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 )


   Rama Communications, Inc. ) File No.: EB-02-TP-550

   Licensee of Radio Station WLAA (AM) ) NAL/Acct. No. 200432700011

   Winter Garden, Florida ) FRN 0005-0080-16

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted:  January 26, 2007 Released:   January 30, 2007

   By the Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau:


    1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order") we deny the petition
       for reconsideration filed by Rama Communications, Inc. ("Rama"),
       licensee of Station WLAA(AM), Winter Garden, Florida. Rama seeks
       reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order  in which the Enforcement
       Bureau ("Bureau") found Rama liable for a monetary forfeiture in the
       amount of eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000), for willful and
       repeated violations of Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the
       Commission's Rules ("Rules"). The noted violations involve Rama's
       failure to ensure operational Emergency Alert System ("EAS")
       equipment, and its failure to make available a complete public file.
       We reject Rama's arguments and therefore affirm the assessment of a
       forfeiture of $18,000.


    2. On March 5, 2004, the Commission's Tampa, Florida Field Office ("Tampa
       Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL")
       in the amount of $18,000 to Rama for apparent willful and repeated
       violations of Sections 11.35(a) ($8,000) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the
       Rules ($10,000). Rama filed a response to the NAL  on April 5, 2004,
       seeking elimination or a reduction of the forfeiture, arguing that the
       violations were technical and unintentional in nature. On December 23,
       2004, the Bureau issued a Forfeiture Order, which imposed a monetary
       forfeiture in the amount of $18,000 to Rama, and which found the
       violations to be willful and repeated. Rama subsequently filed a
       petition for reconsideration ("petition") of the Forfeiture Order,
       again asking for cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture. Rama
       claims that WLAA's EAS system was functioning, and that WLAA's public
       inspection file was available at the inspection. Rama also asks
       permission to pay any monetary forfeiture on an installment plan.


    A.  Violation of Section 11.35(a) of the Rules

   1. Background

    3. Section 11.35(a) of the Rules requires that broadcast stations ensure
       that EAS generating and receiving equipment is installed so that the
       monitoring and transmitting functions are available during times that
       stations and systems are in operation. Additionally, stations are
       required to determine the cause of any failure to receive the required
       tests, and to make appropriate entries in the station's logs
       indicating the reasons why any tests were not received or transmitted.
       According to the NAL, on June 13, 2003, agents from the Commission's
       Tampa Office inspected WLAA, and during the inspection observed that
       EAS tests conducted by station personnel over co-located and co-owned
       Station WOKB(AM) failed to be transmitted over WLAA. Also, the agents'
       review of the station logs showed no entries of EAS tests since
       December 30, 2002. Further, the logs contained no entries showing the
       EAS equipment had been removed for repairs. The Forfeiture Order found
       that Rama failed to maintain its EAS equipment so that the monitoring
       and transmitting functions are available during the station's
       operating hours, in willful and repeated violation of Section 11.35(a)
       of the Rules.

   2. Discussion

    4. Rama contends that the violation should be cancelled or the forfeiture
       reduced because Rama was in compliance with Section 11.35(a) of the
       Rules. Rama operates two stations, WOKB and WLAA, and uses the same
       EAS unit for both stations. Rama's chief engineer submitted a
       statement with Rama's response to the NAL which addressed several of
       the alleged violations. He explained that he was in charge of
       installing new studios for the radio stations' relocation, and that in
       the process of the installation, he inadvertently cut or disconnected
       some of the audio wiring. He stated that, as a result, the signal for
       the EAS for WLAA was faint. The engineer stated he rewired the EAS
       equipment after the inspection to make it easier to hear. In its
       response to the NAL, Rama claimed that although the signal was weak,
       it did exist. Also, instead of having an EAS log book for each
       station, Rama had one EAS log book for both WOKB and WLAA, but
       denominated it as WOKB only. Rama recognized this as an error and
       stated in its response that the log book should have been marked to
       reflect that it contained EAS records for both stations. The
       Forfeiture Order rejected Rama's arguments and determined that the
       equipment was not operational.

    5. In its petition, Rama submits no new evidence. Instead, it argues
       again that because its engineer reported hearing a faint signal during
       the inspection, the EAS equipment therefore was operational. We reject
       this argument, due to the conflicting evidence observed by Commission
       agents reported in the NAL and affirmed in the Forfeiture Order,  that
       the EAS equipment was twice tested during the inspection, and the
       tests "failed to be transmitted over WLAA." Further, we caution Rama
       that it should  properly label its log book to reflect that it
       maintains one EAS log book for both its stations, WOKB and WLAA.
       Accordingly, we deny Rama's request for reconsideration of this
       violation and affirm the issuance of the monetary forfeiture of

    B. Violation of Section 73.3526(c)(1)

   1. Background

    6. Section 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules requires that AM and FM broadcast
       stations maintain a public inspection file containing the material,
       relating to that station, as described in that section, which must be
       available for public inspection at any time during business hours. The
       Commission has found that reasonable access to the public inspection
       file serves the important purpose of facilitating a citizen's
       monitoring of a station's operations and public interest performance,
       and fostering community involvement with local stations. This
       requirement helps to ensure that stations are responsive to the needs
       and interests of their local communities. As noted in the NAL and
       affirmed in the Forfeiture Order,  WLAA could not produce many of the
       required documents at the first inspection, and at the second
       inspection on July 25, 2003, the entire file was unavailable at the
       station's main studio. Instead, there was a notation at the main
       studio that the file was located at its new address in Orlando,

   2. Discussion

    7. Rama contends that it maintains a public file, but in its response to
       the NAL  acknowledged that items were missing from the file and that
       the public inspection file was not at the studio and had been
       relocated to its new offices. In its petition, Rama adds that two of
       the missing documents were "inadvertently stapled to the back of the
       License Renewal Application," and that two more of the missing
       documents were "corrected by the Station Manager." Rama criticizes the
       inspectors during the second inspection for narrowly interpreting
       Section 73.3526(b) of the Rules, by ignoring the fact that Rama was
       moving its offices and that it had noted by a sign where the public
       file was located. Rama cites two NAL cases, Church Point Ministries,
       Inc.,  and  Jason Konarz wherein the Bureau reduced the forfeiture in
       both cases because the licensees made a portion of the public file
       available for inspection.

    8. Although Rama has supplied new information in its petition that two of
       the missing seven documents actually were available for the first
       inspection, and that two more were added later by the Station Manager,
       this new information does not change the fact that Rama did not have
       the public inspection file accessible at the first inspection as
       required by Section 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules. This case is
       distinguishable from the first case Rama cites, Church Point
       Ministries, which concerned an alleged violation of a different
       section of the Rules, Section 73.3526(a)(2) (emphasis added),
       generally outlining the materials that should be included in a
       commercial station's public inspection file as described in other
       subparts of Section 73.3526. Church Point Ministries was unable to
       locate any of the required materials during the inspection; the
       documents were found later at the station, and thus presumably had
       been present at the first inspection. The Bureau reasoned that because
       many of the missing documents in question were available, but were not
       assembled, the forfeiture should be reduced from the base forfeiture
       amount for such violations to $5,000. Jason Konarz  involved the same
       rule section violation as in Rama. There, the Bureau reduced the
       proposed forfeiture for the public file violation from $10,000 to
       $8,000 because the station had some of the required items in the
       public inspection file. In the instant case, most of the documents
       simply were not included in the station's public inspection file.
       Thus, a complete file was not available for inspection in violation of
       Section 73.3526(c)(1). With respect to corrective efforts by Rama, the
       Forfeiture Order correctly pointed out that such corrective action
       does not nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations.

    9. Moreover, while there have been a few instances when the Commission
       has reduced the forfeiture amount for a licensee's apparent good faith
       attempts to comply with Section 73.3526(c)(1), like Jason Konarz, the
       greater weight of the case law reflects that the forfeiture was not
       reduced in similar circumstances. Rama has admitted that most of the
       missing documents were not shown to the FCC inspectors during the
       first inspection, and even if the inspectors had found the file at the
       new location, the file was still incomplete. Thus, based on the
       evidence, we find that Rama willfully and repeatedly violated Section
       73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to make available a complete
       public inspection file. Rama's request to cancel or reduce the
       forfeiture amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) imposed for a
       violation of Section 73.3526(c)(1) is thereby denied.

   C. Request for Payment Plan

   10. Finally, Rama contends that the imposition of an $18,000 fine would
       put undue hardship on the company and that if the forfeiture is not
       cancelled, it has asked for a payment plan, also stating that it can
       provide tax information to the Commission upon request. Requests for
       full payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Associate
       Managing Director - Financial Operations, 445 12^th Street, S.W., Room
       1A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.

   11. We have examined Rama's Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to the
       statutory factors above, and in conjunction with The Commission's
       Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules
       to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Rama's
       petition, Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
       ("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 such other matters as justice may

   12. As a result of our review, we conclude that Rama willfully and
       repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules
       and find no basis for reducing or eliminating the $18,000 forfeiture.


   13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED  that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act,
       and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Rama's petition for reconsideration of
       the Bureau Forfeiture Order IS DENIED.

   14. 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. Payment of the forfeiture must be made
       by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
       Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Acct. No.
       and FRN No. referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be
       mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 358340,
       Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to
       Mellon Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA
       15251. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 043000261,
       receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account number 911-6106. As noted
       above, requests for payment of the full amount of the NAL under an
       installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director -
       Financial Operations, 445 12^th Street, S.W., Room 1A625, Washington,
       D.C. 20554.

   15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Order shall be sent by first
       class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to John C.
       Trent, counsel for Rama Communications, Inc., Putbrese, Hunsaker &
       Trent, P.C., 200 S. Church Street, Woodstock, Virginia 22664. A copy
       also will be sent to Rama Communications, Inc., 3765 N. John Young
       Parkway, Orlando, Florida 32804.


   George R. Dillon

   Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau

   Rama Communications, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd. 24802 (Enf. Bur. 2004).

   47 C.F.R. SS 11.35(a) and 73.3526(c)(1).

   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200432700011
   (Enf. Bur., Tampa Office, rel. March 5, 2004).

   Letter to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
   from Sabetta Persuad, President, Rama Communications, Inc. (Apr. 5, 2004)

   Petition for Reconsideration, Rama Communications, Inc. (filed Jan. 24,
   2005) ("petition").

   NAL at P 3. The NAL stated that station personnel twice attempted to
   perform the EAS testing.

   Notarized letter from Steven L. Delay, Chief Engineer, Rama
   Communications, to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
   Commission (Apr. 5, 2004).

   It should be noted that although the agents found that the station logs
   showed no entries of EAS tests for WLAA since December 30, 2002, Rama was
   not charged in the NAL with a violation of Section 11.61 of the Rules, 47
   C.F.R. S 11.61, for what was believed to be an apparent failure to test
   the EAS equipment.

   Rama again argues that its logging error resulted from its failure to
   properly label the combined log for WOKB and WLAA. Petition at P 8. We do
   not dispute this contention (see note 10, infra), and point out that the
   forfeiture amount specified for the violation of Section 11.35(a) in the
   NAL was based on the finding by the Tampa Office that Rama failed to
   maintain operational EAS equipment. See NAL at P 8. As such, though noted,
   the failure to log the tests had no impact on the forfeiture amount, as
   alleged in the petition, for the violation of Section 11.35(a).

   Forfeiture Order at 24802. See also, NAL at P 3.

   Review of the Commission's Rules regarding the Main Studio Rule and Local
   Public Inspection Files of Broadcast Television and Radio Stations, 13 FCC
   Rcd 15691, 15700 (1998). See also, Union Broadcasting, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd.
   18588, 185890 (Enf. Bur. 2004).

   Response at 2. See also, Forfeiture Order at 24804.

   Petition at P 11.

   47 C.F.R. S 73.3526(b). Section 73.3526(b) of the Rules requires that the
   public file be kept at the main studio; an applicant for a change of
   community must maintain the file at an accessible place in the proposed
   community or at its proposed main studio. The Bureau did not cite Rama for
   a violation of Section 73.3526(b).

   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. X3262008 (Enf.
   Bur., New Orleans, Louisiana Field Office, rel. Aug. 21, 2000) ("Church
   Point Ministries") (proposed forfeiture amount specified $5,000 instead of
   $10,000 base forfeiture amount for public file violations).

   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200432620004
   (Enf. Bur., New Orleans, Louisiana Field Office, rel. July 21, 2004)
   ("Jason Konarz") (proposed forfeiture amount specified for $8,000 instead
   of $10,000 base forfeiture amount for public file violations); forfeiture
   ordered, 19 FCC Rcd. 19562 (Enf. Bur. 2004) (affirmed NAL based on
   Konarz's failure to file a response to the NAL).

   47 C.F.R. S 73.3526(a)(2).

   Forfeiture Order at 24804.

   WGUL-FM, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd. 24366 (2000)(involving an instance where owner
   of building where radio station`s file was located inexplicably closed the
   building the day of the inspection, thus making accessibility beyond the
   licensee's control).

   See Jesse C. and Ernestine A. Ross, 19 FCC Rcd. 20823 (Enf. Bur. 2004),
   aff'd on other grounds, 21 FCC Rcd. 7913 (Enf. Bur. 2006); Victory & Power
   Ministries, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd. 19761 (Enf. Bur. 2004); EICB-TV, LLC., 19
   FCC Rcd. 18611 (Enf. Bur. 2004); Marion R. Williams, 19 FCC Rcd. 15324
   (Enf. Bur. 2004); and Willis Broadcasting Corp, 17 FCC Rcd. 7053 (Enf.
   Bur. 2002).

   12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture
   Policy Statement").

   47 U.S.C. S 503.

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(D).

   47 U.S.C. S 405.

   47 C.F.R. S 1.106.

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

   47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-232


   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-232