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-ST-208
Butterfield Broadcasting         )
Corporation                      )    NAL/Acct. No. 200332980005
Licensee, KULE(AM)               )
Ephrata, Washington              )    FRN: 0001567817



                        FORFEITURE ORDER

     Adopted:  October 1, 2004          Released:  October 4, 
     2004  

By the Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.        In this Forfeiture Order  (``Order''), we issue  a 
monetary forfeiture  in  the  amount  of  two   thousand  dollars 
($2,000)     to     Butterfield     Broadcasting      Corporation 
(``Butterfield''), licensee of  radio station KULE(AM),  Ephrata, 
Washington, for  its willful  and repeated  violation of  Section 
73.3526(e)(1)   of  the  Commission's  Rules  (``Rules'').1   The 
violation involves Butterfield's  failure to maintain  a copy  of 
station  KULE(AM)'s   authorization  in   the  station's   public 
inspection file.

     2.   On April 30, 2003, the Commission's Seattle, Washington 
Office  (``Seattle  Office'')  released  a  Notice  of   Apparent 
Liability  for  Forfeiture   (``NAL'')  to   Butterfield  for   a 
forfeiture in  the  amount  of two  thousand  dollars  ($2,000).2  
Butterfield  filed   a  response   on  May   29,  2003,   seeking 
cancellation of the forfeiture.

  II.  BACKGROUND

     3.        On May  17, 1999,  the  Seattle Office  issued  an 
Official   Notice   of   Violation   to   Mirage   Communications 
(``Mirage'')3 for violations at station KULE(AM), which  included 
violation of Section 73.3526(e)(1)  of the Rules.   Specifically, 
Mirage had  failed  to  maintain a  copy  of  station  KULE(AM)'s 
station authorization in its  public inspection file.   According 
to Butterfield,  all  of  Mirage's licenses  had  been  destroyed 
during a  major roof  leak.   On May  25,  1999, staff  from  the 
Commission's former Mass Media Bureau (``Media Bureau'')  advised 
Mirage how to obtain a reissued authorization.  On June 30, 2001, 
Butterfield  became  the  licensee  of  station  KULE(AM).4    On 
November  19,  2002,  staff   from  the  Media  Bureau   notified 
Butterfield that, according  to Commission  records, the  station 
authorization still had not  been reissued for station  KULE(AM).  
At  that  time,  Commission   staff  also  specifically   advised 
Butterfield to ensure that station  KULE(AM) had an accurate  and 
current license  in  the  public file,  and  warned  of  possible 
monetary  forfeitures   if  a   subsequent  inspection   revealed 
continuing non-compliance.  

     4.   On January  28,  2003,  a  Commission  agent  from  the 
Seattle  Office  inspected  station  KULE(AM)'s  license   folder 
contained  within  the   public  inspection   file.   The   agent 
determined that station KULE(AM)'s  authorization was not in  the 
station's public inspection file.  KULE(AM) personnel were unable 
to locate a copy of  the station's authorization anywhere at  the 
station.  On  April  30,  2003, the  Seattle  Office  issued  the 
subject  NAL  to   Butterfield  finding   that  Butterfield   had 
apparently   willfully    and   repeatedly    violated    Section 
73.3526(e)(1) of the Rules.  Although the base forfeiture  amount 
for a  violation of  the  public file  rules is  $10,000,5  after 
considering the facts  of the case  the Seattle Office  concluded 
that a  $2,000  forfeiture  was appropriate.   In  its  response, 
Butterfield seeks cancellation of  the forfeiture because it  was 
``in the process  of dealing with  the problem and  it has  since 
been resolved,'' and because it is unable to pay the forfeiture.      

  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''),6  Section 1.80 of the  Rules,7 
and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of 
Section  1.80  of  the   Rules  to  Incorporate  the   Forfeiture 
Guidelines (``Policy Statement'').8   In examining  Butterfield's 
response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that  the 
Commission take into account  the nature, circumstances,  extent, 
and gravity of  the alleged  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.9  

     6.        Section 73.3526(e)(1) of  the Rules requires  that 
the station's  public  inspection  file include  a  copy  of  the 
current FCC authorization to operate the station, as well as  any 
other documents necessary to reflect any modifications thereto or 
any conditions that the FCC has placed on the authorization.  The 
Rules require the  station authorization  to be  retained in  the 
public inspection file until replaced by a new authorization,  at 
which time  a  copy of  the  new authorization  and  any  related 
material must  be  placed  in the  file.   Butterfield  had  been 
advised in  2002  by  Commission  staff  of  the  requirement  to 
maintain a copy of the  station's authorization in the  station's 
public inspection file.   However, Butterfield  failed to  comply 
with the rule and on January 28, 2003, Butterfield still did  not 
have  a  copy   of  the   authorization  in   its  public   file.  
Accordingly,  we  conclude   that  Butterfield  willfully10   and 
repeatedly11 violated Section 73.3526(e)(1) of the Rules.

     7.        Butterfield seeks cancellation  of the  forfeiture 
because it contends that it ``was in the process of dealing  with 
the problem  in  question  and  it  has  since  been  resolved.''  
Although Butterfield  claims  that Mirage  Communications,  prior 
licensee  of  station  KULE(AM),  requested  a  copy  of  station 
KULE(AM)'s station  license  after  it was  destroyed  by  water, 
Butterfield also admits  that after only  receiving an  auxiliary 
license in  response  to  the  request,  the  matter  of  station 
KULE(AM)'s authorization  ``fell through the cracks'' until 2001.  
Butterfield further states that the license problem resurfaced in 
late 2002,  when  questions  arose  about  the  accuracy  of  its 
authorization and that its operations manager had located a  copy 
of the  authorization,  but  he  had  it  in  his  possession  to 
investigate the  discrepancies when  the inspection  occurred  on 
January 28, 2003.  However, we note that Butterfield had not  had 
a copy of station  KULE(AM)'s license in  the station file  since 
2001.  At the  time of  the inspection  on January  28, 2003,  it 
still did not  have a  copy of  the authorization  in the  public 
inspection file.  Although Butterfield states  that it now has  a 
copy of the license in the public file, we note that its remedial 
measures,  while  commendable,  are  not  mitigating   factors.12  
Finally, Butterfield also  claims that  it is unable  to pay  the 
forfeiture and provides financial documentation in support of its 
contention.   We  have   reviewed  the  financial   documentation 
submitted by Butterfield and find that this information does  not 
provide a basis for cancellation or reduction of the  forfeiture.  
Indeed,  the   forfeiture  is   a   very  small   percentage   of 
Butterfield's gross revenues.13

  IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     8.   Accordingly, IT IS  ORDERED that,  pursuant to  Section 
503 of the Act, and Sections  0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of  the 
Rules,14 Butterfield IS LIABLE FOR  A MONETARY FORFEITURE in  the 
amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willful and  repeated 
violation of Section 73.3526(e)(1).

     9.   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 of  the  forfeiture must  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 FRN 
No. 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, IL  60661.  
Payment by wire  transfer may  be made to  ABA Number  071000013, 
receiving  bank  ``Bank  One,''   and  account  number   1165259.  
Requests for full  payment under  an installment  plan should  be 
sent to:  Chief, Revenue  and Receivables  Operations Group,  445 
12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.16 

     10.       IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED that a  copy of this  Order 
shall be  sent by  first class  mail and  certified mail,  return 
receipt requested, to  Butterfield Broadcasting Corporation,  706 
Butterfield Road, Yakima, Washington 98901.



                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         



                              George R. Dillon
                              Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau
      

_________________________

1 47 C.F.R.  73.3526(e)(1).  
2 Notice  of Apparent  Liability  for Forfeiture,  NAL/Acct.  No. 
200332980005, (Enf.  Bur.,  Seattle Office,  released  April  30, 
2003.
3 Mirage was KULE(AM)'s licensee prior to Butterfield.
4 See Application for Consent to Assignment of Broadcast  Station 
Construction Permit  or  License,  File  Number  BAL-20010130ABL, 
granted June 14, 2001 (consummated June 30, 2001).
5  See 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4).
6  47 U.S.C.  503(b).
7  47 C.F.R.  1.80.
8  12  FCC Rcd.  17087 (1997),  recon. denied,  15 FCC  Rcd.  303 
(1999). 
9  47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D). 
10  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 ....''  Southern  California Broadcasting Co., 6  FCC 
Rcd 4387 (1991). 
11 As provided by 47 U.S.C.  312(f)(2), ``[t]he term `repeated',  
when used with  reference to  the commission or  omission of  any 
act, means the commission or omission of such act more than  once 
or, if such commission or  omission is continuous, 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).  Southern California Broadcasting Co., supra.  
12 See, 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).
13 See Alpha  Ambulance, Inc.,  FCC 04-19, 2,  n.15 (February  5, 
2004), citing PJB Communications, 7  FCC Rcd at 2089  (forfeiture 
not deemed  excessive  where it  represented  approximately  2.02 
percent of the violator's  gross revenues); Local Long  Distance, 
Inc., 16 FCC Rcd at 10025 (forfeiture not deemed excessive  where 
it represented approximately 7.9 percent of the violator's  gross 
revenues); Hoosier  Broadcasting Corporation,  15 FCC  Rcd  8640, 
8641 (Enf. Bur. 2002) (forfeiture  not deemed excessive where  it 
represented approximately  7.6 percent  of the  violator's  gross 
revenues).  In  this case,  the forfeiture  represents a  smaller 
percentage of gross revenues than those issued in the Local  Long 
Distance,   Inc.,   Hoosier    Broadcasting   Corp.,   and    PJB 
Communications of Virginia, Inc. cases.
14 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).
15 47 U.S.C.  504(a).
16 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.