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                )
                                )
Rotijefco, Inc.                 )    File No. EB-02-LA-145
                                )    NAL/Acct. No. 200232900005
Licensee of Station KZBN(AM)    )    FRN 0001-5306-33
Santa Barbara, California       )    
                                   

                        FORFEITURE ORDER 

Adopted: July 16, 2003                  Released: July 18, 2003 

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In  this  Forfeiture  Order  (``Order''),  we  issue  a 
        monetary  forfeiture  in  the  amount  of  five  thousand 
        dollars  ($5,000)  to  Rotijefco,  Inc.  (``Rotijefco''), 
        licensee of Station KZBN(AM), Santa Barbara,  California, 
        for willful violation of Section 11.35(a) and (b) of  the 
        Commission's Rules  (``Rules'').1   The  noted  violation 
        involves  Rotijefco's  failure  to  maintain  operational 
        Emergency Alert  System  (``EAS'') equipment  at  Station 
        KZBN, and  its failure  to  log the  status of  the  non-
        operational equipment.

     2.   On  July  26,  2002,  the  Commission's  Los   Angeles, 
        California Field Office  (``Los Angeles Office'')  issued 
        a Notice of Apparent  Liability for Forfeiture  (``NAL'') 
        to Rotijefco  for a  forfeiture in  the amount  of  eight 
        thousand dollars ($8,000).2   Rotijefco filed a  response 
        to the NAL on August 26, 2002.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     3.   On February 12, 2002, an FCC agent from the Los Angeles 
        Office  inspected Station  KZBN.   At  the  time  of  the 
        inspection, there was  no EAS  equipment installed.   The 
        general manager of  the station told  the agent that  the 
        EAS equipment was non-operational  and had been sent  out 
        for  repair  following  the  relocation  of  the  station 
        several months  earlier.  There  were no  entries in  the 
        station's logs  indicating that  EAS equipment  had  been 
        installed and operational or  that it had been taken  out 
        of service for repair.  

     4.   On July 26, 2002, the  Los Angeles Office issued a  NAL 
        for an  $8,000  forfeiture to  Rotijefco for  failing  to 
        maintain  operational  EAS  equipment  at  KZBN  and  for 
        failing  to  log  the   status  of  the   non-operational 
        equipment in willful  violation of  Section 11.35(a)  and 
        (b).  Rotijefco filed  a response  to the  NAL on  August 
        26, 2002.  In its response, Rotijefco admits that it  was 
        not in compliance  with Section 11.35(a)  and (b) at  the 
        time of  the  inspection because  its EAS  equipment  was 
        off-site  for  repairs  and  its  status  had  not   been 
        properly logged.   However,  Rotijefco asserts  that  the 
        forfeiture should  be cancelled  or reduced  because  its 
        error  was ministerial  in  nature  rather  than  one  of 
        avoidance or  neglect.   In  addition,  Rotijefco  states 
        that its  record as  a broadcaster  has been  unblemished 
        prior to  this  violation.   Finally,  Rotijefco  asserts 
        that payment  of  the proposed  $8,000  forfeiture  would 
        impose a financial  hardship on  it and  submits its  tax 
        returns for  1999,  2000  and 2001  in  support  of  this 
        assertion.

                         III. DISCUSSION

     5.   The 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'').    In   examining   Rotijefco's   response, 
        Section 503(b) 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

     6.   Section  11.35(a)  of  the  Rules  requires   broadcast 
        stations  to   install  and   maintain  operational   EAS 
        equipment so that  monitoring and transmitting  functions 
        are available during  the times  when the  station is  in 
        operation.   Section  11.35(b)   provides  that  if   EAS 
        equipment becomes  defective,  a  broadcast  station  may 
        operate  without  the  defective  equipment  pending  its 
        repair or replacement  for 60 days,  but entries must  be 
        made in the  station log  showing the date  and time  the 
        equipment was removed and  restored to service.   Section 
        11.35(c)  provides  that  if  repair  or  replacement  of 
        defective EAS equipment is not completed within 60  days, 
        an informal  request  for additional  time to  repair  or 
        replace the equipment shall be submitted to the  District 
        Director of  the  nearest FCC  Field  Office.   Rotijefco 
        admits in its response  to the NAL that  it did not  have 
        EAS equipment  installed at  the time  of the  inspection 
        and that there  were no logs  showing when the  equipment 
        had been removed from  service.  Further, Rotijefco  does 
        not dispute that the  EAS equipment was out of  operation 
        for   over   60   days   without   Commission   approval.  
        Accordingly,  we  conclude   that  Rotijefco   willfully6 
        violated Section 11.35(a) and (b) of the Rules.

     7.   Rotijefco argues that the forfeiture should be 
cancelled or substantially reduced because the violation was 
ministerial in nature.  We disagree that the forfeiture should be 
canceled.  The rules are clear that broadcast stations must 
maintain operational EAS equipment, and if the equipment becomes 
defective, Commission approval is required if the defective 
equipment will not be restored to service within 60 days.  
Rotijefco's EAS equipment was out of operation for over 60 days.  
Rotijefco offers no explanation why it did not either have the 
equipment repaired during that period or seek authorization for 
additional time to repair the equipment.  The failure to log 
removal of defective EAS equipment was part of the broader 
violation of not having operational EAS equipment for more than 
60 days without Commission approval.  Thus, we do not believe 
that cancellation on this basis is warranted.  We reiterate that 
we expect full compliance in this important public safety area.  
We believe however, that the proposed forfeiture should be 
lowered somewhat based on the fact that, as Rotijefco points out, 
it had purchased EAS equipment in the first instance and was in 
the process of having the equipment repaired.  The fact that 
Rotijefco had identified the equipment failure and sent the 
equipment out for repair prior to the inspection justifies a 
reduction from $8,000 to $6,500.

          8.   Rotijefco  also  asserts  that  its  record  as  a 
broadcaster has  been unblemished  prior to  this violation.   We 
agree that reduction of the forfeiture amount is warranted  based 
on Rotijefco's past history  of compliance with the  Commission's 
rules.  We accordingly reduce the forfeiture to $5,000.  

          9.   Finally, Rotijefco  asserts  that payment  of  the 
proposed $8,000 forfeiture would  impose a financial hardship  on 
it and submits its tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support 
of this assertion.   The Commission  has repeatedly  held that  a 
company's gross revenues are the best indicator of its ability to 
pay a forfeiture.7  After  considering the financial  information 
submitted by Rotijefco, we conclude  that its gross revenues  are 
sufficient to enable it to pay a $5,000 forfeiture.

          10.  We have examined Rotijefco's  response to the  NAL 
pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in conjunction  with 
the Policy Statement  as well.   As a  result of  our review,  we 
conclude that Rotijefco willfully  violated Section 11.35(a)  and 
(b) of the Rules, but we reduce the forfeiture amount from $8,000 
to $5,000.

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

          11.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to 
Section 503 of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and  1.80(f)(4) 
of  the  Rules,8  Rotijefco,  Inc.  IS  LIABLE  FOR  A   MONETARY 
FORFEITURE in the  amount of five  thousand dollars ($5,000)  for 
willful violation of Section 11.35(a) and (b) of the Rules.

          12.  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.9  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.  200232900005  and  FRN   0001-5306-33.  
Requests for full  payment under  an installment  plan should  be 
sent to:  Chief,  Revenue and Receivables  Operations Group,  445 
12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.10

          13.  IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED that a  copy of this  Order 
shall be  sent by  first  class mail  and certified  mail  return 
receipt requested to Rotijefco, Inc., 1875 Century Parkway  East, 
# 2250, Los Angeles, California 90067, and to its counsel, Lee W. 
Shubert, Esq., KMZ Rosenman, 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street,  N.W., 
East Lobby, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20007-5201.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau


_________________________

  1 47 C.F.R.  11.35(a) and (b).  

  2 Notice  of Apparent Liability  for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct.  No. 
200232900005 (Enf. Bur.,  Los Angeles Office,  released July  26, 
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 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).

  7  See  Long Distance  Direct,  Inc.,  15 FCC  Rcd  3297,  3305 
(2000); PJB Communications  of Virginia,  Inc., 7  FCC Rcd  2088, 
2089 (1991).   The  Commission  has also  stated  that  if  gross 
revenues are  sufficiently  great,  the  existence  of  operating 
losses does not by  itself mean that a  company cannot afford  to 
pay a forfeiture.  Id.  

  8 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

  9 47 U.S.C.  504(a).

  10 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.