
pay.  Also, as  it argued  in its Petition,  KASA Radio  contends 
that revenues at  KDAP(AM), which KASA  Radio characterizes as  a 
"non-profit organization," are insufficient to permit payment  of 
the forfeiture.   KASA  Radio further  argues  that even  if  the 
Commission  concludes  that  the  Bureau  properly  insisted   on 
considering KASA  Radio's financial  information, the  forfeiture 
would still prove  to be excessive  given KASA Radio's  financial 
condition.  Finally, KASA Radio  also asserts that imposition  of 
the forfeiture could threaten a critical service to listeners  in 
the Douglas, Arizona area.       

                              DISCUSSION

     4.   KASA Radio contends that the Commission is not required 
by any law or regulation  to weigh the financial information  for 
all of a licensee's operations in determining whether a  proposed 
forfeiture should be reduced because of a licensee's inability to 
pay.  Regardless of whether the Commission is required to look at 
consolidated operations for this purpose, its policy is to do so.  
In  determining   an  appropriate   forfeiture  amount,   Section 
503(b)(2)(D) of the  Act6 requires the  Commission to consider  a 
violator's ability to  pay.  In  this case, the  violator is  the 
licensee.  We are  also guided  by our  established precedent  in 
making such  determinations.   The  Commission  has  stated  that 
Section 503(b)(2)(D) requires us to consider a licensee's ability 
to  pay  in  determining   an  appropriate  forfeiture   amount.7  
Further, the  Commission  has  determined  that,  in  general,  a 
licensee's gross revenues are the  best indicator of its  ability 
to pay a forfeiture.8  The Commission has also concluded that  it 
is appropriate to take into  account ``income derived from  other 
affiliated operations, as  well as  the financial  status of  the 
station(s) in question.''9  As  the Common Carrier Bureau  stated 
in Hinton Telephone Company of Hinton, Oklahoma:

     reviewing the data  for consolidated operations  rather 
     than financial  data  limited  to  just  [one  station] 
     accurately  portrays  whether  a  licensee  can  pay  a 
     proposed forfeiture.  Our determination of a licensee's 
     ability to pay should  reflect whether the licensee  in 
     general is financially capable of paying a  forfeiture, 
     not whether financial  data from a  limited portion  of 
     its operations can sustain a forfeiture.  

7 FCC Rcd 6643,  6644 (CCB 1992), review  denied, 8 FCC Rcd  5176 
(1993).  Thus, as the  Enforcement Bureau correctly pointed  out, 
it is the Commission's general  policy to consider the  financial 
condition of a licensee's  consolidated operations, not just  the 
financial condition of an individual station or a limited portion 
of its operations.   For the  reasons quoted  above, this  policy 
makes good sense, and we follow it here.

     5.   KASA Radio  also  contends that  Hinton  is  inapposite 
precedent  because  it  involved  a  telephone  company,  not   a 
broadcast station, and because the public interest aspects of the 
cases are different.  We reject KASA Radio's argument.  We  think 
that Emery Telephone and Hinton supply applicable precedent.  The 
Commission has  stated that  the guidelines  for base  forfeiture 
amounts will not  reflect distinctions based  on the  traditional 
classification  of   broadcast,   common   carrier,   and   other 
services.10  We  see no  basis for  subjecting inability  to  pay 
claims filed by broadcast licensees to a different standard  than 
that applied  to common  carriers.  Thus,  consistent with  Emery 
Telephone and Hinton, we will analyze the financial condition  of 
KASA Radio, not that of KDAP(AM), to determine whether KASA Radio 
can pay the forfeiture imposed.

     6.   KASA Radio  next points  to the  case of  Hill  Country 
Radio, Inc.11 to support its  contention.  Relying on this  case, 
it argues that the financial information of an entire  enterprise 
is generally  evaluated  only  where  violations  are  common  to 
multiple sections of  the enterprise  or to the  enterprise as  a 
whole.  We agree  with the Enforcement  Bureau that KASA  Radio's 
reliance on   Hill Country  Radio, Inc.  is misplaced.   In  Hill 
Country Radio, Inc., the Mass  Media Bureau issued four  separate 
NALs to Hill Country Radio for engaging in unauthorized transfers 
of control of the four radio stations licensed to it.  As was the 
case here,  in assessing  the inability  to pay  claim, the  Mass 
Media Bureau evaluated the licensee's financial condition and not 
that of each individual station.  Indeed, that case does not even 
address the issue KASA Radio  raises here - whether an  inability 
to pay claim  should be evaluated  based on the  condition of  an 
individual station  or  the  company when  only  one  station  is 
involved in the violation. 

          7.   Alternatively, KASA Radio argues that even if  the 
Commission  concludes  that  the  Bureau  properly  insisted   on 
considering the  licensee's  financial information,  rather  than 
that of  the station,  the  forfeiture would  still prove  to  be 
excessive because  of  the  financial condition  of  KASA  Radio.   
KASA  Radio,  however,   has  never   provided  any   information 
concerning its revenues  or income as  a whole.12  Therefore,  we 
have no justification for reducing the forfeiture based upon KASA 
Radio's claim of  inability to  pay.  Further,  even though  KASA 
Radio states that imposition of this forfeiture may threaten  its 
ability to serve the  Douglas, Arizona area,  we have held  that, 
consistent with our  holding in PJB  Communications, we will  not 
find that  a forfeiture  will threaten  a licensee's  ability  to 
serve the public  unless a  comparison of  the forfeiture  amount 
with the  licensee's  gross receipts  shows  that such  a  threat 
exists.13  Again, in this case, we can not make such a comparison 
because KASA  Radio  has  not  provided  us  with  its  financial 
documentation.  

     8.   Finally,   KASA   Radio   asserts   that   because   it 
expeditiously remedied or took steps to remedy the violations  at 
KDAP(AM), the forfeiture should  have been rescinded or  reduced.  
Corrective action taken to  come into compliance with  Commission 
rules or policy is expected, and does not nullify or mitigate any 
prior forfeitures or violations.14  
                                
     9.   Accordingly, IT IS  ORDERED THAT,  pursuant to  Section 
1.115(g) of  the  Rules,15  KASA Radio  Hogar's  application  for 
review of the Enforcement  Bureau's Memorandum Opinion and  Order 
for NAL No. 200132940002 IS hereby DENIED. 

     10.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section  503(b) 
of the Act16 and Section 1.80  of the Rules,17 KASA Radio  Hogar, 
Inc. shall pay the amount  of fifteen thousand dollars  ($15,000) 
for the above-stated  violations within  30 days  of the  release 
date of this Order.  Payment may be made by check or money order, 
drawn on a  U.S. financial  institution, payable  to the  Federal 
Communications  Commission.   The  remittance  should  be  marked 
``NAL/Acct. No. 200132940002,  FRN 0004-3246-87''  and mailed  to 
the Federal Communications Commission,  P.O. Box 73482,  Chicago, 
Illinois 60673-7482.  If  the forfeiture is  not paid within  the 
period specified, the case may  be referred to the Department  of 
Justice for collection pursuant to  Section 504(a) of the  Act.18  
Requests for full  payment under  an installment  plan should  be 
sent to:  Chief,  Revenue  and  Receivables  Group,  445  Twelfth 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.19 
     11.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order  shall 
be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Paul Brown, 
Esq., counsel  for KASA  Radio  Hogar, Inc.,  at Wood,  Maines  & 
Brown, 1827 Jefferson Place, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                    

                                                                  
                         William F. Caton
                                                                  
Acting Secretary
           









_________________________

  1    KASA Radio Hogar, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 16160 (Enf. Bur. 2001).

  2    47 U.S.C. ' 503(b).

  3     47  C.F.R.    73.54(d),  73.1350(c)(1),  73.1590(a)(6), 
73.3526(a)(2). 

  4    Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 
200132940002 (Enf. Bur., San Diego Office, released February  15, 
2001).

  5    KASA Radio Hogar, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 11934 (Enf. Bur. 2001). 

  6    47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

  7    See Emery Telephone, 15 FCC Rcd 7181, 7185 (1999).

  8   PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 2088,  2089 
(1992).

  9     Emery  Telephone,  13  FCC  Rcd  23854,  23859-60  (1998) 
(emphasis added), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 7181 (1999).

  10   See  The  Commission's  Forfeiture  Policy  Statement  and 
Amendment of  Section  1.80  of  the  Rules  to  Incorporate  the 
Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC  Rcd 17087, at 17097-17098  (1997), 
recon. denied, 13 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). 

  11   14 FCC Rcd 17708 (MMB 1999). 

  12  KASA Radio  stated in  its application for  review that  it 
would provide supplemental information  concerning the income  of 
KASA Radio  as a  whole.   However, it  has never  provided  this 
information. 

  13   Id. at 7185. 

  14   See  Seawest  Yacht Brokers  DBA  San Juan  Marina  Friday 
Harbor, Washington, 9 FCC Rcd 6099 (1994).

  15    47 C.F.R. ' 1.115(g).  

  16   47 U.S.C.  503(b).

  17   47 C.F.R.  1.80. 

  18   47 U.S.C. ' 504(a).

  19   47 C.F.R. ' 1.1914.