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 Steckline Communications, Inc. Licensee of Station KQAM
   Wichita, Kansas ) ) ) ) ) ) File No.: EB-FIELDSCR-12-00005158 NAL/Acct.
   No.: 201432560002 FRN: 0009951286 Facility ID: 61362




                                FORFEITURE ORDER

   Adopted: February 5, 2014 Released: February 5, 2014

   By the Regional Director, South Central Region, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Forfeiture Order (Order), we issue a monetary forfeiture in
       the amount of twenty-one thousand dollars ($21,000) to Steckline
       Communications, Inc. (Steckline), licensee of AM Station KQAM
       (Station), in Wichita, Kansas, for willfully and repeatedly violating
       Sections 73.62, 73.1560(a), 73.1745(a), and 73.3526 of the
       Commission's rules (Rules).^ The noted violations involved Steckline's
       failure to maintain required directional patterns within prescribed
       parameters, operate within authorized power limits, and maintain and
       make available a complete public inspection file.

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. On October 24, 2013, the Enforcement Bureau's Kansas City Office
       (Kansas City Office) issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for
       Forfeiture and Order  (NAL) for twenty-one thousand dollars ($21,000)
       to Steckline for operating the Station out of compliance with its
       authorization and for public inspection file violations.^ As reflected
       in the NAL, on October 22, 2012, an agent from the Kansas City Office
       observed that the Station failed to operate at authorized nighttime
       power limits.^ The agent also observed that the Station's antenna's
       directional pattern was not within authorized levels.^ Finally, the
       agent observed the Station's public inspection file did not contain
       the required issues programs lists.^

    3. In response to the NAL, Steckline requests significant reduction of
       the proposed forfeiture.^ Steckline asserts that prior to September
       26, 2012, the Station was operating at licensed parameters and only
       had one reading out of tolerance, which was promptly corrected after
       the October 22, 2012 inspection.^ Steckline also argues that its
       hiring of a consultant to do testing at the Station's monitoring
       points before the inspection is evidence of a "program to maintain
       rule compliance," which shows that any operational violations were not
       willful.^ Steckline alleges that "[s]omeone with knowledge and a key
       to our facility had tampered with the transmitter between September 26
       and October 22."^ Steckline provides no other explanation for why the
       Station was operating with more than authorized power at night and
       with unauthorized directional antenna parameters. Steckline states
       that the agent from the Kansas City Office "mistakenly misunderstood
       shock and dismay" by Station personnel during the inspection upon
       discovery of the alleged tampering as ignorance regarding why the
       station operated overpower.^ Steckline admits that what the Station
       called its "issues programs lists" only contained lists of community
       issues and not the required lists of the programming the Station had
       aired on those issues, and states that it remedied this violation.^
       Finally, Steckline requests a substantial reduction of the proposed
       forfeiture, because it had not received a Commission violation prior
       to the written notices received in 2012 for other stations it owns.^

   III. DISCUSSION

    4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance
       with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
       (Act),^ Section 1.80 of the Rules,^ and the Forfeiture Policy
       Statement.^ In examining Steckline's NAL Response, Section
       503(b)(2)(E) 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.^

    5. We affirm the NAL's finding that Steckline violated Sections 73.62,
       73.1560(a), and 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating its Station
       inconsistent with the terms of its station authorization.^ Steckline
       does not deny that on October 22, 2012, the Station was incapable of
       operating within authorized power limits at night, that its
       directional antenna was not within authorized levels, or that it could
       not correct the antenna's directional parameters when set in nighttime
       mode. Instead, Steckline asserts that its Station was operating within
       parameters prior to September 26, 2012, the date of a hired
       consultant's inspection, and that an unidentified third party must
       have tampered with the Station's equipment sometime between that date
       and the agent's inspection on October 22, 2012. Accordingly, Steckline
       asserts its violations were not willful. However, Steckline's
       violations were willful, because it consciously operated the Station.^
       The Commission has held that inadvertent mistakes neither excuse a
       rule violation nor mitigate a forfeiture liability.^  Even if a third
       party tampered with the Station's equipment, Steckline's continued
       operation of the Station while failing to monitor its power level and
       directional pattern and discover its non-compliance, rendered its
       actions willful.^ Moreover, we note that, unless the alleged sabotage
       occurred on October 21, 2012, all of the violations would have
       occurred on more than one day, and we may issue forfeitures for
       violations that are merely repeated and not willful.^ Therefore, based
       on the evidence before us, we conclude that Steckline willfully and
       repeatedly violated Sections 73.62, 73.1560(a), and 73.1745(a) of the
       Rules by failing to operate the Station within authorized power limits
       and maintain required directional patterns within prescribed
       parameters.

    6. We also affirm the NAL's finding that Steckline violated Section
       73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available a
       complete public inspection file for the Station.^ On October 22, 2012,
       an agent from the Kansas City Office asked to inspect the Station's
       public inspection file during regular business hours. The public
       inspection file contained documents that the Station called "issues
       programs lists"--except for the third quarter of 2012-- but these
       documents did not contain any lists or information regarding the
       programs aired to address community issues.^ In its NAL Response,
       Steckline admitted omitting the missing information and stated that it
       has since supplemented its issues programs lists.^ Based on the
       evidence before us, we find that Steckline  willfully and repeatedly
       violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain required
       issues programs lists for the Station and willfully violated Section
       73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available required issues
       programs lists for the Station.

    7. Finally, we reject Steckline's request for reduction of the proposed
       forfeiture on the basis of its history of compliance with the Rules.
       On July 12, 2012, an agent from the Kansas City Office observed AM
       antenna fencing, main studio, and public inspection violations at
       KYUL-AM and KIUL-AM, two stations owned by Steckline.^ We researched
       our records and determined Steckline also received a Notice of
       Violation on November 29, 2012 for violations associated with another
       of its stations, KGYN-AM.^ Therefore, while Steckline may not have
       received a written violation prior to 2012, it can no longer claim
       that it has a history of compliance with the Rules. Therefore, we
       conclude no reduction in forfeiture is warranted on these grounds.
       Based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Steckline willfully
       and repeatedly violated Sections 73.62, 73.1560(a), 73.1745(a), and
       73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain required directional
       patterns within prescribed parameters, operate within authorized power
       limits, and maintain and make available a complete public inspection
       file. As a result, the twenty-one thousand dollar ($21,000) forfeiture
       proposed in the NAL is warranted.

   IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

    8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act
       and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,
       Steckline Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in
       the amount of twenty-one thousand dollars ($21,000) for violations of
       Sections 73.62, 73.1560(a), 73.1745(a), and 73.3526 of the Rules.^

    9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
       Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days after the
       release date of this Order.^  If the forfeiture is not paid within the
       period specified, the case may be referred to the U.S. Department of
       Justice for enforcement of the forfeiture pursuant to Section 504(a)
       of the Act.^  Steckline Communications, Inc. shall send electronic
       notification of payment to SCR-Response@fcc.gov on the date said
       payment is made. The payment must be made by check or similar
       instrument, wire transfer, or credit card, and must include the
       NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced above. Regardless of the form of
       payment, a completed FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be
       submitted.^ When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number
       in block number 23A (call sign/other ID) and enter the letters "FORF"
       in block number 24A (payment type code).  Below are additional
       instructions you should follow based on the form of payment you
       select:

     * Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of
       the Federal Communications Commission.  Such payments (along with the
       completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications
       Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent
       via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088,
       SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.

     * Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004,
       receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001.  To complete
       the wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds,
       a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on
       the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.

     * Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit
       card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159
       to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then
       be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
       Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank -
       Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
       Louis, MO 63101.

   10. Any request for making full payment over time under an installment
       plan should be sent to:  Chief Financial Officer--Financial
       Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
       Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.^  If you have questions regarding
       payment procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help
       Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.

   10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by both
   First Class and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Steckline
   Communications, Inc.  at  1632 South Maize Road, Wichita, KS 67209 and
   1300 North 17^th Street, 11^th Floor, Arlington, VA 22209.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Dennis P. Carlton

   Regional Director, South Central Region

   Enforcement Bureau

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 73.62, 73.1560(a), 73.1745(a), 73.3526.

   ^ Steckline Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 14611 (Enf. Bur. 2013) (NAL). A
   comprehensive recitation of the facts and history of this case can be
   found in the NAL and is incorporated herein by reference.

   ^ Id. at 14611, para. 2.

   ^ Id. at 14611, para. 3.

   ^ Id. at 14612, para.4.

   ^ Letter from Greg Steckline, President, Steckline Communications, Inc.,
   to Kansas City Office, South Central Region, Enforcement Bureau at 1-2
   (received Nov. 22, 2013) (on file in EB-FIELDSCR-12-00005158) (NAL
   Response).

   ^ Id. at 1.

   ^ Letter from Greg Steckline, President, Steckline Communications, Inc.,
   to Kansas City Office, South Central Region, Enforcement Bureau at 1
   (received Dec. 18, 2013) (on file in EB-FIELDSCR-12-00005158) (NAL
   Response Supplement).

   ^ NAL Response at 1.

   ^ Id. at 2.

   ^ Id. at 1.

   ^ Id. at 2; See Steckline Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 28 FCC Rcd 6168 (Enf. Bur. 2013) (KYUL NAL);
   Steckline Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 28 FCC Rcd 6174 (Enf. Bur. 2013) (KIUL NAL).

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

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.80.

   ^ 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).

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(E).

   ^ See NAL supra note 2. Section 73.62 of the Rules requires AM licensees
   operating a directional antenna to maintain directional antenna relative
   phases within 3 degrees of the values specified or terminate operations
   within three hours or reduce power to eliminate excessive radiation. 47
   C.F.R. S 73.62. Section 73.1560(a) of the Rules requires AM station
   licensees to maintain their antenna input power within 90% and 105% of the
   authorized power. 47 C.F.R. S 73.1560(a). Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules
   requires licensees to operate their stations pursuant to the terms
   contained in their authorizations. 47 C.F.R. S 73.1745(a).

   ^ Steckline alleges that its hiring of the consultant to conduct the
   inspection demonstrates that it had a "program to maintain rule
   compliance" at the Station. NAL Response Supplement at 1. We note that the
   consultant's report stated that the "field engineer visited KQAM for the
   purpose of gathering pre-construction pattern data prior to construction
   of the [antenna structure]," not as part of a compliance monitoring
   program. In addition, if the Station had a strong compliance monitoring
   program in place, it might have discovered the alleged tampering and
   noncompliant operation prior to the agent's inspection. A violation may be
   willful, even if the violator had no intent to violate the Rules, if the
   violator consciously and deliberately committed or omitted a particular
   act. See 47 U.S.C. S 312(f)(1). In this case, Steckline willfully operated
   its Station and is responsible for the resulting violations.

   ^ See, e.g.,  Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and
   Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387, para. 3 (1991) (holding that inadvertent
   mistakes are not mitigating circumstances that can serve to justify a
   forfeiture reduction), recons. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992); see also
   Princess K Fishing Corp., Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 2606, 2608-09,
   para. 9 (Enf. Bur. 2009) (stating that a licensee need not have the mens
   rea to commit a violation in order for a violation to be "willful"),
   recons. dismissed, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 4707 (Enf.
   Bur. 2012).

   ^ We note that Steckline did not raise its tampering claims during the
   inspection or in its prior written responses regarding the violations. See
   Steckline Communications, Inc., Notice of Violation, V201332560005 (Enf.
   Bur. Nov. 8, 2012); Letter from Greg Steckline, President, Mid-America
   Network, to Ronald D. Ramage, District Director, Kansas City Office, South
   Central Region, Enforcement Bureau at 3 (received Nov. 27, 2012) (on file
   in EB-FIELDSCR-12-00005158). Moreover, it has not provided any
   corroborating evidence of its tampering claims or any reasonable theories
   regarding the identity and motives of the alleged third party.

   ^ See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362, para. 10 (2001) (Callais
   Cablevision, Inc.) (proposing a forfeiture for, inter alia, a cable
   television operator's repeated signal leakage).

   ^ See NAL supra note 2.

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 73.3526(12).

   ^ NAL Response at 1.

   ^ See KYUL NAL at 6168-69; KIUL NAL at 6174-75. The agent observed that
   Station KYUL-AM did not maintain a main studio in the Scott City, Kansas
   area. See KYUL NAL. The agent also inspected Station KYUL-AM's public
   inspection file and found it missing all documents and issues programs
   lists after 2009. Id. In addition, the agent observed a section of the
   fence surrounding Station KIUL-AM's antenna structure lying on the ground.
   See KIUL NAL.

   ^ Steckline Communications, Inc., Notice of Violation, V201332500020 (Enf.
   Bur. Nov. 29, 2012).

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b); 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, 1.80(f)(4),
   73.62, 73.1560(a), 73.1745(a), 73.3526.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.80.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 504(a).

   ^ An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be
   obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.

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

   Federal Communications Commission DA 14-133

   2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 14-133