Click here for Microsoft Word Version

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

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
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).


                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                )
Radio One Licenses, Inc.        )    File No. EB-00-BS-106
Licensee of Station WBOT(FM)   )     NAL/Acct. No. 200132260001
Brockton, Massachusetts        ) 

                        FORFEITURE ORDER

     Adopted:  August 10, 2001               Released:     August 
14, 2001       

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   In  this  Forfeiture   Order,  we   issue  a   monetary 
forfeiture in the  amount of twenty-one    thousand five  hundred 
dollars ($21,500)  against  Radio  One  Licenses,  Inc.  (``Radio 
One''), licensee  of  WBOT(AM),  for  willful  violation  of  the 
following  Sections  of   the  Commission's  Rules   (``Rules''): 
11.35(a) (failure  to  have operational  Emergency  Alert  System 
(``EAS'') equipment); 73.1125(e)1 (failure  to establish a  local 
or toll-free  telephone  number  in the  community  of  license); 
73.1350(c)(1) (failure  to  establish  monitoring  procedures  to 
determine compliance  with  Section 73.1560  regarding  operating 
power); 73.1800(a)  (failure  to  maintain a  station  log);  and 
73.3526(a)(2) (failure to maintain a public inspection file)2.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   On March 14, 2000, the Commission's Boston Field Office 
(``Boston Office'')  conducted  an inspection  of  radio  station 
WBOT(AM) in Boston, Massachusetts, after it received  information 
indicating that  WBOT may  have  been in  violation of  the  main 
studio  rule.   The  inspection   revealed  ten  different   rule 
violations.  On  March 28,  2000, the  District Director  of  the 
Boston Office  issued  a  Notice of  Violation  ("NOV")  for  the 
violations.  On  March  8, 2001,  the  District Director  of  the 
Boston Office issued  a Notice of  Apparent Liability ("NAL")  to 
Radio One  in the  amount  of $22,000.   After being  granted  an 
extension of time to respond to the NAL, Radio One submitted  its 
response to  the Commission  on May  1, 2001.   In its  response, 
Radio  One  acknowledges,  with  explanation,  that  all  of  the 
violations occurred except  the public file  violation, which  it 
disputes.  Radio One requests that all of the forfeiture  amounts 
be cancelled and/or reduced.     

                      III.      DISCUSSION

     The Section 11.35(a) Violation

     3.   The District Director of the Boston Office assessed the 
base forfeiture  amount  of  $8,000 against  Radio  One  for  its 
failure to  have operational  EAS equipment  on the  date of  the 
inspection.  Radio One states that it became the licensee of WBOT 
on October 1, 1999 and  immediately notified the Commission  that 
the station  would go  silent to  enable Radio  One to  implement 
programming,  format,   and   personnel   changes.    Radio   One 
acknowledges that it did not have operational EAS equipment  from 
December 1, 1999, the date it returned WBOT to the air, to  March 
20, 2000.  However, Radio One asserts that it became aware of the 
fact that WBOT had no EAS  equipment in December of 1999,  placed 
an order for the station's new EAS equipment in January of  2000, 
and that WBOT had  received but not  installed the equipment  one 
week before the inspection.  Radio  One contends that there  were 
several reasons that WBOT did not have operational EAS  equipment 
on the day of the inspection.  Radio One claims that, unbeknownst 
to it, no EAS equipment was associated with WBOT when the station 
was purchased.   Radio One explains  that delays in the  shipping 
and receipt of the replacement equipment and difficulty in hiring 
qualified personnel  to install  the equipment,  as well  as  the 
departure of its Director of Engineering, added further delay  in 
getting the EAS  system operating and  were factors beyond  Radio 
One's control. 
     4.   Although Radio One asserts that it did not become aware 
of the  fact that  WBOT lacked  EAS equipment  until December  of 
1999, the Rules only provide  temporary authority to operate  for 
60  days  pending  repair  or  replacement  of  EAS   equipment.3  
Therefore, prior to  the date  of the inspection,  Radio One  was 
required to  have WBOT's  EAS system  operational or  to make  an 
informal request to  the District Director  of the Boston  Office 
for additional  time  to  replace  the  EAS  system.   Radio  One 
acknowledges that it did neither.  Instead, WBOT simply  operated 
in violation of the rule.4  

     5.   Radio One seeks an admonishment instead of a forfeiture 
for its violation of  Section 11.35(a) and cites  to a letter  of 
admonishment issued by the Mass  Media Bureau to Ms. Linda  Reed, 
President of KHYM, Inc., dated April 22, 1998 ("KHYM, Inc."),  as 
precedent.  This argument lacks merit.  The case Radio One  cites 
involved violations of different rules.  In the KHYM, Inc.  case, 
the Mass  Media  Bureau  admonished the  licensee  for  violating 
Section 73.1740(a)(4)5 of the Rules by not adhering to a  minimum 
operating schedule and failing to notify the Commission within 10 
days of the limited or  discontinued operation; and violation  of 
Section 73.1560(d)6 of  the Rules by  operating at reduced  power 
for more than 10  days without notifying  the Commission of  that 
fact.  This case,  by contrast, involves  failure to install  EAS 

     6.   Alternatively, Radio  One  seeks  a  reduction  of  the 
forfeiture amount.   In support  of  its request  for  reduction, 
Radio One  cites  to  In  re  Catherine  L.  Waddill  and  G.M.D. 
Partnership, 13 FCC Rcd 23861  (1998).  In the Waddill case,  the 
Commission gave  four specific  reasons for  reducing a  $250,000 
forfeiture, that had been issued to G.M.D. Partnership and G.M.D. 
Partnership II  (collectively  "GMD"),  to  $8,000.   First,  the 
Commission found no attempt to mislead the Commission or  conceal 
material information.   Second,  the  record did  not  support  a 
finding that GMD  acted in  bad faith.  Third,  GMD attempted  to 
remedy the violation  with which  it was  charged.  Finally,  and 
most significantly,  the Commission's  current forfeiture  policy 
statement7  reflected  an  $8,000  penalty  for  alien  ownership 
violations, not  the $250,000  forfeiture  amount that  had  been 
assessed.  Thus,  the reduction  in  Waddill merely  brought  the 
forfeiture ultimately imposed by the Commission in line with  the 
base  forfeiture  amount  indicated  by  the  Forfeiture   Policy 
Statement for the violation.  In the instant case, the forfeiture 
imposed  is  already  consistent   with  the  Forfeiture   Policy 
Statement.  Accordingly,  we  disagree that  this  case  supports 
reduction of  the forfeiture  for this  violation.  Moreover,  we 
note that the Commission recently upheld an $8,000 forfeiture for 
a station's failure to have  EAS equipment for one month,  rather 
than the four months here.8 

     7.   Radio One's claims  that it  was plagued  by delays  in 
shipping and receipt of replacement equipment also do not warrant 
reduction or  cancellation of  the forfeiture.   According to  an 
invoice submitted by  Radio One, Radio  One ordered the  required 
equipment on January 14,  2000 and it  was shipped via  overnight 
carrier on  that  date.   Radio  One  should  have  received  the 
equipment on January 15, 2000, two months before the  inspection.  
Although the equipment was shipped to Atlanta, it was clearly  in 
Radio One's possession.  Accordingly, any delays in shipping  the 
equipment to WBOT do not appear to be circumstances beyond  Radio 
One's control.  Similarly, we do not find Radio One's  difficulty 
in hiring staff to install the equipment or the departure of  its 
Director of Engineering to be circumstances warranting  reduction 
or cancellation of the forfeiture.   Radio One has not  indicated 
what, if any, other avenues it  pursued to get its EAS  equipment 
installed during the approximate two-month period that it had the 
equipment on hand.

     The Section 73.1125(e) Violation

     8.   Section 73.1125(e) of the  Rules requires AM  broadcast 
stations to maintain a local telephone number in its community of 
license or a toll-free number.   Radio One relocated WBOT's  main 
studio from Brockton, Massachusetts, its community of license, to 
Boston,  Massachusetts,  on  May  15,  2000.   For  four   months 
following the relocation of the main studio, listeners in  WBOT's 
community of license could not  reach WBOT without making a  long 
distance telephone call.  Radio One explains that it was  unaware 
that Brockton listeners  calling the  new main  studio in  Boston 
would have to make a toll call.  Further, Radio One asserts  that 
WBOT always  had a  local number  in Brockton  that would  enable 
callers to get  information concerning  the station  and that  it 
knows of no  harm or  inconvenience to the  public that  resulted 
from the temporary lapse.  Although  Radio One may have had  such 
an arrangement, the fact remains that Brockton listeners  calling 
WBOT had to incur long-distance charges to do so for a four-month 
period.  This is a violation  of Section 73.1125(e) of the  Rules 
and we impose a $1,000  forfeiture for the violation.9   However, 
we note that Radio One voluntarily disclosed that it did not have 
a local  or  toll  free  telephone line  by  which  residents  of 
Brockton could reach WBOT once it relocated to Boston.  For Radio 
One's voluntary  disclosure  of  this  violation,  we  believe  a 
reduction of $500 is appropriate. 

      The Sections 73.1350(c)(1) and 73.1800(a) Violations

     9.   Section  73.1350(c)(1)  of  the  Rules  provides   that 
monitoring procedures and schedules must be established to enable 
the  licensee  to  determine  compliance  with  Section   73.1560 
regarding  operating  power,  and  other  operating   parameters.  
Section 73.1800(a) requires licensees  to maintain a station  log 
as required  by  Section  73.182010  of  the  Rules.   Radio  One 
acknowledges that on the  day of the inspection  it did not  have 
monitoring procedures and schedules established, nor did it  have 
a station log.  Although Radio One asserts that these  violations 
occurred because  of  miscommunications  among  personnel  as  to 
clearly defined job responsibilities and an unanticipated  change 
in station personnel,  there is  no dispute  that the  violations 
occurred.  Thus, we  impose a $2,000  forfeiture for the  Section 
73.1350(c)(1) violation (the  base amount for  this violation  in 
the Forfeiture Policy Statement) and a $1,000 forfeiture for  the 
Section 73.1800(a) violation.11

     The Section 73.3526(a)(2) Violation

     10.  Section 73.3526(a)(2) requires  broadcast licensees  to 
maintain a public inspection file.  The District Director of  the 
Boston Office assessed  a $10,000 forfeiture,  which is the  base 
amount for this  violation, against  Radio One for  not having  a 
public inspection file.   Radio One contends  that it has  always 
maintained a public inspection file at its main studio and, thus, 
was in compliance with  the Rule at the  time of the  inspection.  
Radio One  proffers  that,  possibly, the  FCC  agent  asked  the 
station manager, Mr. Tom Calococci, to see the public  inspection 
file while they were inspecting the transmitter site, not at  the 
main studio, and  the station manager  mistakenly told the  agent 
that a  public file  had  not yet  been established.   Radio  One 
asserts that had the agent  asked for the public inspection  file 
at the main studio, he would have been provided access to it.

     11.  The investigating  agent's  notes from  the  inspection 
establish that  he inquired  about the  public file  at the  main 
studio.  The file  was never  made available to  him.  His  notes 
also reflect that later,  at the transmitter  site, he asked  Mr. 
Calicocci if the station had  a public inspection file, to  which 
Mr. Calicocci responded, ``not yet.''  Thus, we do not find Radio 
One's  speculation  about   what  might  have   happened  to   be 
persuasive.  Reasonable  access  to the  public  inspection  file 
serves the important purpose  of facilitating citizen  monitoring 
of a  station's  operating performance  and  fostering  community 
involvement with local stations.  This in turn helps ensure  that 
stations are responsive to the needs and interests of their local 
communities.12   In  order for  the rule  to serve  its  intended 
purpose, the public inspection file has to be made available upon 
request during normal business hours.  Radio One violated Section 
73.3526(a)(2) of the  Rules when  it did not  provide the  public 
inspection file to the investigating agent upon his request.   We 
impose a $10,000 forfeiture for this violation.
     12.  With regard to all of the violations, Radio One asserts 
that a reduction is warranted because it took expedient steps  to 
remedy the violations.  Radio  One's remedial actions to  correct 
the violations, while commendable, are not a mitigating factor.13  
Radio One further  contends that,  despite its  purchase of  over 
thirty radio stations nationwide over the last two years, none of 
its  stations  has  been  found  in  violation  of  any  of   the 
Commission's Rules.  To the contrary, we note that the NOV issued 
in the instant  case is not  the first issued to Radio One.   The 
District Director of the Boston Office issued an NOV to Radio One 
on November 18, 1999 for violations at WBOT that are separate and 
distinct from the violations  in this case.  Consequently,  Radio 
One does  not have  an  overall history  of compliance  with  the 
Commission's Rules, and  a reduction  of the  forfeiture on  this 
basis is not warranted.      

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     13.  Accordingly, IT IS  ORDERED THAT,  pursuant to  Section 
503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the 
Rules,14 Radio  One  Licenses,  Inc. IS  LIABLE  FOR  A  MONETARY 
FORFEITURE in  the amount  of  twenty-one thousand  five  hundred 
dollars ($21,500)  for violating  Sections 11.35(a),  73.1125(e), 
73.1350(c)(1), 73.1800(a), and 73.3526(a)(2) of the  Commission's 

     14.  Payment of the forfeiture shall  be made in the  manner 
provided for in Section  1.80 of the Rules,15  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  note 
NAL/Acct. No. 200132260001.  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. 


     15.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that,  a copy of this  Forfeiture 
Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to 
counsel for  Radio One  Licenses,  Inc., Davis  Wright  Tremaine, 
Attention: Pamela C. Cooper, Esq., 1500 K Street, NW, Washington, 
DC 20005.


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau


  1   Effective May 20,  2000, Section 73.1125  of the Rules  was 
amended and the  subsections were,  consequently, reordered.   At 
the time the Notice of Violation ("NOV") was issued, the Rule and 
subsection that was violated was 73.1125(d).  With the  amendment 
to and restructuring of Section 73.1125, the subsection that  was 
violated is now 73.1125(e).  For  clarity, we will refer to  this 
violation as  a  violation of  Section  73.1125(e) of  the  Rules 
throughout this document.       

  2     47   C.F.R.     11.35(a),  73.1125(e),   73.1350(c)(1), 
73.1800(a), 73.1560, 73.3526(a)(2). 

  3    See 47 C.F.R. 11.35(c). 

  4   See Arnold Broadcasting Company, Inc., FCC 01-197, released 
July  5,  2001  (Commission   upheld  imposition  of  an   $8,000 
forfeiture for a one-month long violation of Section 11.35(a)  of 
the Rules). 

  5    47 C.F.R. 73.1740(a)(4). 

  6    47 C.F.R. 73.1560(d). 

  7    The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment 
to Section  1.80  of  the Rules  to  Incorporate  the  Forfeiture 
Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd  17087 (1997), recon.  denied, 13 FCC  Rcd 
303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). 

  8    See Arnold Broadcasting, note 4 supra.   

  9    See M.C.  Allen Productions,  16 FCC Rcd  9505 (Enf.  Bur. 
2001) (forfeiture imposed for violation of Section 73.1125(e)  of 
the Rules).

  10   47 C.F.R.  73.1820.

  11   See KYOO Communications, 16 FCC Rcd 9291 (Enf. Bur.  2001) 
($1,000 forfeiture imposed for violation of Section 73.1800(a) of 
the Rules).

  12    In  the  Matter  of  Review  of  the  Commission's  Rules 
Regarding the Main  Studio and Local  Public Inspection Files  of 
Broadcast Television &  Radio Stations, 13  FCC Rcd 15691,  15700 

  13   E.g., Puerto  Rico Tower Co.,  Inc., 16 FCC  Rcd 271,  273 
(Enf. Bur. 2001);  Crown Communication, Inc.,  15 FCC Rcd  21937, 
21939 (Enf. Bur. 2000) (both citing Station KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 
258, 259 (1973)).   

  14   47 U.S.C.  503(b); 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

  15   47 C.F.R.  1.80.

  16   47 U.S.C.  504(a).

  17   See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.