Peter Doyle, Chief, Audio Division at the Media Bureau, has issued a Notice of Apparent Liability in the amount of $1,000 to Pacifica Foundation’s KPFK-FM Los Angeles for failure to retain all required documentation in the station’s public inspection file.
The Media Bureau is currently considering the station’s license renewal, but it doesn’t look like that renewal is threatened by the NAL itself.
From the notice: “Section III, Item 3 of the license renewal application form, FCC Form 303-S, requests that the licensee certify that the documentation required by Section 73.3527, has been placed in the station’s public inspection file at the appropriate times. Licensee answered “No” to that certification and attached an Exhibit explaining that the issues/programs lists for the first three quarters of 2008 and for the first quarter of 2009 are currently missing from the public file. Licensee’s records from June 2009 indicate that the three missing lists from 2008 were timely prepared, although the missing list from 2009 was not prepared. Licensee attributes these deficiencies to turnovers in managerial personnel.”
The fine could have been $10K, but “In this case, although Licensee admitted to violating Section 73.3527, it did so only in the context of the question contained in its license renewal application that compelled such disclosure. Moreover, the violations were extensive and involved four issues/programs lists. However, we credit Licensee’s representation that the requisite issues/programs lists for the last three quarters of 2008 were generated and timely placed in the Station’s public inspection file, although they were apparently later misplaced or discarded. Therefore, the proposed forfeiture will be reduced to $1,000.16.
License Renewal Application. In evaluating an application for license renewal, the Commission’s decision is governed by Section 309(k) of the Act.17 That Section provides that if, upon consideration of the application and pleadings, we find that: (1) the station has served the public interest, convenience, and necessity; (2) there have been no serious violations of the Act or the Rules; and (3) there have been no other violations which, taken together, constitute a pattern of abuse, we are to grant the renewal application.18 If, however, the licensee fails to meet that standard, the Commission may deny the application – after notice and opportunity for a hearing under Section 309(e) of the Act – or grant the application “on terms and conditions that are appropriate, including a renewal for a term less than the maximum otherwise permitted.
We find that Licensee’s apparent violations of Section 73.3527of the Rules do not constitute “serious violations” warranting designation for evidentiary hearing. Moreover, we find no evidence of violations that, when considered together, evidence a pattern of abuse. Further, we find that the Station served the public interest, convenience, and necessity during the subject license term. We will therefore grant the license renewal application by separate action upon the conclusion of this forfeiture proceeding if there are no issues other than the apparent violation that would preclude grant of the application.”
