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                 )
                                )
Greenwood Acres Baptist Church   )    File No. EB-02-OR-302
Licensee of AM Broadcast         )    NAL/Acct No. 200332620004
Station KASO located             )    FRN 0007-7594-00
     in Minden, Louisiana



                        FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted:  May 28, 2004                                            
Released:  June 2, 2004

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:



                        I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In  this  Forfeiture  Order  (``Order''),  we  issue  a 
forfeiture in the amount of thirteen thousand six hundred dollars 
($13,600) to  Greenwood  Acres  Baptist  Church  (``Greenwood''), 
licensee of  AM broadcast  station KASO,  Minden, Louisiana,  for 
willful  and   repeated   violations  of   Sections   73.49   and 
73.3526(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'').1  The  noted 
violations involve Greenwood's failure  to maintain an  effective 
locked fence enclosing its antenna tower, and failure to maintain 
all required material in its public inspection file.  

     2.   On December  5,  2002, the  Commission's  New  Orleans, 
Louisiana Field Office (``New Orleans Office'') released a Notice 
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture  (``NAL'') in the amount  of 
seventeen  thousand  dollars   ($17,000).2   Greenwood  filed   a 
response to the NAL on January 9, 2003.3  

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     3.   On September 12,  2002, an agent  from the New  Orleans 
Office inspected AM broadcast station KASO in Minden,  Louisiana.  
At the time  of the  investigation, the agent  observed that  the 
fence enclosing KASO's tower was  unlocked and that a portion  of 
the fence  sported a  hole large  enough for  a small  person  to 
easily  step  through.4    Also  on  September   12,  2002,   the 
Commission's agent  conducted  an  inspection  of  the  station's 
public file and found  that most of  the required materials  were 
missing.  On December 5, 2002,  the New Orleans Office issued  an 
NAL for  the fence  and public  inspection file  violations.   On 
January 9, 2003, Greenwood submitted  a response to the NAL.   In 
its  response,  Greenwood  disputes  the  New  Orleans   Office's 
determination that the  fence was  unlocked.  Moreover,  although 
Greenwood does not dispute that some items were missing from  the 
public file (which it asserts is now complete), it argues that an 
admonishment is in order, and not a forfeiture.  Greenwood  seeks 
either a substantial reduction or cancellation of the  forfeiture 
citing the immediate measures it  took to correct the  violations 
noted in the NAL, as well  as an inability to pay any  forfeiture 
at  all.   The  response  is  accompanied  by  one   partial-year 
financial statement.

                      III.      DISCUSSION

     4.   The  proposed  forfeiture  amount  in  this  case   was 
assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the  Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended (``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  (``Forfeiture  Policy  Statement'').7   In  examining 
Greenwood'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 such other matters as justice may require.8

     5.   Section 73.49 of the Rules requires that antenna towers 
having radio frequency  potential at  the base  must be  enclosed 
within an  effectively  locked  fence  or  other  enclosure.   On 
September 12, 2002, an  agent from the  New Orleans Office  found 
that the gate on the  fence enclosing KASO's tower was  unlocked.  
Greenwood disputes the  finding, arguing that  the fence  remains 
locked at all times except for maintenance purposes. 9   However, 
the field agent clearly saw a broken hasp with a padlock that did 
not secure the gate to the  fence. The jury-rigged fix - a  chain 
that was to be wrapped around the fence and secured by a  padlock 
to prohibit unauthorized  access - was  also useless because  the 
padlock dangled from a chain which was hanging down alongside the 
fence.  The agent  also discovered  that a portion  of the  fence 
contained a  hole, rendering  the  fence ineffective.10   In  its 
Response, Greenwood does not address the hole referred to in  the 
NAL.11  We  find based  on the  record that  Greenwood  willfully 
violated Section 73.49 of the Rules.

     6.   Section 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules requires that  every 
permittee or licensee of an AM, FM,  TV or Class A TV station  in 
the  commercial  broadcast  services  shall  maintain  a   public 
inspection file containing the material relating to that station, 
described in paragraphs (e)(1)  through (e)(10) and (e)(13);  and 
additionally, every commercial  AM or FM  station shall  maintain 
for public inspection a file containing the material, relating to 
that station, described  in paragraphs (e)(12)  and (e)(14).   On 
September  12,  2002  the  Commission's  agent  determined   that 
``KASO's public inspection file was missing most of the  required 
material including the station's  most recent application to  the 
Commission, a copy  of the  service contour  map, a  copy of  the 
current ownership report, requests from candidates for  political 
office, and  the  Issues/Programs Lists.''12   In  its  Response, 
Greenwood does not  dispute that  there were  some items  missing 
from the  public  file, but  asserts  that in  cases  ``virtually 
identical'' to the facts presented in the instant case, licensees 
were not fined, but  merely admonished to bring  the files up  to 
date.13   This  argument  is  not  persuasive.   The  cases  that 
Greenwood  cites  concern  situations   where  one  category   of 
mandatory documents was missing from the subject station's  file.  
In the instant case,  the New Orleans Office  found not one,  but 
five categories  of  items  missing.   As  such  there  is  ample 
precedence to impose  a monetary forfeiture,14  and we find  that 
Greenwood's violation of Section 73.3526(a)(2) was willful. 

     7.   Greenwood seeks a substantial reduction or cancellation 
of the  proposed forfeiture  by disputing  the finding  that  the 
fence was locked.  The licensee also claims a history of  overall 
compliance, and a search of  agency decisions confirms that  KASO 
is not  the  subject of  prior  Commission Rule  violations.   In 
addition, Greenwood  argues that  the public  file violation  was 
minor and immediately  cured, showing good  faith.  We note  that 
the Commission has repeatedly stated that remedial actions  taken 
to correct  a violation  are  not mitigating  factors  warranting 
reduction of a forfeiture.15   Finally, Greenwood submits a  copy 
of its financial statement for a portion of fiscal year 2002.

     8.    In analyzing economic-hardship claims, the  Commission 
generally looks to  companies' gross revenues  as reasonable  and 
appropriate yardsticks to determine their ability to pay assessed 
forfeitures.16  Indeed, the Commission stated that if  companies' 
gross revenues are sufficiently large,  the fact that net  losses 
are reported, alone,  does not necessarily  signify inability  to 
pay.17  

     9.   As evidence of  inability to pay,  Greenwood submits  a 
single financial statement covering January to September of 2002, 
which it claims ``illustrates that the licensee is operating at a 
loss,''18 and  ``does  not take  into  account the  cost  of  the 
acquisition of the station [in 2000] or previous years' operating 
losses.''   Moreover,  Greenwood  avers  that  the  station   has 
``operated at  a  loss since  it  was acquired  in  September  of 
2000.''19  Greenwood  explains  that  the  income  of  KASO  ``is 
largely from donations from the congregation  . . . . [with  the] 
remainder  from  spot  sales.''20   However,  the  NAL   requires 
Greenwood to submit financial statements covering the most recent 
three-year period (from 2000 to 2002) in order to demonstrate its 
inability to pay.  Additionally,  Greenwood's mere assertions  of 
previous years' operating  losses and  station acquisition  costs 
are insufficient  to  underpin a  finding  of inability  to  pay.  
Because Greenwood has  not provided  sufficient information  from 
which we can evaluate  the financial condition  of KASO, we  must 
reject its inability to pay claim.

     10.  We  have  examined  Greenwood's  response  to  the  NAL 
pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in conjunction  with 
the Forfeiture  Policy Statement  as well.   As a  result of  our 
review, we conclude  that Greenwood  willfully violated  Sections 
73.49  and  73.3526(a)(2)  of  the  Rules  and  find  that  given 
Greenwood's past history of overall compliance, we conclude  that 
a reduction  of the  forfeiture amount  ($17,000) to  $13,600  is 
appropriate.

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     11.  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,21 Greenwood Acres Baptist Church IS LIABLE FOR A  MONETARY 
FORFEITURE in  the  amount  of $13,600  for  willfully  violating 
Sections 73.49 and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules. 

     12.  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.22  
Payment shall 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 note  NAL/Acct. 
No. 200332620004, and FRN 0003762150.  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. 
20554.23  

     13.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order  shall 
be sent by Certified Mail  Return Receipt Requested and by  First 
Class Mail  to Fred  A. Caldwell,  Sr., Greenwood  Acres  Baptist 
Church, 7480 Greenwood Road, Shreveport, Louisiana, 71119, and to 
its counsel, Christopher D. Imlay, Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper, 
P.C., 14356 Cape  May Road, Silver  Spring, Maryland  20904-6011, 
(301) 384-5525.


                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                    

                                                                  
                         David H. Solomon
                                                                 
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

147 C.F.R.  73.49, 73.3526(a)(2).
2See Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 
200332620004 (Enf. Bur. New Orleans Office, Dec. 5, 2002).
3Greenwood Response to Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture (``Response'') (filed Jan. 9, 2003).
4NAL at 1.
547 U.S.C.  503(b).
647 C.F.R.  1.80.
712 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997),  recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).  
847 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).
9Response at 3.
10Id. 
11Id.  At the time of the September 12, 2002 Commission 
inspection, neither the station's general manager nor the 
contract engineer were present, and although two salespeople were 
in attendance and invited to look at the violations at issue, 
they declined.  Thus, Greenwood's Response pertained to a 
different hole than the New Orleans Office referenced in its NAL.  
Greenwood describes an intermittent one-foot gap between the 
bottom of the fence and the water level of the pond that 
surrounds the promontory where the tower is located.  Greenwood 
explains that an unprecedented drought resulted in two dry areas 
at each end of the fence.  Greenwood states that after the 
subject inspection, and during the drought, Greenwood extended 
the fence deeper into the water of the pond so that, unless the 
pond went dry entirely, there would be no access to the tower by 
unauthorized persons.  Id.
12NAL at 1.
13Response at 4 citing Tabbak Broadcasting Co. (``KAZM''), 15 FCC 
Rcd 11,899 (2000) (``Tabbak''); Sarkes Tarzian, Inc., 65 FCC 2d 
127 (1977); EZ New Orleans, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 7164 (1999).
14See KLDT-TV 55, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 3198, 3200 (1995)(forfeiture 
assessed for failure to include three categories of documents in 
the public file).
15See, e.g., AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 21866, 
21871 (2002); Seawest Yacht Brokers, 9 FCC Rcd 6099 (1994); 
Station KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 258, 259 (1973).
16See PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 2088, 2089 
 8 (1992); see also Forfeiture Policy Statement at 17106-07  
43.
17See, e.g., Local Long Distance, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 24385 (2000), 
recon. denied, 16 FCC Rcd 10023, 10025,  6 (2001); Independent 
Communications, Inc., 14 FCC Rcd 9605 (1999), recon. denied, 15 
FCC Rcd 16060, 16060,  2 (2000); Hoosier Broadcasting Corp. 14 
FCC Rcd 3356 (CIB 1999), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 8640, 8641,  7 
(Enf. Bur. 2000).
18Response at 5.
19Id.
20Id.
21   47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).
22   47 U.S.C.  504(a).
23   See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.