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                )            
                                )       
Clarke Broadcasting Corporation )       File No. EB-02-SF-468
Former Licensee of Station KTIQ (AM) )
Merced, California              )       NAL/Acct.             No. 
200232960001
Facility ID # 87180             )
                                )       FRN 0003-7254-54         

                        FORFEITURE ORDER 

Adopted:  September 16, 2003            Released:  September  18, 
2003

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.  INTRODUCTION

                            1.     In   this   Forfeiture   Order 
                               (``Order''), we  issue a  monetary 
                               forfeiture in  the amount  of  six 
                               thousand   dollars   ($6,000)   to 
                               Clarke  Broadcasting   Corporation 
                               (``Clarke''),     for      willful 
                               violations       of       Sections 
                               73.1350(a),     73.1350(c)     and 
                               73.1400 of the Commission's  Rules 
                               (``Rules'') and  for  willful  and 
                               repeated  violations  of  Sections 
                               73.1560(a) and  73.1745(a) of  the 
                               Rules.1   The   noted   violations 
                               involve   Clarke's   failure    to 
                               provide    adequate    transmitter 
                               control  and   to   maintain   the 
                               authorized power. 

                            2.     On  August   30,   2002,   the 
                               Commission's    San     Francisco, 
                               California,  Field  Office  (``San 
                               Francisco   Office'')   issued   a 
                               Notice of  Apparent Liability  for 
                               Forfeiture  (``NAL'')  to   Clarke 
                               for a forfeiture in the amount  of 
                               seven thousand dollars  ($7,000).2  
                               Clarke filed its  response to  the 
                               NAL on September 26, 2002.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

                            3.     Clarke is the former  licensee 
                               of  AM  broadcast  station   KTIQ, 
                               formerly    KAXW,    in    Merced, 
                               California.3  On August 24,  2001, 
                               the San Francisco Office  received 
                               a   complaint   indicating    that 
                               station KTIQ was interfering  with 
                               the operation  of another  station 
                               because of  its KTIQ's  power  was 
                               not being  reduced  after  sunset.  
                               According to its license KTIQ  was 
                               required to  reduce its  operating 
                               power  from 10  kilowatts  to  one 
                               kilowatt  at  4:45  p.m.   Pacific 
                               Standard Time during the month  of 
                               November.  On November  6, 7,  13, 
                               21, 22, 23,  28 and 29, 2001,  FCC 
                               agents  from  the  San   Francisco 
                               Office  monitored  KTIQ's   signal 
                               between  4:30 and  5:00  p.m.  and 
                               determined  on   each  date   that 
                               KTIQ's power  was not  reduced  at 
                               4:45 p.m.  On November 13, 22,  23 
                               and 29  the agents  observed  that 
                               KTIQ's  field  intensity  did  not 
                               decrease  between  4:30  and  5:00 
                               p.m.

                            4.     On December  4,  2001,  agents 
                               from  the  San  Francisco   Office 
                               inspected   station   KTIQ.    The 
                               agents  determined   that   KTIQ's 
                               antenna input power  was 87.3%  of 
                               the   authorized   level.4    Logs 
                               obtained  during  the   inspection 
                               indicate  that  station  personnel 
                               did  not timely  reduce  power  at 
                               4:45 p.m. on two occasions  during 
                               November 20015 and that there  was 
                               no  power  reduction  at  all   on 
                               November 22, 23, 24 and 25,  2001, 
                               when all  station  personnel  were 
                               on   leave   and   the   station's 
                               operation was unattended.

                            5.     The agents  determined  during 
                               the inspection that KTIQ's  remote 
                               control system was not  programmed 
                               to  alert the  operator  when  the 
                               station's  frequency  was  out  of 
                               tolerance and  was not  calibrated 
                               to  provide  accurate  indications 
                               of the antenna input power.

                            6.     On February 13, 2002, the  San 
                               Francisco Office issued an NOV  to 
                               Clarke  for  violations   detected 
                               during     its      investigation, 
                               including   Sections   73.1350(a), 
                               73.1560(a) and  73.1745(a) of  the 
                               Rules.  On March  6, 2002,  Clarke 
                               responded to  the  NOV  indicating 
                               that   it   had   corrected    the 
                               violations.

                            7.     On August  30, 2002,  the  San 
                               Francisco Office issued a NAL  for 
                               a forfeiture  in the  amount of  $ 
                               7,000  to   Clarke   for   willful 
                               violation of Sections  73.1350(a), 
                               73.1350(c)  and  73.1400  of   the 
                               Rules  and  repeated  and  willful 
                               violation of  Sections  73.1560(a) 
                               and 73.1745(a) of the Rules.   The 
                               San  Francisco  Office  calculated 
                               the  forfeiture   amount  on   the 
                               basis of a $4,000 base amount  for 
                               exceeding power limits and  $3,000 
                               for failure  to  provide  adequate 
                               transmitter control.

                            8.     Clarke responded to the NAL on 
                               September   26,   2001,    seeking 
                               cancellation or  reduction of  the 
                               proposed   monetary    forfeiture.  
                               Clarke does  not dispute  that  it 
                               willfully    violated     Sections 
                               73.1350(a),     73.1350(c)     and 
                               73.1400   of    the   Rules    and 
                               willfully and repeatedly  violated 
                               Sections      73.1560(a)       and 
                               73.1745(a) of the Rules.   Rather, 
                               it  argues  that  the   forfeiture 
                               should  be  cancelled  or  reduced 
                               because  it  had   no  intent   to 
                               violate the Rules,  acted in  good 
                               faith, has  a history  of  overall 
                               compliance   and    took    prompt 
                               remedial  action   following   the 
                               inspection.   Clarke  also  argues 
                               that it  is ``a  small,  privately 
                               owned company  and the  amount  of 
                               the forfeiture  is significant  to 
                               an operator of Clarke's size.''

                      III.      DISCUSSION

                            9.     The proposed forfeiture amount 
                               in  this  case  was  assessed   in 
                               accordance with Section 503(b)  of 
                               the Communications  Act  of  1934, 
                               as  amended  (``Act''),6   Section 
                               1.80  of  the   Rules,7  and   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)        (``Policy 
                               Statement'').     In     examining 
                               Clarke's response, Section  503(b) 
                               of  the  Act  requires  that   the 
                               Commission take  into account  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  other  such 
                               matters as justice may require.8

                            10.    Clarke   asserts   that    its 
                               violations  ``resulted   primarily 
                               from   the   actions   taken   and 
                               inactions  under   the   station's 
                               former   Chief   Operator''   whom 
                               Clarke replaced on the day  before 
                               the  inspection.   We  find   that 
                               Clarke's replacement of the  Chief 
                               Operator prior  to the  inspection 
                               demonstrates   good   faith    and 
                               warrants   mitigation    of    the 
                               proposed  monetary  forfeiture  to 
                               $6,000.

                            11.    No mitigation is warranted for 
                               a history  of overall  compliance.  
                               On  August   2,  2001,   the   San 
                               Francisco Office issued an NOV  to 
                               Clarke for violations of  Sections 
                               11.35(a), 11.52(d),  11.61(a)  and 
                               73.182(a)(1) of the Rules9  (radio 
                               stations KVLM  and  KZSQ,  Sonora, 
                               California)  and,  on  August  16, 
                               2001,  the  San  Francisco  Office 
                               issued  an  NOV   to  Clarke   for 
                               violations  of  Section   11.52(b) 
                               and  73.182(a)(1)  of  the   Rules 
                               (radio   station   KKBN,   Sonora, 
                               California).   Clarke,  therefore, 
                               has   no   history   of    overall 
                               compliance.10

                            12.    Nor is mitigation warranted on 
                               the basis  of Clarke's  correction 
                               of  the  violations  after   being 
                               notified.    As   the   Commission 
                               stated in  Seawest Yacht  Brokers, 
                               9  FCC  Rcd  6099,  6099   (1994), 
                               ``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.''  11   Clarke   cites 
                               Preferred  Entertainment,  Inc.,12 
                               as  authority   for   reducing   a 
                               monetary forfeiture  on the  basis 
                               of corrective  action.   Preferred 
                               Entertainment, Inc.,  however,  is 
                               inapposite because, in that  case, 
                               the  licensee  reported  its   own 
                               violations to  the Commission  and 
                               took corrective  action  upon  its 
                               own initiative.

                            13.    Clarke's  argument  that   the 
                               proposed       forfeiture       is 
                               ``significant for  an operator  of 
                               Clarke's  size''  also  does   not 
                               warrant   a   reduction   in   the 
                               forfeiture      amount.        The 
                               Commission  takes the  size  of  a 
                               business    into    account     by 
                               evaluating the  company's  ability 
                               to  pay  the  forfeiture  on   the 
                               basis  of  documentation  provided 
                               by the  company.13  As  explicitly 
                               stated in  the  NAL, we  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 ("GAAP");  or  (3)  some 
                               other   reliable   and   objective 
                               documentation   that    accurately 
                               reflects the petitioner's  current 
                               financial status.    Since  Clarke 
                               did  not  provide  any   financial 
                               documentation    whatsoever,    we 
                               cannot  determine  whether  it  is 
                               unable   to   pay   the   proposed 
                               forfeiture.

                            14.    We  have   examined   Clarke's 
                               response to  the NAL  pursuant  to 
                               the statutory  factors above,  and 
                               in  conjunction  with  the  Policy 
                               Statement as  well.  As  a  result 
                               of our  review, we  conclude  that 
                               Clarke  willfully  and  repeatedly 
                               violated Sections  73.1560(a)  and 
                               73.1745(a)  of   the   Rules   and 
                               willfully    violated     Sections 
                               73.1350(a),     73.1350(c)     and 
                               73.1400  of the  Rules.   We  find 
                               that  there   is  no   basis   for 
                               cancellation or  reduction of  the 
                               proposed monetary forfeiture.

                        IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

                            15.    Accordingly,  IT  IS   ORDERED 
                               that, pursuant  to Section  503(b) 
                               of the  Act, and  Sections  0.111, 
                               0.311  and   1.80(f)(4)   of   the 
                               Rules,14 Clarke  IS LIABLE  FOR  A 
                               MONETARY FORFEITURE in the  amount 
                               of six  thousand dollars  ($6,000) 
                               for    willful    and     repeated 
                               violation of  Sections  73.1560(a) 
                               and 73.1745(a)  of the  Rules  and 
                               willful  violation   of   Sections 
                               73.1350(a),     73.1350(c)     and 
                               73.1400 of the Rules

                            16.    Payment  of   the   forfeiture 
                               shall  be  made   in  the   manner 
                               provided for  in Section  1.80  of 
                               the Rules  within 30  days of  the 
                               release  of this  Order.   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.15  
                               Payment may be  made by mailing  a 
                               check   or   similar   instrument, 
                               payable  to  the   order  of   the 
                               Federal             Communications 
                               Commission,   to    the    Federal 
                               Communications  Commission,   P.O. 
                               Box   73482,   Chicago,   Illinois 
                               60673-7482.   The  payment  should 
                               reference      NAL/Acct.       No. 
                               200232960001  and  FRN  0003-7254-
                               54.   Requests  for  full  payment 
                               under an  installment plan  should 
                               be  sent to:  Chief,  Revenue  and 
                               Receivables   Group,   445    12th 
                               Street,  S.W.,  Washington,   D.C. 
                               20554.16

                            17.    IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that 
                               copies  of  this  Order  shall  be 
                               sent  by  Certified  Mail   Return 
                               Receipt  Requested  and  by  First 
                               Class Mail to Clarke  Broadcasting 
                               Corporation, 1175 Fairview  Drive, 
                               Suite N,  Carson City,  NV  89701, 
                               and to  its  counsel,  Christopher 
                               J. Sova,  Esq., Leventhal,  Senter 
                               &  Lerman,  P.L.L.C.   ,  2000   K 
                               Street,    N.W.,    Suite     600, 
                               Washington, D.C. 20006-1809.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                         


                              David H. Solomon
                              Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

  1 47 C.F.R.  73.1350(a), 73.1350(c), 73.1400, 73.1560(a)  and 
73.1745(a).

  2 Notice  of Apparent Liability  for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct.  No. 
200232940006 (Enf. Bur., San Francisco Office, released July  31, 
2002).    

  3  The station's call  sign was  changed from KAXW  to KTIQ  on 
February 12, 2002.  On  May 24, 2002,  the Commission granted  an 
application for the  assignment of KTIQ  from Clarke to  Mapleton 
Communications, LLC.  That assignment was consummated on June  1, 
2002

  4 As indicated in  the Notice of Violation (``NOV'') issued  on 
March 6, 2002,  a log  obtained during  the inspection  indicates 
that the antenna input power between 89% of the authorized  level 
on November 2, 2001; 89% on November 9, 2001; 86% on November 16, 
2001; 86% on November 20, 2001;  117% November 26, 2001; 118%  on 
November 27, 2001; 122%  on November 28,  2001; 117% on  November 
29, 2001; and 118% on November 30, 2002.

  5 As  indicated in the NOV issued  March 6, 2002, KTIQ's  power 
was reduced at 4:56 p.m. on November 7, 2001, and at 5:01  p.m.on 
November 13, 2001.

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

  7 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

  8 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

  9 47 C.F.R.  11.35(a), 11.52(d), 11.61(a) and 73.182(a)(1).

  10 Clarke  cites Tarrant Radio Broadcasting,  Inc., 17 FCC  Rcd 
16671 (Enf. Bur.  2002), as  authority for finding  a history  of 
overall compliance when the licensee  owned the station for  only 
three months.  Tarrant Radio Broadcasting is inapposite  because, 
in that case, the  history of compliance was  not negated by  the 
issuance of NOVs.

  11 See also Callais Cablevision, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 22626,  22629 
(2002); Radio Station KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 258, 259 (1973);  and 
Executive Broadcasting Corp., 3 FCC 2d 699, 700 (1966).

  12 14 FCC Rcd 11105 (1999).

  13 See Policy Statement at 17107.

  14 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

  15 47 U.S.C.  504(a).

  16 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.