Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version


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-05-IH-2006        
     RCK 1 Group, LLC                   NAL Account No. 200732080020  
     Licensee of Station WKKX(AM)       Facility ID No. 72172         
     Wheeling, West Virginia            FRN No. 0011339769            


   Adopted: February 17, 2009 Released: February 17, 2009

   By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau:


    1. In this Forfeiture Order, we assess a $3,200 forfeiture against RCK 1
       Group, LLC (the "Licensee"), licensee of Station WKKX(AM), Wheeling,
       West Virginia (the "Station"), for willfully violating Section 73.1206
       of the Commission's rules, by broadcasting a live telephone
       conversation without giving prior notice to the individual being
       called of the Licensee's intention to do so.


    2. As discussed in detail in the Notice of Apparent Liability for
       Forfeiture ("NAL") issued in this case, the Commission received a
       complaint that the Licensee violated Section 73.1206 by calling the
       Complainant's home and broadcasting the call without giving the prior
       notice required by that rule.  In response to a Commission inquiry
       regarding the allegations, the Licensee admitted that Mr. Blomquist, a
       morning show host, initiated the alleged phone call as part of a talk
       show segment titled "Wake Your Lazy Carcass Up," whereby the Station
       randomly selects individuals from a telephone directory and calls them
       with the opportunity to answer trivia questions to win prizes. Mr.
       Blomquist stated that he first spoke to the Complainant's wife and
       told her that she was "live on the radio" and asked "could I speak
       with [Complainant]?" Mr. Blomquist further asserts that when the
       Complainant picked up the phone, Mr. Blomquist said "Good morning.
       You're live on the radio with the BloomDaddy Experience," after which
       the Complainant promptly hung up the phone. The Licensee further
       states that Mr. Blomquist advised both the Complainant and his wife
       that they were live on the radio and, at most, each said "hello" and
       the Complainant's wife also said "hold on."

    3. As a result of the Licensee's admissions, the NAL proposed a $4,000
       forfeiture. In response to the NAL, the Licensee filed a "Petition for
       Reduction or Cancellation of Proposed Forfeiture Adopted and Released
       March 6, 2007" ("Petition"). In its Petition, the Licensee seeks
       reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture in light of its
       record of compliance, the nature of the violation, and the corrective
       steps taken to insure its future compliance with the Commission's


    4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance
       with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the
       Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set
       forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures,
       Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we 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 matters as justice may
       require. As discussed further below, we have examined RCK 1 Group,
       LLC's response to the NAL pursuant to the aforementioned statutory
       factors, our rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, and find no
       basis for cancellation of the forfeiture. We find, however, that a
       reduction of the forfeiture amount from $4,000 to $3,200 based on RCK
       1 Group, LLC's prior history of compliance with the Commission's
       rules, and in view of the particular circumstances of this case, is

    5. Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules requires that, before
       broadcasting or recording a telephone conversation for later
       broadcast, a licensee must inform any party to the call of its
       intention to broadcast the conversation, except where such party is
       aware, or may be presumed to be aware from the circumstances of the
       conversation, that it is being or likely will be broadcast. The
       Commission will presume such awareness only where "the other party to
       the call is associated with the station (such as an employee or
       part-time reporter), or where the other party originates the call and
       it is obvious that it is in connection with a program in which the
       station customarily broadcasts telephone conversations."

    6. As set forth in the NAL, the NAL was issued in part because the
       Licensee admitted that its customary practice on the morning show was
       to select a telephone number at random, call that number, and notify
       the person answering the telephone that he or she was "live on the
       radio with the BloomDaddy Experience" after the broadcast had begun. 
       The Licensee does not dispute that this conduct constituted a rule
       violation because the notice required by Section 73.1206 must be given
       prior to the call being placed on the air, but nevertheless seeks
       reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture.

    7. With respect to the forfeiture amount, the Licensee seeks a reduction
       based on its record of compliance with the Commission's rules. Because
       of the Licensee's record of compliance, we will make an appropriate
       reduction. The Licensee also seeks a reduction because of the nature
       of the violation in question, namely that the circumstances were not
       offensive. We considered the nature and circumstances of the violation
       in proposing a $4,000 forfeiture in the NAL, and the Licensee has
       offered no new or previously undisclosed information relating to the
       nature and circumstances of the violation warranting a reduction.
       Despite the Licensee's assertion that the Complainant's wife said
       "hold on," in apparent acquiescence to participation in the call being
       broadcast, the rule does not require consent; it requires prior

    8. Finally, the Licensee has submitted affidavits relating to corrective
       measures it has undertaken to ensure future compliance with the Rule.
       While these measures are commendable, the Commission has repeatedly
       found that corrective measures taken after the Commission commences an
       investigation do not nullify or reduce liability for forfeitures.

    9. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture
       amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone
       conversation. Having considered the record in this case, the statutory
       factors, and the matters raised by the Licensee in response to the
       NAL, we find that the Licensee is apparently liable for a forfeiture
       in the amount of $3,200.


   10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the
       Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and
       0.311 of the Commission's Rules, that RCK 1 Group, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A
       MONETARY FROFEITURE in the amount of three thousand two hundred
       dollars ($3,200) for willful violation of Section 73.1206 of the
       Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 73.1206, as described in the
       paragraphs above. 

   11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
       Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, within
       thirty (30) days of the release date 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. 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/Account Number and FRN
       Number referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed
       to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO
       63197-9000. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank -
       Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
       Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number
       021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For
       payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be
       submitted.  When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account
       number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters
       "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code). RCK1Group will also
       send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to, and Requests for full payment under an
       installment plan should be sent to:  Chief Financial Officer --
       Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington,
       D.C.  20554.   Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk
       at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: with any questions
       regarding payment procedures. 

   12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that a copy of this FORFEITURE ORDER shall be
       sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular mail, to
       the Licensee at its address of record and Robert P. Fitzsimmons, Esq.,
       Fitzsimmons Law Offices, 1609 Warwood Ave., Wheeling, West Virginia


   Hillary S. DeNigro

   Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   See 47 C.F.R. S:  73.1206.

   See RCK 1 Group, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC
   Rcd 4507 (Enf. Bur., Investigations and Hearings Div., 2007) ("NAL"); see
   also Complaint filed by David Delk ("Complainant") to the Consumer and
   Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"),
   received September 8, 2005.

   See Response to Complaint dated February 17, 2006 (the "LOI Response"), at

   Id. at  Blomquist Affidavit ("Blomquist Aff.") P: 12.


   See id. at 4 &  Blomquist Aff. P: 14.

   See Petition for Reduction or Cancellation of Proposed Forfeiture Adopted
   and Released March 6, 2007, filed March 21, 2007 ("Petition").

   See id. at 1-3.

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b).

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
   1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and
   Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recons. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999)
   ("Forfeiture Policy Statement").

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 73.1206.


   See NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 4509 P: 7; see also LOI Response at Blomquist Aff.
   P:P: 5-8.

   See Petition at 2.

   See id. at  1.

   See id. at 2.

   See id.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 73.1206.

   See Petition at Exhibits 1 and 2.

   See AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.,  Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21866,
   21875 P:P: 26-28 (2002);  Seawest Yacht Brokers,  Notice of Forfeiture, 9
   FCC Rcd 6099, 6099 P: 7 (1994);  TCI Cablevision of Maryland, Inc., 
   Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 6013, 6014 P: 8 (1992);  Miami
   Radio, Inc.,  Memorandum Opinion and Order, 45 FCC 2d 612 P: 4 (1974); 
   Executive Broadcasting Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC 2d 699
   P: 6 (1966);  see also Johannus Orgebouw B.V. The Netherlands, Forfeiture
   Order, 19 FCC Rcd 7196, 7198-99 P: 9 (Enf. Bur. 2004).

   See Forfeiture Policy Statement, supra; 47 C.F.R. S:1.80.

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.80, 0.111, 0.311, 73.1206.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.

   (...continued from previous page)


   Federal Communications Commission DA-09-252


   Federal Communications Commission DA-09-252