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                )
                                )
4M of Richmond, Inc., Licensee of WLEE  )    File  No.  EB-02-NF-
124
4M Communications, Inc., Owner of Antenna    )
Structure #1231421              )    NAL/Acct. No. 200332640001
Richmond, Virginia              )
                                )    FRN3782182        

                        FORFEITURE ORDER 

Adopted:   August 11, 2004              Released:    August   13, 
2004

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I.           INTRODUCTION

         1.    In this Forfeiture Order  (``Order''), we issue  a 
           monetary  forfeiture  of  six  thousand  six   hundred 
           dollars  ($6,600) to  4M of  Richmond, Inc.  (``4M  of 
           Richmond'') for willful violation of Section 73.49  of 
           the  Commission's Rules  (``Rules'') and  for  willful 
           and  repeated violation of  Section 73.1745(a) of  the 
           Rules.1  Additionally, we issue a monetary  forfeiture 
           of   eight  thousand  dollars   ($8,000)  against   4M 
           Communications,   Inc.  (``4M  Communications'')   for 
           willful  violation of Section 17.50 of the Rules,  for 
           a  total forfeiture  amount of  fourteen thousand  six 
           hundred  dollars  ($14,600).   The  noted   violations 
           involve 4M of Richmond's failure to enclose its  tower 
           with   an  effective  locked   fence  (§  73.49)   and 
           exceeding  its nighttime power limit (§ 73.1745),  and 
           4M   Communications'  failure  to   comply  with   the 
           prescribed antenna structure marking (§ 17.50).

         2.    On November  4,  2002, the  Commission's  Norfolk, 
           Virginia,  Resident Agent Office (``Norfolk  Office'') 
           issued  a Notice of Apparent Liability for  Forfeiture 
           (``NAL'')  to  4M of  Richmond and  4M  Communications 
           (``the 4M companies'') for a forfeiture in the  amount 
           of  twenty-one thousand  dollars ($21,000).2   The  4M 
           companies jointly responded to the NAL on December  3, 
           2002.

II.         BACKGROUND

         3.    4M of Richmond is the licensee of AM station WLEE, 
           Richmond,  Virginia.   WLEE is  licensed  to  transmit 
           with  a daytime power of  1,000 watts and a  nighttime 
           power  of  13  watts.   4M  Communications  owns  that 
           station's  antenna  structure  (#1231421),  which   is 
           located  at  2516 Inman  Avenue,  Richmond,  Virginia.  
           The   Commission's  Antenna   Structure   Registration 
           (``ASR'')  database lists  the structure's  height  as 
           75.6   meters  above  ground   level  and   prescribes 
           lighting   and   painting  requirements.    The   same 
           principals   control  both  4M  of  Richmond  and   4M 
           Communications.

         4.    On August  19, 2002,  an  agent from  the  Norfolk 
           Office  inspected WLEE's transmitter  site.  At  about 
           1:30 p.m., the agent observed that the fencing  around 
           the  base  of  WLEE's  tower had  no  lock.   He  also 
           observed  that the  antenna structure's  paint was  so 
           chipped  and faded  that the  contrasting color  bands 
           were  difficult  to distinguish  from less  than  one-
           quarter  of a mile away, resulting in poor  visibility 
           of the antenna structure.

         5.    After  sunset  on  August  19,  2002,  the   agent 
           observed  WLEE's  antenna base  current  meter,  which 
           measured  the  current  supplied  to  WLEE's   antenna 
           tower,  and calculated that WLEE's power exceeded  the 
           station's authorized nighttime power of 13 watts.   On 
           August  20, 2002,  the agent  inspected a  portion  of 
           WLEE's  logs for August  17, 18 and  19, 2002.   Those 
           logs  noted that the use  of power between sunset  and 
           sunrise  on  August  17, 18  and  19,  2002,  exceeded 
           WLEE's authorized nighttime power of 13 watts on  each 
           of  those evenings with, respectively, readings of  37 
           watts, 945 watts and 37 watts.

         6.    Based on the agent's observations, on November  4, 
           2002,  the  Norfolk  Office  issued a  NAL  to  4M  of 
           Richmond and 4M Communications for a total  forfeiture 
           in  the amount  of $21,000  for willful  violation  of 
           Sections  73.49 ($7,000)  and 17.50  ($10,000) of  the 
           Rules  and  for  willful  and  repeated  violation  of 
           Section  73.1745(a)  ($4,000) of  the Rules.   In  the 
           joint  response,  filed  December  3,  2002,  the   4M 
           companies  seek  reduction  or  cancellation  of   the 
           proposed  forfeiture.  As  to Section  73.49,  the  4M 
           companies  admit that  the fence  around the  base  of 
           WLEE's tower was not locked but argue that this was  a 
           minor violation because it existed for only four  days 
           before  it  was  corrected.  With  regard  to  Section 
           17.50,  the 4M companies  argue that its  observations 
           and  those  of  the contractor  who  repainted  WLEE's 
           tower  on October  13, 2002, indicate  that the  tower 
           did  not need repainting and  that the Commission  has 
           not  provided photographic  evidence of  the need  for 
           repainting WLEE's tower.

         7.    With  respect  to   Section  73.1745(a),  the   4M 
           companies  assert  that WLEE's  antenna  base  current 
           meter  had been removed for repairs and  recalibration 
           and  was reinstalled  just before the  FCC agent  read 
           it.   The  4M companies  argue  that if  there  was  a 
           violation  of  Section 73.1745(a),  it was  minor  and 
           unintentional,  that  there  were  no  field  strength 
           measurements  taken, that there were no complaints  of 
           interference  from  WLEE's  operation  and  that   the 
           determination   that   WLEE's   power   exceeded   the 
           authorized  level by 26 watts was ``within the  margin 
           of  error.''   Additionally, the  4M  companies  argue 
           that   the  power  measurements  reported  in   WLEE's 
           station  logs  are  not  reliable  because  ``with   a 
           transmitter designed to operate at 1,000 watts, it  is 
           technically  difficult to obtain accurate readings  at 
           low output levels in the range of 13 watts.''

         8.    The 4M  companies  also  argue that  they  have  a 
           history   of   overall   compliance   and   that,   by 
           cooperating  with the  FCC agent, they  acted in  good 
           faith.   The  4M  companies  argue  further  that  any 
           violations  were ``minor,  inadvertent,  unintentional 
           and   promptly  corrected.''   In  addition,  the   4M 
           companies assert that they are ``a small,  independent 
           broadcaster''  and that  the Commission  ``should  not 
           discourage companies like 4M whose successful  efforts 
           to   save   troubled  AM   stations  and   bring   new 
           programming  choices  to  listeners  have  served  the 
           public interest.''

III.      DISCUSSION

         9.    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'').  
           Section   503(b)  of   the  Act   requires  that   the 
           Commission,  in examining the 4M companies'  response, 
           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.5

         10.   Section 73.49 of the  Rules provides that  antenna 
           structures   that  have   radio  frequency   potential 
           (voltage)  at the base of  the tower must be  enclosed 
           within  an  effective  locked  fence  to  protect  the 
           public.   The 4M companies admit that the gate to  the 
           fence  around the antenna structure was not locked  as 
           a  result of the intentional act of a 4M agent to  cut 
           the  lock, but  argue that  this violation  was  minor 
           because  it  lasted for  only four  days.  We  do  not 
           agree  that its duration of  ``only'' four days  makes 
           the  fencing  violation ``minor''  when  the  public's 
           safety  and possibility of contact with the  radiating 
           antenna  structure is involved.6  We  find that 4M  of 
           Richmond willfully7 violated Section 73.49.  

         11.   Section 17.50 of the  Rules provides that  antenna 
           structures  requiring  painting shall  be  cleaned  or 
           repainted  as  often  as necessary  to  maintain  good 
           visibility.   To  determine  compliance  with  Section 
           17.50, we rely primarily on the investigating  agent's 
           observations and judgment rather than on  photographic 
           evidence.    The  4M  companies  contend  that   their 
           observations   and  those   of  the   contractor   who 
           repainted  WLEE's  tower indicate  that prior  to  the 
           contractor's painting of the tower, the tower did  not 
           need  repainting.  The  FCC agent's  observations  and 
           judgment  at the time of his inspection indicate  that 
           the  tower's paint was so  chipped and faded that  the 
           contrasting color bands were difficult to  distinguish 
           from  less  than one-quarter  of  a mile  away.     We 
           find,  based  on  the agent's  observations,  that  4M 
           Communications  violated Section 17.50 of the  Rules,8 
           and  that the one sentence  statement to the  contrary 
           by  4M Communications'  contractor does  not  override 
           this  conclusion.   Further,  the  condition  of   the 
           antenna structure's paint was plainly visible.   After 
           reviewing  the facts  of this  case, we  find that  4M 
           Communications'   violation  of   Section  17.50   was 
           willful.

         12.   Section  73.1745(a)   of   the   Rules   prohibits 
           broadcast  licensees from operating  with power  other 
           than  that  specified  by  their  licenses.   WLEE  is 
           licensed  to  operate  with a  power  of  1,000  watts 
           during the day and a power of 13 watts between  sunset 
           and  sunrise.  After  sunset on August  19, 2002,  the 
           FCC  agent  --  using a  current  meter  which  WLEE's 
           contract  engineer had  just reinstalled  --  measured 
           the current supplied to WLEE's antenna and  calculated 
           that  WLEE was  operating with  a power  of 39  watts.  
           The  4M companies make  several arguments.  First,  4M 
           Companies  claim  that  the  FCC  agent  measured  the 
           current  to WLEE's antenna ``without allowing  [WLEE's 
           contract  engineer]  to readjust  the  transmitter  to 
           reflect  the recalibration [of  the current  meter].''  
           We  agree that  the agent measured  the current  meter 
           before  the  contract  engineer  could  readjust   the 
           transmitter  power;  this was  necessary in  order  to 
           accurately  determine the station's power prior to  4M 
           of Richmond's readjusting the transmitter power.   The 
           point  here  is not  that 4M  of Richmond  could  have 
           adjusted  the  power to  its licensed  parameters,  if 
           given  the chance, but rather that 4M of Richmond  was 
           operating  in excess of  those parameters.  Next,  the 
           4M  companies  claim  that  the  power  violation  was 
           ``minor''  and ``within the margin of error''  because 
           WLEE's  power was only 26  watts above the  authorized 
           level,  and that  the power  measurements reported  in 
           WLEE's  station logs were not reliable because  ``with 
           a  transmitter designed to operate at 1,000 watts,  it 
           is  technically difficult to obtain accurate  readings 
           at  low  output levels  in the  range of  13  watts.''  
           However,  when the  FCC agent inspected  the logs,  he 
           found  that WLEE was in operation with as much as  945 
           watts after sunset on August 18, 2002, and as much  as 
           940  watts before sunrise on August 19, 2002.  Due  to 
           WLEE's   operation  at  near  daytime  power,   levels 
           significantly  above  the  FCC  authorized   nighttime 
           level of 13 watts on the evening of August 18 and  the 
           morning  of August  19, as  well as  the operation  of 
           WLEE at 39 watts on the evening of August 19 (300%  of 
           the   authorized   power),  this   is  not   a   minor 
           violation.9    Further,  the  claim  that  the   power 
           measurements  reported in WLEE's station logs are  not 
           reliable  at readings near 37  watts because its  full 
           scale range is 1000 watts is contradicted by  readings 
           of  945 and 940 watts  obtained, respectively, on  the 
           evening of August 18, 2002, and the morning of  August 
           19,   2002.10   Further,  WLEE  was  responsible   for 
           assuring   that   the  power   meter   readings   were 
           accurate.11  The 4M companies' third contention,  that 
           there   were  no  field   strength  measurements,   is 
           incorrect;  the  FCC  agent did  take  field  strength 
           measurements  which confirm  that WLEE  was  operating 
           after sunset on August 19, 2002, with power  exceeding 
           13   watts.   Finally,   because  4M   of   Richmond's 
           operation   exceeded   the   authorized   power,   the 
           violation  is not mitigated by any lack of  complaints 
           about  the  effects  of  4M  of  Richmond's  overpower 
           operation.12   We find that  4M of Richmond  willfully 
           and  repeatedly13 violated Section  73.1745(a) of  the 
           Rules,14  with an excess of  power at night on  August 
           18, and 19, 2002.

         13.   We do not agree with 4M companies' assertion  that 
           any     violations     were     ``inadvertent''     or 
           ``unintentional.''   As indicated above,  an agent  of 
           the  4M companies intentionally  caused the  violation 
           of  Section 73.49 of the Rules by cutting the lock  on 
           the  gate  to  the  enclosure  around  WLEE's  antenna 
           structure.  The  4M  companies'  lack  of  intent   to 
           violate  the rules  does not  excuse or  mitigate  its 
           violations  of the Rules. Section 503(b)(1)(B) of  the 
           Act  provides  that  any  person  who  ``willfully  or 
           repeatedly''  fails to  comply with  any provision  of 
           the  Act or any  rule, regulation or  order issued  by 
           the Commission under the Act ``shall be liable to  the 
           United  States for a forfeiture penalty.''15  In  this 
           context,  ``willful'' simply means  the conscious  and 
           deliberate   commission  or   omission  of   an   act, 
           irrespective  of any  intent to  violate statutory  or 
           regulatory requirements.16  Thus, we conclude that  no 
           reduction  or cancellation of the proposed  forfeiture 
           is  warranted on the  basis of 4M  companies' lack  of 
           intent or inadvertence. 

         14.   No mitigation is warranted  on the basis that  the 
           4M    companies    are    ``a    small,    independent 
           broadcaster.''17   The Commission takes the size of  a 
           business  into account by  considering its ability  to 
           pay a monetary forfeiture.18  As explicitly stated  in 
           the NAL, we will not consider reducing or canceling  a 
           forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to  pay 
           unless   the  petitioner  submits:  (1)  federal   tax 
           returns  for the  most recent  three-year period;  (2) 
           financial  statements prepared according to  generally 
           accepted  accounting practices ("GAAP");  or (3)  some 
           other   reliable  and  objective  documentation   that 
           accurately    reflects   the   petitioner's    current 
           financial  status. The 4M companies have not  provided 
           any  financial  documentation to  support a  claim  of 
           inability  to  pay; therefore,  we  have no  basis  to 
           reduce the forfeiture on grounds of inability to pay. 
           19 

         15.   Because  we  expect  cooperation  during  an   FCC 
           investigation,  no  mitigation  is  warranted  on  the 
           basis  that the 4M  companies acted in  good faith  by 
           cooperating   with   the   FCC   agent   or   by    4M 
           Communications having the tower painted after the  FCC 
           agent  so advised 4M Communications.  We do,  however, 
           find  that  4M of  Richmond  acted in  good  faith  by 
           correcting   the   fencing  violation   before   being 
           notified  of  that  violation and  are  reducing  that 
           portion   of  the  proposed   forfeiture  for  4M   of 
           Richmond's violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules  by 
           $1,400.   We also find  that 4M of  Richmond acted  in 
           good  faith  when it  was  attempting to  install  the 
           repaired  and recalibrated antenna base current  meter 
           during  the FCC agent's  inspection, and are  reducing 
           that  portion of  the proposed  forfeiture for  4M  of 
           Richmond's  violation  of Section  73.1745(a)  of  the 
           Rules by $800.  

         16.   While the  4M companies'  ``successful efforts  to 
           save  troubled AM stations'' are commendable, we  find 
           that  no mitigation  is warranted on  that basis.   We 
           do,  however,  find  that  the  4M  companies  have  a 
           history  of overall  compliance and,  accordingly,  we 
           find  that  the  forfeiture  proposed  against  4M  of 
           Richmond should be further reduced by $2,200 and  that 
           the  forfeiture  proposed  against  4M  Communications 
           should be reduced by $2,000.

         17.   We have examined the 4M companies' response to the 
           NAL  pursuant to the statutory  factors above, and  in 
           conjunction  with the Policy Statement as well.20   As 
           a  result  of  our  review, we  conclude  that  4M  of 
           Richmond  willfully  violated  Section  73.49  of  the 
           Rules   and   willfully   and   repeatedly    violated 
           violations  of Section  73.1745(a) of  the Rules;  and 
           that  4M  Communications  willfully  violated  Section 
           17.50  of  the  Rules.   We  find  that  the  proposed 
           forfeitures   against   4M   of   Richmond   and    4M 
           Communications  should  be  reduced  to  the   amounts 
           indicated above.



     IV.       ORDERING CLAUSES

         18.   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,21  4M of  Richmond  IS 
           LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of  six 
           thousand  six  hundred dollars  ($6,600)  for  willful 
           violation  of  Section  73.49 of  the  Rules  and  for 
           willful and repeated violations of Section  73.1745(a) 
           of the Rules.

         19.   IT FURTHER IS  ORDERED that  4M Communications  IS 
           LIABLE  FOR A  MONETARY FORFEITURE  in the  amount  of 
           eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for willful  violation 
           of  Section 17.50 of the Rules.  The total amount  for 
           these  forfeitures is  fourteen thousand  six  hundred 
           dollars ($14,600).

         20.   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.22   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. 200332640001 and FRN 3782182.   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. 20554.23

         21.   IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED that a  copy of this  Order 
           shall  be  sent  by First  Class  and  Certified  Mail 
           Return Receipt Requested to 4M of Richmond, Inc.,  and 
           4M  Communications, Inc., 308 Broad Street,  Richmond, 
           Virginia 23220.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                         


                              David H. Solomon
                              Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

1 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.49, 73.1745(a) and 17.50.

2 Notice  of Apparent  Liability  for Forfeiture,  NAL/Acct.  No. 
200332640001 (Enf.  Bur., Norfolk  Office, released  November  4, 
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 See, e.g.,  FBS Wireless  Corporation, 18 FCC  Rcd 21018  (Enf. 
Bur. 2003);  Truth Broadcasting  Corporation,  17 FCC  Rcd  24376 
(Enf. Bur. 2002).

7 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 (1991).  

8 See Access.1 Communications Corp.-NY,  18 FCC Rcd 22289,  22291 
at fn 8 (Enf. Bur. 2003).   The 4M companies argue that there  is 
an insufficient evidentiary record to find a violation of Section 
17.50 of the Rules, citing Beacon Broadcasting, Inc., 17 FCC  Rcd 
22839 (Enf. Bur. 2002).  We can  find nothing in that case  which 
supports the  view  that  there is  an  insufficient  evidentiary 
record to establish a violation of Section 17.50.  In Beacon, the 
tower owner did not challenge the FCC's evidentiary findings  but 
sought cancellation or reduction of a proposed $15,000 forfeiture 
for several violations, including Section 17.50, on the basis  of 
its recent acquisition of the tower, its remedial efforts and its 
inability to  pay  the  forfeiture; we  determined  that  neither 
cancellation  nor  reduction  of  the  proposed  forfeiture   was 
warranted.  If the  4M companies are  implying that the  evidence 
for a violation of Section 17.50 in this proceeding is  deficient 
because it differs from the evidence supporting the violation  of 
that section in  Beacon, we point  out that each  case should  be 
examined on its own  merits.  See James R.  Weaks, 48 FCC 2d  273 
(ALJ 1974).

9  AM  stations must  not operate  with over  105% of  authorized 
power no matter the mode of operation.  See 47 C.F.R. § 73.1560.

10 This argument does apply  to the readings (37 watts)  recorded 
for the evenings of August 17 and 19, 2002.  However, we need not 
address it for those dates  because a Commission measurement  (39 
watts) establishes overpower operation  on the evening of  August 
19, 2002,  and  it  is  unnecessary  to  establish  an  overpower 
violation on August 17, 2002.

11 AM stations are allowed to operate without a current meter for 
up to 60 days provided the station can determine operating power.  
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.51 and 73.58.

12 In PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc. (7 FCC Rcd 2088,  2088 
(1992)), the Commission  did not downwardly  adjust a  forfeiture 
based on  wireless  carrier's  claims  that  its  rule  violation 
[failure to file  required notifications  to maintain  authorized 
operation of one-way paging facilities] did not adversely  affect 
the public. The Commission explained  that licensees have a  duty 
to operate  in  accordance  with  Commission  rules,  and  cannot 
absolve themselves of the failure  to do by simply claiming  that 
there was no harm done to the public.  The Commission  maintained 
that  there  is  an  independent  public  interest  in  licensees 
complying with the rules. Id. 

13 As 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).

14 The 4M companies contend  that the Enforcement Bureau has  not 
met its  burden of  proving  that 4M  of Richmond  willfully  and 
repeatedly violated  Section  73.1745(a)  of  the  Rules,  citing 
Tarrant Radio Broadcasting,  Inc., 17  FCC Rcd  16761 (Enf.  Bur. 
2002) and Sycamore  Valley Broadcasting, Inc.,  17 FCC Rcd  15843 
(Enf. Bur.  2002).   While  Tarrant and  Sycamore  involve  facts 
similar to those  of the  instant case,  we can  find nothing  in 
Tarrant and Sycamore which supports the view that the Enforcement 
Bureau has not met its burden of proof in this case.  In Tarrant, 
we reduced  the proposed  $4,000 forfeiture  by $1,000  due to  a 
history of  overall compliance,  and in  Sycamore, we  determined 
there were  no factors  justifying a  reduction of  the  proposed 
forfeiture amount.

1547 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 

16Supra, note 7. 

17 See Forfeiture  Policy Statement, at  17109 ¶¶ 51-52  (finding 
that the  Commission's  forfeiture  policies  and  precedent  are 
consistent with  the requirements  of Section  223 of  the  Small 
Business Regulatory  Enforcement Fairness  Act of  1996, Pub.  L. 
104-121, 110  Stat. 847  (1996),  because the  agency  considers, 
among other  factors,  inability  to  pay,  good  faith  efforts, 
participation in  alternative compliance  programs, in  assessing 
forfeitures).

  18  See, e.g.,  Jerry Szoka,  14 FCC  Rcd 20147,20150  ¶¶  9-10 
(1999); Bay Broadcasting Corp., 15 FCC Rcd 13613, 13615-16 ¶¶ 8-9 
(Enf. Bur. 2000) Merichem Sasol LLC, 15 FCC Rcd  8450, 18452 ¶ 4  
(WTB 1999) .

19 The Commission has determined that, in general, gross revenues 
are the best indicator of the  ability to pay a forfeiture.   See 
PJB Communications  of  Virginia,  Inc., 7  FCC  Rcd  2088,  2089 
(1992).

20 The 4M companies cite  Radio One Licenses, Inc., as  authority 
for reducing  the  proposed  forfeiture on  the  basis  of  minor 
violation, good  faith and  history of  overall compliance.   See 
Radio One  Licenses, Inc.,  16 FCC  Rcd 15326  (Enf. Bur.  2001); 
recon. den., 17 FCC Rcd 1724 (Enf. Bur. 2002); recon. granted  in 
part and  denied in  part, 17  FCC Rcd  20408 (Enf.  Bur.  2002); 
application for review granted in part and denied in part, 18 FCC 
Rcd 15964 (2003); recon. den., 18  FCC Rcd 25481 (2003).  In  the 
instant case, we considered  reducing the proposed forfeiture  in 
paragraphs 13-17 above and found that a reduction is warranted on 
the basis of a history of overall compliance and good faith.   We 
have examined  the  Radio  One  orders  and  find  nothing  which 
supports a  different result.    Radio  One involved  a  monetary 
forfeiture  originally  imposed  for  willful  violation  of  the 
following Rules: 11.35(a) (failure to have operational  Emergency 
Alert  System  (``EAS'')   equipment);  73.1125(e)  (failure   to 
establish a local or toll-free telephone number in the  community 
of  license);  73.1350(c)(1)  (failure  to  establish  monitoring 
procedures to determine compliance with Section 73.1560 regarding 
operating power); 73.1800(a) (failure to maintain a station log); 
and 73.3526(a)(2) (failure to maintain a public inspection file).  
In a series of rulings, the Enforcement Bureau and the Commission 
reduced the originally proposed monetary forfeiture of $22,000 to 
$8,000 on  the  basis  that  Radio  One  did  maintain  a  public 
inspection file and had a history of overall compliance.

21 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

22 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).

23 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.