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                )
                                )       
Charles R. Meeker               )       File No. EB-02-SD-285
Licensee of Station KDPX-LP     )       NAL/Acct.             No. 
200332940002
Cathedral City, California     )        FRN 000-619-9038
                                )       
                               ) 

                        FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted:  July 1, 2004                                  Released:  
July 2, 2004         

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:


I.  INTRODUCTION


     1.   In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of six  thousand four hundred 
($6,400) to Charles R. Meeker (``Meeker''), Licensee of Class A 
Television Broadcast (``Class A'') station KDPX-LP, for willful 
and repeated violation of Section 11.35 of the Commission's Rules 
("Rules").1  The noted violation involves Meeker's failure to 
ensure that required Emergency Alert System (``EAS'') equipment 
was installed and operational. 

     2.   On January 31, 2003, the Commission's San Diego, 
California Field Office (``San Diego Office") issued a Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") to Meeker in the amount 
of eight thousand dollars ($8,000). 2  Meeker filed a response to 
the NAL on March 4, 2003.  


II.  BACKGROUND


     3.   On November 14, 2002, an agent from the Federal 
          Communications Commission's (``FCC'') San Diego office 
          attempted to conduct a routine inspection of the EAS 
          equipment of station KDPX-LP.  The license for station 
          KDPX-LP had been issued to Meeker on September 10, 
          2001.  The agent found no operational EAS equipment at 
          the main studio and the general manager advised that 
          there was no EAS equipment at KDPX-LP's transmitter 
          site.  The general manager of KDPX-LP also advised the 
          agent that the station's EAS equipment was taken out of 
          service many months ago.  However, no evidence or 
          documentation could be found to verify the EAS 
          equipment condition nor did the licensee maintain a 
          station log of any previous EAS tests.
   
     4.   On January 31, 2003, the San Diego Office issued the 
          NAL for violation of Section 11.35 of the Rules.  On 
          March 4, 2003, Meeker submitted a response to the NAL.  
          In that response, Meeker does not challenge the 
          findings of the NAL that he willfully and repeatedly 
          violated Section 11.35 of the Rules.  Rather, the 
          licensee seeks a reduction in the amount of the 
          proposed forfeiture based on the fact that he has made 
          the appropriate corrections to the station, that he has 
          had no other violations, that he does not have the 
          ability to pay the forfeiture, that the forfeiture will 
          have a detrimental effect on the station and that the 
          size of the forfeiture is disproportionate to the size 
          of station.  The response is accompanied by an exhibit 
          entitled ``Deposit Detail'' along with a copy of an 
          arbitration decision concerning Meeker.


III. DISCUSSION


     5.   The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was 
          assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the 
          Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 
          Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's 
          Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 
          1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture 
          Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').5  In 
          examining Meeker'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.6

     6.   Section 11.35 of the Rules provides that broadcast 
          stations are responsible for ensuring that EAS 
          encoders, EAS decoders, and Attention Signal generating 
          and receiving equipment used as a part of the EAS are 
          installed so that the monitoring and transmitting 
          functions are available during times that stations and 
          systems are in operation.  An FCC inspection of KDPX-LP 
          revealed that there was no operational EAS equipment at 
          the main studio and the general manager advised that 
          there was no EAS equipment at KDPX-LP's transmitter 
          site.  In addition, no evidence or documentation could 
          be found to verify the EAS equipment condition nor did 
          the licensee maintain a station log of any previous EAS 
          tests.  In his response, Meeker does not challenge the 
          findings of the NAL that he willfully and repeatedly 
          violated Section 11.35 of the Rules.

     7.   Meeker seeks a reduction in the amount of the proposed 
          forfeiture arguing that he does not have the ability to 
          pay the forfeiture, that the forfeiture will have a 
          detrimental effect on the station and that the size of 
          the forfeiture is disproportionate to the size of 
          station.  Meeker states that KDPX-LP had losses in 
          excess of its revenue in 2002 and submits a one-page 
          document entitled ``Deposit Detail'' to support this 
          claim along with copy of an arbitration decision in 
          Meeker's favor, unrelated to KDPX-LP, which notes that 
          Meeker sustained economic losses to due to an 
          unperformed contract.7   However, the NAL specifically 
          states that ``[t]he 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.''8  Meeker's submission is not 
          supported in this manner and, therefore, provides no 
          reliable basis for Meeker's claims.9  In addition, 
          after reviewing the financial data submitted, we find 
          no evidence in Meeker's response that would support a 
          reduction in the forfeiture based on Meeker's inability 
          to pay, nor do we find any evidence that the size of 
          the forfeiture is disproportionate to the size of the 
          station and would have a detrimental effect on the 
          station.10

     8.    Meeker also seeks a reduction in the amount of the 
          proposed forfeiture based on the fact that he has made 
          the appropriate corrections to the station.  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.11 
          Finally, in support of his request for reduction, 
          Meeker states that he has never had an FCC action taken 
          against him.  We have reviewed Meeker's records and we 
          concur.
 
     9.   Based on the findings of the NAL and Meeker's response 
          thereto, we find that Meeker's violation of Section 
          11.35 was willful 12 and repeated.13  Considering the 
          entire record and the factors listed above, we find 
          that reduction of the proposed forfeiture is warranted 
          because of Meeker's compliance record with the 
          Commission's Rules.  Accordingly, the forfeiture amount 
          is reduced from eight thousand dollars ($8,000) to six 
          thousand four hundred dollars ($6,400).
 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES


     10.  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 Charles R. Meeker, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE 
in the amount of six thousand four hundred dollars ($6,400) for 
willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.35 of the Rules. 

     11.  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 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. 200332940002 and FRN: 000-619-9038.  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
     
     12.  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 Charles R. Meeker, 2225 Skyway Drive, Suite A, 
Santa Maria, California, 93455.




                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                    

                                                                  
                              David H. Solomon
                                                                 
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
           



_________________________

147 C.F.R.  11.35.

2Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 
200332940002 (Enf. Bur., San Diego Office, released January 31, 
2003).

347 U.S.C.  503(b).

447 C.F.R.  1.80.

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

647 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

7The arbitration decision awards Meeker and another individual 
significant damages which Meeker states in his response he has 
not yet been able to collect.

8NAL at 4.

9See Hoosier Broadcasting Corporation, 15 FCC Rcd 8640, 8641 
(2000).

10See Alpha Ambulance, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 2547(2004); PJB 
Communications of Virginia, 7 FCC Rcd 2088, 2089 (1992).  

11See, 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).

12 Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  312(f)(1), which 
applies to violations for which forfeitures are assessed under 
Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that ``[t]he term `willful,' 
... means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of 
such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of 
this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized 
by this Act ....''  See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 
FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).   

13As provided by 47 U.S.C.  312(f)(2), a continuous violation is 
``repeated'' if it continues for more than one day.   The 
Conference Report for Section 312(f)(2) indicates that Congress 
intended to apply this definition to Section 503 of the Act as 
well as Section 312.  See H.R. Rep. 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 
(1982).  See Southern California Broadcasting Company, 6 FCC Rcd 
4387, 4388 (1991) and Western Wireless Corporation, 18 FCC Rcd 
10319 at fn. 56 (2003).

1447 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

1547 U.S.C.  504(a).

16See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.