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                 )    File No.: EB-02-LA-225
                                )
Capstar Radio Operating Company  )    NAL/Acct. No. 200332900001
License of station KIXW-AM       )
Registered Owner of ASR Number   )    FRN 0005-7937-16
1018351                          )
Apple Valley, California

                        FORFEITURE  ORDER

Adopted:  August 10, 2004               Released:  August 12, 
2004

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:


I.   INTRODUCTION
     1.   In  this  Forfeiture  Order  (``Order''),  we  issue  a 
           monetary forfeiture  in the amount  of four  thousand, 
           six  hundred   dollars  ($4,600)   to  Capstar   Radio 
           Operating Company (``Capstar''),  licensee of  station 
           KIXW-AM,  for  willful   and  repeated  violation   of 
           Sections 17.4(g) and 17.57  of the Commission's  Rules 
           (``Rules'').1  The noted violations involve  Capstar's 
           failure to display the antenna structure  registration 
           (``ASR'')  number  near  the   base  of  its   antenna 
           structure and failure  to notify the  Commission of  a 
           change in ownership information, respectively.
     2.   On December  30,  2002, the  Commission's  Los  Angeles 
           Field Office (``Los Angeles Office'') issued a  Notice 
           of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in  the 
           amount of  $5,000 to Capstar.2   Capstar responded  to 
           the NAL through counsel  on January 30, 2003.  In  its 
           response, Capstar  requested  either  cancellation  or 
           substantial reduction of the forfeiture.  
II.  BACKGROUND
     3.    On June  5, 2002,  as part  of a  field-wide  targeted 
           tower safety compliance program,  agents from the  Los 
           Angeles Office inspected the tower, antenna  structure 
           number 1018351,  used by Capstar  for station  KIXW-AM 
           in  Apple   Valley,  California.   At   the  time   of 
           inspection, however,  the  FCC's ASR  database  listed 
           Ruby Broadcasting,  Inc., as the  registered owner  of 
           the antenna  structure  number 1018351,  not  Capstar.  
           When the agents arrived  at the tower for  inspection, 
           they also observed  that no ASR  number was  displayed 
           at or near the base of the tower.
     4.    On December 30,  2002, the Los  Angeles Office  issued 
           an NAL to Capstar  finding that Capstar willfully  and 
           repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(g) and 17.57 of  the 
           Rules by failing  to display the  ASR number near  the 
           antenna structure's  base and  failing to  notify  the 
           Commission of  a change in  ownership information  for 
           the tower.  Capstar  responded to the  NAL on  January 
           30, 2003 requesting cancellation  or reduction of  the 
           forfeiture, alleging  that the  agents' inspection  of 
           the antenna structure site  was improper, and  stating 
           that it instituted prompt  remedial action to  correct 
           the noted violations.
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, 12  FCC Rcd 17087  (1997), recon.  denied, 
           15 FCC  Rcd  303 (1999)  (``Policy  Statement'').   In 
           examining Capstar'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.5
     6.    Section 17.4(g)  of the Rules  requires, in  pertinent 
           part,  that,  ``the  Antenna  Structure   Registration 
           Number must  be displayed  in a  conspicuous place  so 
           that it  is  readily  visible near  the  base  of  the 
           antenna structure.''6  At the  time of the  Commission 
           inspection on  June 5,  2002, Capstar  failed to  post 
           the ASR number for  the tower, as required by  Section 
           17.4(g).  Section 17.57 of the Rules requires  antenna 
           structure   owners   to    immediately   notify    the 
           Commission, using  FCC Form  854, upon  any change  in 
           ownership  information.7  When  agents  from  the  Los 
           Angeles  Office inspected  the  antenna  structure  on 
           June 5,  2002, ASR  number 1018351  was registered  to 
           Ruby  Broadcasting,  Inc.   Capstar,  which   acquired 
           ownership of the  tower in September  of 2000,  failed 
           to  timely notify  the  Commission  of  the  ownership 
           change pursuant to Section  17.57.  Not until  October 
           11, 2002, after an  inquiry from a Los Angeles  Office 
           agent,  did   Capstar   file  the   required   updated 
           ownership information with the Commission.  
     7.    Capstar disputed neither its  failure to post the  ASR 
           number,  nor its  outdated  ownership  information  on 
           file with the Commission.  Instead, Capstar  contended 
           that  an  Alternative  Broadcast  Inspection   Program 
           (``ABIP'')   agreement   shielded   it   from   random 
           inspections by Los  Angeles Office agents,  and, as  a 
           result, the proposed forfeiture  should be reduced  or 
           cancelled.  8    Capstar  argued   that  the   agents' 
           ``drive-by''  inspection  of  the  antenna   structure 
           violated   the   terms   of   the   ABIP    agreement.  
           Specifically, Capstar  claimed  that, under  the  ABIP 
           agreement, the Commission agreed to abort any  routine 
           inspection  if  the   station  demonstrated  that   it 
           requested and  paid for an  alternative inspection  by 
           the California Broadcasters Association (``CBA'').  In 
           support of  this claim,  Clear Channel  Communications 
           Inc., (``Clear Channel''), owner of Capstar,  provided 
           a  copy  of  its   request  for  an  alternative   CBA 
           inspection of Capstar's broadcast station.
     8.    Capstar's  claims  notwithstanding,  the  Los  Angeles 
           Office's inspection  of the antenna  structure in  use 
           by Capstar was not  precluded by the above  referenced 
           ABIP agreement.  Initially, we note that, at the  time 
           of the inspection, Capstar  held no valid  certificate 
           of compliance.  Therefore,  the ABIP agreement  failed 
           to  afford   Capstar  a  two   year  protection   from 
           inspection by  Los Angeles  Office agents.9   Further, 
           assuming  that  Capstar  obtained  a  certificate   of 
           compliance  prior  to  the  date  of  inspection,  the 
           specific terms of the ABIP agreement entitled the  Los 
           Angeles  Office to  inspect  any  station  during  the 
           protected two year  period so long  as the  inspection 
           was  undertaken  as  part  of  a  targeted  compliance 
           program.10   The  inspection  by  Los  Angeles  Office 
           agents  on  June  5,  2002  was  part  of  a  targeted 
           compliance  program,  a   field-wide  targeted   tower 
           safety  compliance  program,  and  therefore  was  not 
           barred  by   the  terms  of   the  ABIP   agreement.11  
           Specifically,  as  part   of  a  targeted   compliance 
           program, the inspection was  not routine, and the  Los 
           Angeles Office  was therefore not  obligated to  abort 
           its   proceedings  with   regard   to   the   observed 
           violations.12  
     9.    In its  response,  Capstar represented  that  it  took 
           corrective  actions,  specifically  including  posting 
           the tower's ASR  number near the  tower's base,  prior 
           to being notified in October, 2002, of the  violations 
           discovered by  the Los  Angeles Office  agents  during 
           their June 5, 2002, inspection.  This remedial  action 
           constitutes good faith, and merits a reduction of  the 
           forfeiture  assessed   for  Capstar's   violation   of 
           Section 17.4(g) to $1,600.13   We note, however,  that 
           Capstar took no  remedial action with  respect to  its 
           inaccurate tower  ownership information  on file  with 
           the  Commission   until   October  11,   2002,   after 
           receiving notification  of  its violation  of  Section 
           17.57 of the  Rules from a  Los Angeles Office  agent.  
           Therefore, Capstar's subsequent  remedial action  with 
           respect  to its  violation  of  Section  17.57,  while 
           commendable, fails to mitigate  its violation of  that 
           Section,  and   thus  presents   no  basis   for   the 
           Commission to  reduce or  cancel the  assessed  $3,000 
           forfeiture  for  its  violation  of  Section  17.57.14  
           Accordingly,  we find  that  Capstar  willfully15  and 
           repeatedly16 violated  Sections 17.4(g)  and 17.57  of 
           the   Commission's  Rules   and   reduce   the   total 
           forfeiture amount to $4,600.
     10.  We have examined Capstar'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 Capstar  willfully  and 
           repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(g) and 17.57 of  the 
           Commission's Rules,  and, although  we find  no  basis 
           for canceling the proposed  forfeiture, we reduce  the 
           total forfeiture amount to  $4,600 based on  Capstar's 
           good faith effort  to comply with  Section 17.4(g)  of 
           the Commission's Rules.
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,17   Capstar Radio  Operating 
           Company IS  LIABLE FOR  A MONETARY  FORFEITURE in  the 
           amount of four thousand, six hundred dollars  ($4,600) 
           for failure to  provide an ASR number  at the base  of 
           its  tower  structure  and   failure  to  notify   the 
           Commission of  a change  in ownership  information  in 
           violation of Sections 17.4(g) and 17.57 of the  Rules, 
           respectively.
     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.18  
           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.  200332900001  and  FRN   0005-7937-16.  
           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. 
           20554.19
     13.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that  copies of this Order  shall 
           be sent by Certified  Mail, Return Receipt  Requested, 
           and by  First Class  Mail to  Capstar Radio  Operating 
           Company,  2625 S.  Memorial  Drive,  Suite  A,  Tulsa, 
           Oklahoma 74129, and its counsel, Dorann Bunkin,  Esq., 
           Wiley  Rein   &   Fielding,  1776   K   Street   N.W., 
           Washington, D.C. 20006.
                              
                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                              
                              
                                                  
                              
                              David H. Solomon
                              Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

1 47 C.F.R.  17.4(g), 17.57.
2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, File No. EB-02-LA-
225, NAL/Acct. No. 200332900001  (Enf. Bur., Los Angeles  Office, 
released December 30, 2002).
3  47 U.S.C.  503(b).
4  47 C.F.R.  1.80.
5  47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).
6  47 C.F.R.  17.4(g).
7  47 C.F.R.  17.57.
8 See  Capstar  Response at  Exhibit  B, ABIP  Agreement  (``ABIP 
Agreement'').  The ABIP agreement then in effect between the  Los 
Angeles Field Office and the California Broadcasters  Association 
(``CBA'') provided that the  CBA would offer contract  inspection 
services for a fee to CBA member stations. The specific  language 
of the  agreement states,  in part,  that once  the FCC  receives 
notice of a station's compliance  from the CBA ``the Los  Angeles 
Enforcement Bureau Office  will promise not  to perform a  random 
routine inspection of the  station for a  period of two  years,'' 
and further  that  ``that  the  FCC  also  agrees  to  abort  any 
attempted routine inspection upon  a showing that an  Association 
[CBA] inspection has been requested and paid for within the  last 
60 days....'' 
9 See  ABIP Agreement  (``upon receipt  of... certification,  the 
[Los Angeles  Office]... will  promise not  to perform  a  random 
routine inspection of the station for a period of two years  from 
the date of  certification'') (emphasis added);   see also  State 
Broadcasting Corp., 19 FCC Rcd  4668, 4669-4670 (Enf. Bur.  2004) 
(concluding that State was not entitled to the protection of  the 
ABIP agreement during the  stipulated period, where State  failed 
to obtain a valid certificate  of compliance prior to  Commission 
inspection). Nothing in the Agreement provided an exemption  from 
routine inspections based on a request for an ABIP inspection.
10 See  ABIP Agreement  (``the FCC  will only  inspect a  station 
during this  [two  year protected]  period  on the  basis  of  an 
external requirement, such as a complaint or targeted  compliance 
program'').
11 See State Broadcasting,  19 FCC Rcd  at 4670 (concluding  that 
inspection as part of a targeted tower safety compliance  program 
was valid during an ABIP protected period).
12 See  ABIP Agreement  (``The FCC  agrees to  abort any  routine 
inspection....'')  (emphasis  added);  see  also  Clear   Channel 
Broadcasting Licenses, Inc.,  19 FCC  Rcd 8100,   8  (concluding 
that inspection pursuant  to a targeted  tower safety  compliance 
program was not a routine inspection); State Broadcasting, 19 FCC 
Rcd at  4670  (concluding  that, where  the  inspection  was  not 
routine, the agents were not required to abort).
13 See Max Media of Montana, L.L.C., 18 FCC Rcd 21375, 21378  11 
(Enf. Bur. 2003) (reducing a  proposed forfeiture from $8,000  to 
6,000 for  antenna  structure  lighting  violations  because  the 
licensee had undertaken  corrective action and  had restored  the 
structure's lighting  prior  to  receiving notice  of  the  Field 
Office's inspection and/or action based on such inspection);  see 
also Barinowski  Investment, Co.,  18 FCC  Rcd 25067,  25069   7 
(Enf. Bur. 2003) (reducing a proposed forfeiture from $10,000  to 
$8,000 for  antenna  structure painting  violations  because  the 
licensee had identified the problem  and had pre-paid to  repaint 
the  structure  prior  to  the  Field  Office's  inspection   and 
subsequent action on the violation).
14 See,  e.g., AT&T  Wireless  Services, Inc.,  17 FCC  Rcd  7891 
(2002), forfeiture ordered, 17 FCC  Rcd 21866, 21875-76   26-28 
(2002) (finding  that  a  downward  adjustment  of  an  aggregate 
forfeiture  was  not  warranted  where  the  carrier  lacked   an 
effective  antenna  compliance  program   at  the  time  of   the 
violations  and  only   corrected  such   violations  after   the 
Commission brought them to its  attention); Odino Joseph, 18  FCC 
Rcd 16522, 16524 at  8 (Enf. Bur. 2003) (finding that a downward 
adjustment  was  not  warranted,   where  a  pirate   broadcaster 
terminated   all    transmissions    after    the    Commission's 
investigation).
15 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, 4388 (1991) (forfeiture to an AM radio station  for 
willful violation of sponsorship identification, even though  the 
AM radio station did  not know its actions  violated any rule  or 
law), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992).
16 Section  312(f)(2)  of  the Act  provides  that  ``[t]he  term 
`repeated,' ... means the commission or omission of such act more 
than once or, if such  commission or omission is continuous,  for 
more than  one day.''   47 U.S.C.   312(f)(2).   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. No. 97-765, 97th  Cong. 2d Sess.  51 
(1982).  See also Calvary Communications, 18 FCC Rcd 18172, 18174 
(2003) (finding that  a lighting violation  that occurred on  two 
consecutive  days   was   enough  to   warrant   a   ``repeated'' 
distinction).
17 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 0.180(f)(4).
18 47 U.S.C.  504(a).
19 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.