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-03-TP-231             )   File No. EB-02-DT-1240
WSJM, Inc.                     )  )                              )
                              )  )   FRN 0007006884
NAL/Acct. No. 200332700030        )   NAL/Acct. No. 200332360005
Licensee  of  AM  Radio  Station  )
WGMY,                         )       FRN 0007171432
South Haven, Michigan           
)                 FRN 0007006884
                              )
                             ) 


                      FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted:  September 8, 2004             Released:  September 
                          10, 2004
        
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this  Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we  issue a 
monetary forfeiture  in the amount of  twelve thousand eight 
hundred dollars ($12,800) to WSJM, Inc. (``WSJM''), licensee 
of  Station WGMY  (AM), South  Haven, Michigan,  for willful 
violation  of numerous  sections of  the Commission's  Rules 
(``Rules'').   The noted  violations involve,  respectively:  
1)  failure to  maintain required  records, in  violation of 
Sections     73.1820(a)(1)(i),    73.1820(a)(1)(iii)     and 
73.1870(c)(3)  of the  Rules;1 2)  failure to  make required 
measurements  or conduct  required monitoring  regarding EAS 
monitoring sources,  EAS tests,  and observation  of antenna 
structures'  lights,  in  violation  of  Sections  11.52(d), 
11.61(a)(2)(i)(A)  and  17.47(a)(1);2   3) failure  to  file 
required forms or information  regarding the registration of 
two antenna  structures, in  violation of  Section 17.4(a);3 
and  4) failure  to  exhibit red  obstruction lighting  from 
sunset to sunrise, in violation of Section 17.51(a).4

II.  BACKGROUND

2.   On  September 23, 2002, the Commission's Detroit Office 
     received information that  the top flashing obstruction 
     lights on each  of two antenna structures  and the side 
     lights on one of the  two antenna structures located at 
     the corner of Wells and  Dunkey Streets in South Haven, 
     Michigan had  not been  operating for two  months.  The 
     Detroit   Office   searched   the   Antenna   Structure 
     Registration database  and did not find  any registered 
     structures in  the area  reported.  The  Detroit Office 
     requested  that  the   South  Haven  Police  Department 
     observe the  antenna structure  lights after  sunset to 
     determine if the complaint was still valid.
3.   On  September   24,  2002,   the  South   Haven  Police 
     Department  confirmed   the  antenna   structure  light 
     outages.  An  agent from  the Detroit  Office contacted 
     the  Federal Aviation  Administration (``FAA''),  which 
     notified WSJM of  the light outage report  and issued a 
     Notice to Airmen (``NOTAM'').

4.   On November  20, 2002,  agents from the  Detroit Office 
     conducted an  inspection of WSJM's  antenna structures.  
     The  agents  determined  that  all  required  structure 
     lighting was  operational at that time,  but found that 
     no Antenna Structure  Registration Numbers were posted.  
     On November  21, 2002,  agents from the  Detroit Office 
     conducted an additional  inspection, and found numerous 
     violations of  the Commission's Rules.  On  December 5, 
     2002, the  Detroit Office issued a  Notice of Violation 
     (``NOV'')  to  WSJM  for  these  rule  violations.   On 
     December 16, 2002, the  Detroit Office received a reply 
     which  indicated the  corrective  steps  that WSJM  had 
     instituted in response to the NOV.

5.   On April 17,  2003, the Detroit Office  issued a Notice 
     of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to WSJM, 
     finding  that the  station  willfully5 and  repeatedly6 
     violated  the   Commission's  Rules,  and   proposed  a 
     forfeiture in  the amount of nineteen  thousand dollars 
     ($19,000).7    In   particular,  the   Detroit   Office 
     determined that  WSJM had  failed to  maintain required 
     records,  in  violation of  Sections  73.1820(a)(1)(i), 
     73.1820(a)(1)(iii) and 73.1870(c)(3) of the Rules; that 
     it had failed to  make required measurements or conduct 
     required monitoring  regarding EAS  monitoring sources, 
     EAS  tests,  and  observation  of  antenna  structures' 
     lights,    in   violation    of   Sections    11.52(d), 
     11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) and  17.47(a)(1); that it  had failed 
     to  file required  forms or  information regarding  the 
     registration of two antenna structures, in violation of 
     Section 17.4(a); and that it  had failed to exhibit red 
     obstruction  lighting   from  sunset  to   sunrise,  in 
     violation of Section 17.51(a).

6.   WSJM filed a  response to the NAL on May  19, 2003.  In 
     its response, WSJM does not dispute the NAL's findings.  
     Nevertheless, as detailed below, WSJM seeks a reduction 
     of  the proposed  forfeiture,  based  on its  arguments 
     that:   1)  it  instituted prompt  remedial  action  to 
     correct the violations; 2) its failure to register each 
     of  its antenna  structures  resulted  from a  ``single 
     mistake of  fact'' by its  chief engineer; 3)  WSJM was 
     only monitoring one EAS  source because an antenna from 
     one of  its EAS monitors  had become dislodged;  and 4) 
     the station  has a  history of overall  compliance with 
     the Commission's Rules.
I.        DISCUSSION

7.   The  proposed  forfeiture  amount   in  this  case  was 
     assessed  in  accordance  with Section  503(b)  of  the 
     Communications  Act  of  1934, as  amended  (``Act''),8  
     Section  1.80  of  the  Rules,9  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) (``Forfeiture  Policy Statement'').  
     In examining WSJM'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.10

8.   As  stated  above,  WSJM  does not  dispute  the  NAL's 
     conclusion that  WSJM violated the  Commission's rules.  
     Instead,   WSJM  seeks   reduction   of  the   proposed 
     forfeiture,  first on  the  basis that  it took  prompt 
     action to  correct all of  the violations noted  in the 
     Detroit Office's  NAL. For example, with  regard to its 
     proposed   forfeiture  for   failure  to   comply  with 
     prescribed antenna  structure lighting in  violation of 
     Section 17.51(a)  of the Rules, WSJM  concedes that the 
     lights were out  on two of its  antenna structures ``at 
     some previous  point,'' but insists that  it took steps 
     to repair the lights  ``immediately upon being notified 
     of the outage,'' and that  the lights were repaired and 
     operational  when  the inspection  occurred.11   WSJM's 
     remedial   actions,   however,  to   correct   promptly 
     violations  after  they  have   been  identified  by  a 
     Commission  agent are  expected, and  do not  warrant a 
     reduction in the forfeiture amount.12 

9.   WSJM  also   requests  a  reduction  of   the  proposed 
     forfeiture on  the basis  that its failure  to register 
     each  of its  two  antenna structures  in violation  of 
     Section 17.4(a)  of the  Rules stemmed from  a ``single 
     mistake of fact'' by  its chief engineer.  According to 
     WSJM, its  chief engineer mistakenly believed  that the 
     structures  were  less than  200  feet  in height,  and 
     therefore,  were   below  the  threshold   required  to 
     register the structures  as obstructions.  WSJM further 
     argues that  because the two structures  are located at 
     the same site and are  part of a directional array, the 
     Detroit Office should  have levied a fine  for only one 
     antenna structure registration  violation.  It is well-
     established that  WSJM, as  a licensee,  is accountable 
     for  its chief  engineer's  errors  and ultimately,  is 
     responsible  for   compliance  with   the  Commission's 
     requirements.13  Nevertheless,  we agree  that, because 
     the  two antenna  structures  are located  at the  same 
     site, it is appropriate to  deal with WSJM's error as a 
     single registration violation.   Accordingly, we reduce 
     the total  forfeiture amount by three  thousand dollars 
     ($3,000).

10.  WSJM  also  argues that  at  the  time of  the  Detroit 
     Office's  inspection, it  was only  monitoring one  EAS 
     source (instead  of the requisite two  sources) because 
     an  antenna for  one  of its  EAS  monitors had  become 
     dislodged without  its knowledge.   According  to WSJM, 
     the  proposed  forfeiture   for  violation  of  Section 
     11.52(d) of  the Rules  should be reduced  because WSJM 
     was  unaware  of  the  problem with  the  antenna,  and 
     reinstalled  it  immediately   upon  discovery  of  the 
     violation.  We  disagree.  As  noted above, WSJM,  as a 
     licensee, is  responsible for ensuring  compliance with 
     the  Commission's  Rules,14 including  the  requirement 
     that  the station  monitor two  EAS sources.   Further, 
     WSJM should  have been receiving and  logging EAS tests 
     from both EAS sources and  thus, should have been aware 
     that it was not receiving the second source.  That WSJM 
     may  have  overlooked  a  dislodged  antenna  does  not 
     mitigate or  excuse WSJM's  violations, and thus  we do 
     not  find that  reduction  of  the proposed  forfeiture 
     amount is warranted on this basis.

11.  Finally,  WSJM contends  that  the proposed  forfeiture 
     should be  reduced in light  of its overall  history of 
     compliance   with   the  Commission's   Rules.    After 
     considering  WSJM's record  of compliance,  we conclude 
     that   although    WSJM   willfully15    violated   the 
     Commission's  Rules,  a   reduction  of  the  remaining 
     forfeiture amount  (sixteen thousand  dollars ($16,000) 
     as reduced)  to twelve  thousand eight  hundred dollars 
     ($12,800) is appropriate.16

II.       ORDERING CLAUSES

12.  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 WSJM,  Inc.. IS LIABLE FOR A 
     MONETARY FORFEITURE  in the  amount of  twelve thousand 
     eight hundred dollars ($12,800) for willfully violating 
     Sections    11.52(d),    11.61(a)(2)(i)(A),    17.4(a), 
     17.47(a)(1),         17.51(a),        73.1820(a)(1)(i), 
     73.1820(a)(1)(iii),    and    73.1870(c)(3)   of    the 
     Commission's Rules. 

13.  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 of 
     the  forfeiture  may  be   made  by  check  or  similar 
     instrument,  payable  to  the   order  of  the  Federal 
     Communications  Commission.  The  payment must  include 
     the NAL/Acct. No. and FCC Registration Number (``FRN'') 
     referenced above.  Payment by  check or money order may 
     be  mailed to  Forfeiture  Collection Section,  Finance 
     Branch,  Federal  Communications Commission,  P.O.  Box 
     73482,  Chicago,   Illinois  60673-7482.    Payment  by 
     overnight mail  may be sent  to Bank One/LB  73482, 525 
     West  Monroe,  8th  Floor Mailroom,  Chicago,  Illinois 
     60661.  Payment  by wire  transfer may  be made  to ABA 
     Number 071000013, receiving  bank ``Bank One,'' account 
     number  1165259. 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

14.  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   Mr.    Gayle   Olson, 
     President/General  Manager, WSJM,  Inc., P.O.  Box 107, 
     St. Joseph,  MI, 49085, and to  WSJM, Inc.'s attorneys, 
     David  D.  Oxenford,  Esquire, and  Paul  A.  Cicelski, 
     Esquire,  of Shaw  Pittman  LLP, 2300  N Street,  N.W., 
     Washington, D.C. 20037-1128.



                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 
                              COMMISSION



                              David H. Solomon
                              Chief, Enforcement Bureau

               
_________________________

147  C.F.R.     1820(a)(1)(i  ),  73.1820(a)(1)(iii)  and 
73.1870(c)(3).

247 C.F.R.  11.52(d), 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) and 17.47(a)(1).

347 C.F.R.  17.4(a).

447 C.F.R.  17.51(a).

5 Section 312(f)(1) of the  Act, 47 U.S.C. 312(f)(1), which 
applies to Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that ``[t]he 
term `willful,' when used  with reference to the commission 
or omission of any act,  means the conscious and deliberate 
commission  or omission  of such  act, irrespective  of any 
intent to  violate any  provision of  this Act  ....''  See 
Southern California Broadcasting Co.,  6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 
(1991).   

6As  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).

7See Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. 
200332360005 (Enf. Bur., Detroit Office, released April 17, 
2003).

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

947 C.F.R.  1.80.

1047 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

11Based on the record, WSJM was first notified of the light 
outages because an agent from the Commission's Detroit 
Office contacted the Federal Aviation Administration, which 
in turn notified WSJM of the outage report and issued a 
NOTAM.  See  3, supra.

12See,  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).

13See,  e.g., 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). 

14See note 13, supra. 

15 While the NAL also  concluded that WSJM's violations were 
``repeated,'' we need  not address that finding  in light of 
the  willful nature  of  WSJM's  admitted violations.   See, 
e.g., Southern Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991) 
(in issuing a  forfeiture pursuant to 47 U.S.C.   503(b) of 
the Act, we  are only required to find  either a ``willful'' 
or ``repeated'' violation).  See also note 5, supra.

16See Max Media  of Montana, 18 FCC Rcd  21375, 21378 (Enf. 
Bur. 2003) (finding that a licensee's history of compliance 
with Commission  regulations warranted  a reduction  of the 
proposed forfeiture); see also South Central Communications 
Corp., 18 FCC Rcd 700, 701, 703  6, 9 (Enf. Bur. 2003).

1747 C.F.R.   0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

1847 U.S.C.  504(a).

19See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.