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                                                        
     Spirit of Alaska Broadcasting, Inc.                                     
                                            )   File Number: EB-08-AN-0111   
     Permittee of Broadcast Station                                          
     KMBQ(AM)                               )   NAL/Acct. No.: 200932780001  
     Wasilla, Alaska                        )   FRN: 0004973970              
     Facility ID No.161023                  )                                


   Adopted: July 25, 2011 Released: July 27, 2011

   By the Regional Director, Western Region, Enforcement Bureau:

    1. In this Order, which follows upon a Notice of Apparent Liability for
       Forfeiture ("NAL") issued by the Enforcement Bureau's Anchorage Office
       on April 30, 2009, we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be
       imposed on Spirit of Alaska Broadcasting, Inc. ("Spirit").

    2. In the NAL, we found Spirit, permittee of AM broadcast Station
       KMBQ(AM), in Wasilla, Alaska, apparently liable for a forfeiture of
       $7,000 for violation of section 73.49 of the Commission's rules
       ("Rules") for failing to maintain an effective fence or enclosure
       around the Station KMBQ(AM) antenna structure. Consistent with section
       503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Spirit was
       granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture
       should be imposed.

    3. In its Response, Spirit asserts that the temporary fence enclosing the
       Station KMBQ(AM) antenna structure was effective within the meaning of
       section 73.49 of the Rules. Spirit states that when the station began
       operation in December 2008, there was three feet of snow on the
       ground, the daytime high temperatures ranged from -2 to -8 degrees
       Fahrenheit, with wind gusts up to 50 miles per hour, and the overnight
       lows were -20 degrees Fahrenheit. Spirit states that notwithstanding
       the frigid weather conditions, it constructed other effective
       enclosures and took other measures that protected the general public
       from the radio frequency potential at the base of the antenna.
       Specifically, Spirit describes that it erected fences of both black
       plastic sheeting and flexible orange plastic snow fencing, put orange
       and red markers around the plastic fencing, put five "No Trespassing"
       signs on the plastic fencing, installed additional non-ionizing
       radiation signs on the plastic fencing and on the transmitter building
       and the radiator block, and that it anchored the signage and sheeting
       with additional concrete blocks. Spirit states that it also maintained
       a regular physical presence at the site on the actual six-acre parcel
       owned by Spirit's President pending construction of the permanent base
       fence, along with placing additional no trespassing signs around the
       perimeter of the property. Spirit states that once the weather
       conditions permitted, it completed construction of a permanent
       chain-link locked fence around the AM antenna structure during the
       first week in April 2009.

    4. On July 26, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of
       Alaska issued an Order that placed the assets of Spirit in
       receivership, assigned a receiver and ordered the receiver to
       "promptly apply to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for an
       involuntary assignment of licenses and transfer of control of radio
       stations operated by [Spirit]."  On July 30, 2010, the court-appointed
       receiver filed an FCC Form 316 for involuntary transfer of control of
       Spirit from Spirit's President to the court-appointed receiver
       consistent with the U.S. District Court Order. The Commission granted
       the application on August 19, 2010.

    5. Upon review of the record in this case, we find that no forfeiture
       should be imposed. The good faith compliance measures described above,
       the unusual circumstances preventing construction, and the appointment
       of a receiver are all relevant to our consideration of any forfeiture,
       and in this case to our determination to impose no forfeiture penalty.

    6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204,
       0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed
       forfeiture issued to Spirit of Alaska Broadcasting, Inc., in the above
       captioned proceeding WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 

    7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent both by
       First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Spirit
       of Alaska Broadcasting, Inc., at 2200 East Parks Highway, Wasilla,
       Alaska, 99654.


   Rebecca L. Dorch

   Regional Director, Western Region

   Enforcement Bureau

   Spirit of Alaska Broadcasting, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200932780001 (Enf. Bur., Western Region,
   Anchorage Resident Agent Office, rel. April 30, 2009).

   47 C.F.R. S: 73.49.

   On February 5, 2009, in response to a complaint, at approximately 10:00
   a.m. AST, agents from the Enforcement Bureau's Anchorage Resident Agent
   Office ("Anchorage Office"), accompanied by the President of Spirit,
   conducted an inspection of the Station KMBQ(AM) transmitter and antenna
   site, located at 6362 East Chinook Avenue, Wasilla, Alaska. The inspection
   revealed that Spirit had installed a plastic snow fence enclosing the base
   of the Station KMBQ(AM) antenna structure.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(4).

   Response of Spirit Broadcasting, Inc., filed June 1, 2009 ("Response").

   Spirit also notes that multiple efforts were made by its neighbors at the
   transmitter site to stop the construction and operation of the
   transmitter, and that these efforts delayed Spirit from erecting a
   permanent fence. Response at 1-4.

   Response at 2.

   Response at 2.

   Response at 1-4. We note that on April 22, 2009, an Anchorage agent again
   inspected the Station KMBQ(AM) transmitter and antenna site and found that
   the antenna structure was surrounded by a substantial six foot high chain
   link metal fence which fully enclosed the structure.

   Gladstone Capital Corporation v. Spirit of Alaska Broadcasting, Inc.,
   Order, No. 3:10-cv-0146-HRH (D. Alaska July 26, 2010) ("U.S. District
   Court Order").

   See File No. BTC-20100730ACU, granted August 19, 2010.

   See, e.g., Diamond Broadcasting of California, Inc., Memorandum Opinion
   and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7388 (1996) (rescinding a $25,000 forfeiture issued
   against a licensee in receivership); David Ryder, Receiver, Order, 23 FCC
   Rcd 10499 (Enf. Bur., South Central Region 2008) (rescinding a $12,000
   forfeiture proposed against an entity that had been turned over to a
   receiver); Multimedia Development Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17
   FCC Rcd 22649 (WTB, Public Safety & Private Wireless Div. 2002)
   (rescinding four proposed forfeitures totaling $80,000 where receiver
   replaced offending licensee and forfeiture would harm innocent creditors).
   Appointment of a receiver should not necessarily prevent all forfeiture
   liability. The Commission may, however, consider such circumstances as a
   mitigating factor in any forfeiture determination, including circumstances
   such as those here, where the receiver was not involved in the apparent
   violation of section 73.49 and was appointed to operate the station for
   the benefit of the creditors. See, e.g., David Ryder, Receiver, Memorandum
   Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC
   Rcd 6371 (Media Bur. 2006) (proposing $1,500 forfeiture against station in
   receivership but noting appointment of receiver as mitigating factor)
   (subsequent history omitted). As noted above, the overall facts of this
   case, including both the receivership and the licensee's good-faith
   compliance measures taken prior to FCC inspection, justify the outcome

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314,

   Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1243



   Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1243