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.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
Pamal Broadcasting Ltd. )
Owner of Antenna Structure # ) File No. EB-02-TP-525
1054493 in ) NAL/Acct. No. 200332700013
Cedar Key, Florida ) FRN 0005-8279-69
Latham, New York
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: June 14, 2004 Released: June 16,
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order (``Order''),
we grant the petition for reconsideration filed by Pamal
Broadcasting Ltd. (``Pamal''), owner of antenna structure #
1054493, located in Cedar Key, Florida, of the Forfeiture
Order issued on May 16, 2003.1 The Forfeiture Order imposed
a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand
dollars ($3,000) against Pamal for failure to update the
Commission antenna structure registration (``ASR'')
ownership records, in willful and repeated violation of
Section 17.57 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'').2
2. In September of 2002, the Commission's Tampa,
Florida Field Office (``Field Office'') inspected antenna
structure # 1054493, and observed that there was no ASR
posting at the site. The Field Office's search of
Commission databases revealed that although Pamal acquired
Station WRGO(FM), Cedar Key, Florida from Williams
Broadcasting Co. (``Williams'') and associated antenna
structure # 1054493, on July 11, 2000, Williams was still
listed as the antenna structure owner. In January of 2003,
the Field Office released a Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture (``NAL'').3 The NAL found that Pamal apparently
willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules
by failing to ``immediately'' notify the Commission of the
change in ownership of antenna structure # 1054493, and
proposed a $3,000 forfeiture against Pamal.
3. The Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') released a
Forfeiture Order on May 16, 2003,4 having had no record of
receiving a response to the NAL. On June 13, 2003, the
Bureau received Pamal's petition for reconsideration.5 In
its petition, Pamal did not dispute the NAL's findings,
acknowledging that ``due to an oversight during the transfer
of property, the registered owner of the tower was not
changed at closing.'' However, Pamal sought a reduction of
the forfeiture amount based upon its history of overall
4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in
accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and
the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment
of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture
Guidelines.8 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D)
of the Act requires that we 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 such other
matters as justice may require.9 Having considered Pamal's
petition in light of the statutory factors, we find that
reduction of the forfeiture amount is warranted.
5. Pamal asserted, and a search of Commission records
confirms, that Pamal and its subsidiary, 6 Johnson Road
Licenses, Inc., licensee of twenty (20) FM and AM broadcast
stations, have a history of compliance. After considering
Pamal's past history, we conclude that reduction of the
forfeiture amount from $3,000 to $2,400 is appropriate.10
The fact that Pamal corrected the violation after the NAL
was released is not, however, a basis for further
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
Sections 405, 503(b)(2)(d) and 504(b) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 1.80(i) and 1.106 of
the Rules, the Needham's petition for reconsideration IS
7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections
503(a) and (b) of the Act,12 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and
1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,13 Pamal Broadcasting, Ltd., IS
LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two
thousand four hundred dollars ($2,400) for its failure to
comply with the notification requirement of the ASR rules,
in willful and repeated violation14 of Sections 17.57 of the
8. 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.16 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.
200332700013 and FRN 0005-8279-69. 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. 20554.17
9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order
shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return
Receipt Requested to Pamal Broadcasting, Ltd., 6 Johnson
Road, Latham, New York, 12110.
David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
1See Pamal Broadcasting Ltd., 18 FCC Rcd 10349 (Enf. Bur.
247 C.F.R. § 17.57.
3See Pamal Broadcasting Ltd., NAL/Acct. No. 200332700013
(Enf. Bur., Tampa, Florida Field Office, January 8, 2003).
4See note 1, supra.
5See Letter from Paul Howard-Thurst, Engineer, Pamal
Broadcasting, Inc. to David H. Solomon, Chief, Enforcement
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (June 13, 2003).
647 U.S.C. § 503(b).
747 C.F.R. § 1.80.
812 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303
(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').
947 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).
10See, e.g., South Central Communications Corp., 18 FCC Rcd
700, 701, 703 ¶¶ 6, 9 (Enf. Bur. 2003) (finding that a
licensee's history of compliance with Commission
regulations, operating over 30 broadcast stations,
warranted a reduction of the proposed forfeiture).
11See AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 7891 (2002),
forfeiture ordered, 17 FCC Rcd 21866, 21875-76 ¶¶ 26-28
(2002); Seawest Yacht Brokers, 9 FCC Rcd 6099, 6099 ¶ 7
(1994); TCI Cablevision of Maryland, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 6013,
6014 ¶ 8 (1992).
1247 U.S.C. §§ 503(a) and (b).
1347 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).
14See 47 U.S.C. § 312(f); see also Southern California
Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387-88 ¶ 5 (1991).
1547 C.F.R § 17.57.
1647 U.S.C. § 504(a).
17See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.