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                  )
                                 )
Petracom of Texarkana, L.L.C.     )   File No. EB-03-DL-062
Licensee  of  FM  Radio  Station  )   NAL/Acct. No. 200332500006
KPGG                              )   FRN 0005009881
Ashdown, Arkansas 


                      FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted:  April 30, 2004                Released:    May  4, 
2004

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                      I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this  Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we  issue a 
monetary  forfeiture in  the  amount of  five thousand  four 
hundred  dollars  ($5,400)  to Petracom  of  Texarkana,  LLC 
(``Petracom''),  licensee  of   Station  KPGG(FM),  Ashdown, 
Arkansas  for  failure  to install  Emergency  Alert  System 
(``EAS'')  equipment in  willful and  repeated violation  of 
Section 11.35(a) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'').1

                      II.   BACKGROUND 

     2.   On  January  30,  2003, the  Commission's  Dallas, 
Texas  Office  (``Dallas   Office'')  conducted  an  on-site 
inspection  of Station  KPGG(FM).   The inspection  revealed 
that  the  station's  EAS  equipment had  been  removed  for 
repairs on October 16, 2003, that the equipment had not been 
returned to service  within sixty days of  removal, and that 
the  station  had  not  sought from  the  Dallas  Office  an 
extension of time in which to complete the repairs.2  On May 
2, 2003,  the Dallas  Office released  a Notice  of Apparent 
Liability for  Forfeiture, finding that  Petracom apparently 
willfully and  repeatedly violated the EAS  requirements and 
assessing an $8,000 forfeiture against the company.3

     3.   Pursuant to an extension of time, Petracom filed a 
response on June  9, 2003.4  In its  response, Petracom does 
not dispute the NAL  findings.  However, as discussed below, 
Petracom  seeks cancellation  or reduction  of the  assessed 
forfeiture amount  based upon its remedial  efforts, history 
of compliance, and inability to pay. 

                   III.        DISCUSSION

     4.   The proposed  forfeiture amount  in this  case was 
assessed  in accordance  with  Section 503(b)  of the  Act,5 
Section 1.80 of the  Rules,6 and the Commission's Forfeiture 
Policy Statement and Amendment of  Section 1.80 of the Rules 
to  Incorporate  the  Forfeiture Guidelines.7  In  examining 
Petracom's response,  Section 503(b) of the  Act requires us 
to 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    We will  respond to  each of  Petracom's claims 
separately below. 

     5.   First, Petracom  claims, and the  record reflects, 
that  ``prior to  the  FCC inspection''  it took  corrective 
measures  by   terminating  the  chief  engineer,   who  was 
responsible   for   ensuring  compliance   with   Commission 
requirements,  by retaining  the  services  of experts,  who 
recommended various corrective measures, and by taking steps 
to  implement   the  experts'   recommendations.9   Petracom 
further  claims, and  the  record reflects,  that after  the 
inspection, it informed the Dallas  Office of its efforts to 
implement  the   experts'  recommendations   and  ultimately 
correct all noted deficiencies.10

     6.   Petracom, as the licensee,  is accountable for its 
chief engineer's omissions and ultimately is responsible for 
compliance  with Commission  requirements.11  Moreover,  had 
Petracom initiated remedial  measures after the Commission's 
inspection,   notice  or   action,   such  measures,   while 
commendable,  would not  have been  considered a  mitigating 
factor that would have warranted a reduction or cancellation 
of   the  assessed   forfeiture.12    However,  the   record 
establishes that Petracom voluntarily  and on its own accord 
initiated   corrective  remedial   measures  prior   to  the 
inspection  by the  Commission's Dallas  Office. Under  such 
circumstances, and consistent with precedent,13 we find that 
Petracom's actions  present a  mitigating factor and  that a 
reduction of the $8,000 forfeiture to $5,400 is warranted.  

     7.   Second, Petracom claims that it ``has an excellent 
history .  . .  regarding compliance issues''  and community 
service.  According to  Commission records, although Station 
KPGG(FM)  appears   to  have   an  unblemished   history  of 
compliance,   one  of   its  sister   companies  does   not. 
Specifically, Commission  records reflect that  a Forfeiture 
Order  was  recently  issued  against  Petracom  of  Joplin, 
L.L.C.,  for violation  of the  EAS, as  well as  the public 
file, requirements.14  Because Petracom's sister company has 
been  the subject  of an  enforcement action,  we find  that 
Petracom's  reliance upon  past history  misplaced and  that 
further reduction  of the assessed forfeiture  amount is not 
warranted.15 

     8.   Finally,  Petracom  claims  that  it  is  ``having 
serious  financial  difficulty''  and that  payment  of  the 
forfeiture would ``have a serious impact on [its] ability to 
meet payroll  and other expenses.''16  As  the NAL correctly 
noted, we will consider  adjusting or canceling a forfeiture 
on  the basis  of  an inability  to pay  claim  only if  the 
petitioner submits financial  documentation (i.e., ``federal 
tax returns for the most recent three-year period, financial 
statements   prepared   according  to   generally   accepted 
accounting practices,  or some other reliable  and objective 
documentation  that  accurately  reflects  the  petitioner's 
current financial status'').17 Petracom  offered to, but did 
not, provide  any financial documentation in  support of its 
requested  adjustment or  cancellation of  the forfeiture,18 
and thus we have no basis upon which to assess its inability 
to pay claim.19 

                   IV.   ORDERING CLAUSES

     9.   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,20  Petracom of Texarkana, L.L.C. IS 
LIABLE  FOR A  MONETARY  FORFEITURE in  the  amount of  five 
thousand four  hundred dollars  ($5,400) for its  failure to 
comply with  the EAS  requirements, in willful  and repeated 
violation  of   Section  11.35(a)   of  the   Rules.21   For 
collection, the Commission will file a proof of claim at the 
appropriate time in Petracom's bankruptcy action.22

     10.  IT IS  FURTHER ORDERED that  a copy of  this Order 
shall  be sent  by  First Class  and  Certified Mail  Return 
Receipt Requested to Joseph M. Fry, Vice President and Chief 
Financial Officer,  Petracom of  Texarkana, L.L.C.,  1527 N. 
Dale Mabry  Highway, Lutz,  Florida 33548,  and to  M. Scott 
Johnson,  Esq., Gardner,  Carton &  Douglas, 1301  K Street, 
N.W., Suite 900, East Tower, Washington, D.C. 20005.  

                              FEDERAL         COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION
                         
                              David H. Solomon
                              Chief, Enforcement Bureau
        



_________________________

     1 47 C.F.R.  11.35(a).

     2 Under  Sections 11.35(b)  and (c)  of the  Rules, 47 
C.F.R.  11.35(b) and (c), a broadcast station is required 
to have effective EAS equipment installed, but is permitted 
to operate  for a  period of  sixty days  without defective 
equipment pending its repair.  Beyond the sixty day period, 
the broadcast station is required to notify the appropriate 
Field Office that additional time is needed to complete the 
repairs.   

     3  Notice   of  Apparent  Liability   for  Forfeiture, 
NAL/Acct. No.  200332500006 (Enf. Bur., Dallas  Office, May 
2, 2003) (``NAL'').

     4 See  Letter from Joseph  M. Fry, Vice  President and 
Chief  Financial Officer,  Petracom  of  Texarkana, LLC  to 
Joseph  Casey,  Chief,  Enforcement Bureau,  Technical  and 
Public Safety Division (June 9, 2003).

5     47 U.S.C.  503(b).

6     47 C.F.R.  1.80.

7     12  FCC Rcd 17087  (1997), recon. denied, 15  FCC Rcd 
303 (1999).  

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

     9 Response at 3.  

     10 Id. at 2.  

11     See  Eure Family  Limited  Partnership,  17 FCC  Rcd 
21861,  21864-65    7-8 (2002);  Sonderling  Broadcasting 
Corp.,  69 FCC  2d 289,  291   6 (1978);  American Paging, 
Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 10417, 10419  11  (Enf. Bur. 1997); Dial-
A-Page, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 8825, 8826  5 (Enf. Bur. 1995). 

12      See   AM   Broadcast    Station   KTNC   and   C.R. 
Communications, Inc., DA 99-2960   5 (Enf. Bur. 1999); see 
also AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 21861, 21864-
75 (2002);  Sonderling Broadcasting  Corp., 69 FCC  2d 289, 
291 (1978); Odino Joseph, 18 FCC Rcd 16522, 16524  8 (Enf. 
Bur. 2003); South Central  Communications Corp., 18 FCC Rcd 
700, 702-03   9 (Enf. Bur. 2003);  Northeast Utilities, 17 
FCC Rcd 4115, 4117  13 (Enf. Bur. 2002).  

     13 See Rotijefco,  Inc., 18 FCC Rcd 14629,  14631  7; 
see also  Max Media of  Montana, L.L.C., 18 FCC  Rcd 21375, 
21378  11  (Enf. Bur. 2003);  East  Tennessee Radio Group, 
L.P., DA 03-868  7 (Enf. Bur. March 26, 2003).

     14 See  Petracom of  Joplin, L.L.C.,  19 FCC  Rcd 6248 
(Enf. Bur.2004) (``Petracom-Joplin'').

     15 Findings of violations,  or apparent violations, by 
parent, sister or commonly controlled companies are imputed 
to, and also negate the  past history claim, of the company 
under investigation.   See CCN,  Inc., et  al., 13  FCC Rcd 
13599, 13599-600   1(1998);  Petracom Joplin, supra,  at  
10; Hill Country Real Estate  Development Corp., 18 FCC Rcd 
21079, 21080  5 (Enf. Bur. 2003); Rio Grande Transmission, 
Inc., 16  FCC Rcd  17040, 17042-43   10 (Enf.  Bur. 2001); 
Mega Communications of St. Petersburg, Licensee, L.L.C., 16 
FCC Rcd 15948, 15949  6 (Enf. Bur. 2001). 

     16 Response at 3. 

17    NAL at  10.

     18  Specifically,  Petracom  offered  to  address  its 
financial  difficulties  ``separately   on  a  confidential 
basis,  and will  file with  the FCC  appropriate financial 
material.''  Response at 3.    However, under the Rules and 
precedent,  Petracom's request  for confidentiality  had to 
accompany   its   submitted   material   (i.e.,   financial 
documentation).   See 47  C.F.R.    0.457(d)(2), see  also 
KYOO-Communications, 16 FCC  Rcd 9291, 9292   5 (Enf. Bur. 
2001); Callais Cablevision, Inc.,  16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1366-67 
(2001).  

     19  Outside of  the instant  case, the FCC has received 
notice that  Petracom has  filed for Chapter  11 bankruptcy.  
However,  it appears  that  the Commission  has notice  that 
Petracom filed for bankruptcy.   See Petracom Joplin, supra, 
at  note 15.   Here, because  Petracom has  not relinquished 
control  over   the  station  and  has   not  submitted  any 
supporting financial  documentation, its  bankruptcy filing, 
alone, neither precludes the imposition of a forfeiture, nor 
justifies an  adjustment or  cancellation of  the forfeiture 
amount  for a  violation  of  the Rules.   See  11 U.S.C.   
362(b); see  also United  States v.  Commonwealth Companies, 
Inc.,  913  F.2d  518,   522-26  (8th  Cir.  1990);  Coleman 
Enterprises,  Inc.,  15 FCC  Rcd  24385,  24389 notes  27-28 
(2000),  recon. denied,  16  FCC Rcd  10016 (2001);  Adelphi 
Communications, 18 FCC Rcd 7652, 7654  8 (Enf. Bur. 2003).    

20    47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

     21  See   47  U.S.C.    312(f);   see  also  Southern 
California Broadcasting  Co., 6 FCC  Rcd 4387, 4387-88   5 
(1991).

     22 See  Commonwealth, 913  F.2d at 523  note 15Coleman 
Enterprises, Inc., 15  FCC Rcd at 24390; see  also note 19, 
supra.