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.


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

In the Matter of                )
                                )       File No. EB-00-BS-106
Radio One Licenses, Inc.        )    
                                )       NAL/Acct. No. 20013226001
Licensee of Station WBOT(FM)   )     
                                )       FRN 0003-7390-34
Brockton, Massachusetts        ) 


     Adopted:  January 28, 2002              Released:    January 
31, 2002         

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.  INTRODUCTION
     1.   In this Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order") we  deny 
a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Radio One Licenses,  Inc. 
("Radio One"),  licensee of  WBOT(FM), of  the Forfeiture  Order1 
issued by the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') assessing a twenty-
one thousand  five hundred  dollar forfeiture  ($21,500)  against 
Radio One 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)2 (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).3
                         II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   On   March   14,   2000,   the   Commission's   Boston, 
Massachusetts  Field  Office  (``Boston  Office'')  conducted  an 
inspection of radio station WBOT(FM) in Brockton,  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 for Forfeiture  ("NAL")4 in the  amount of $22,000  for 
the aforementioned violations.  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 
acknowledged,  with  explanation,  that  all  of  the  violations 
occurred except  the public  file violation,  which it  disputed.  
Nevertheless, Radio  One requested  that  all of  the  forfeiture 
amounts be cancelled  and/or reduced.   On August  14, 2001,  the 
Bureau issued a Forfeiture Order in which it upheld the  issuance 
of the NAL but reduced  the forfeiture amount to $21,500  because 
of Radio One's voluntary disclosure of its failure to establish a 
local or toll-free telephone number in its community of license.

                           III.  DISCUSSION

     3.   On September 13, 2001,  Radio One submitted a  Petition 
for Reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order.  In its Petition for 
Reconsideration, Radio  One  disputes that  it  violated  Section 
73.3526(a)(2) of the  Rules and requests  that the Bureau  cancel 
the portion of the forfeiture assessed it for not having a public 
inspection file.  Radio  One does  not dispute  that it  violated 
Sections 11.35(a),  73.1125(e),  73.1350(c)(1),  and  73.1800(a).  
However, it requests that the portion of the forfeiture  assessed 
for violation of these  rules be cancelled  or reduced for  other 

     4.   Regarding  the  public   inspection  file,  Radio   One 
maintains that the file has always been and remains at WBOT(FM)'s 
main studio.  Further, Radio One states that, at the time of  the 
inspection, the file was readily available during normal business 
hours to anyone who inquired of  Radio One personnel at the  main 
studio.  Radio  One sets  forth no  evidence in  support of  this 
assertion.  In explaining why  it did not  provide evidence of  a 
public inspection  file to  the  investigating agent,  Radio  One 
asserts that perhaps the investigating agent did not ask for  the 
public file  at  the  main  studio,  since  the  agent  initially 
perceived there  to be  no main  studio at  all.   Alternatively, 
Radio One contends that maybe the investigating agent did not ask 
a Radio  One  employee  for  the  file  because  WBOT(FM)  shares 
facilities with another radio station.

     5.   As stated in  our Forfeiture  Order, the  investigating 
agent asked for the  public inspection file  twice, first at  the 
main studio and again at the  transmitter site.  It is true  that 
the  agent's  initial  perception  was  that  WBOT(FM)  lacked  a 
meaningful management and staff presence at its studio.  However, 
in response to the  NOV, Radio One  represented that Jane  Gilson 
was the  staff person  at  WBOT(FM)'s main  studio and  that  she 
remained in attendance during normal business hours.  Ms.  Gilson 
and others were present at the main studio during the  inspection 
of WBOT(FM).  The  agent asked  for the public  file during  that 
inspection.   The  file   was  never  made   available  to   him.  
Furthermore, as stated in the Forfeiture Order, the investigating 
agent asked  WBOT(FM)'s general  manager, Mr.  Tom Calococci,  if 
WBOT(FM) had  a  public inspection  file  when they  met  at  the 
transmitter site.  Mr. Calococci responded, "not yet."  Radio One 
does not dispute that Mr. Calococci told the investigating  agent 
that  WBOT(FM)  did  not  have  a  public  inspection  file  yet.  
Instead,  Radio  One  argues  that  Mr.  Calococci  was  at   the 
transmitter site when the agent asked for the file and  maintains 
that the file would have been provided if the agent had asked for 
it at the studio.  We think  it is irrelevant that Mr.  Calococci 
was at the  transmitter site  when the  agent asked  him for  the 
file.  As the station manager, the person responsible for day-to-
day operation of the station, he should have known whether or not 
the station  had  a  public  inspection  file.5   In  any  event, 
contrary to Radio One's speculative  assertions, as noted in  the 
Forfeiture Order, the  agent did  ask for  the file  at the  main 
studio and it was not made available to him. 

     6.   Radio One also contends that the Bureau has not met its 
          burden of proof  to levy  a forfeiture  for the  public 
          inspection violation.   The  Commission  has  concluded 
          that the burden of  proof in forfeiture proceedings  is 
          that of a preponderance of the evidence. 6   The record 
          in this proceeding indicates  that the agent asked  for 
          the file twice and  that it was  not made available  to 
          him.  Radio One has presented no evidence that it had a 
          public inspection file at  the time of the  inspection.  
          Moreover, Radio  One  has not  presented  any  evidence 
          supporting its assertion that the agent did not ask for 
          the public inspection  file.  Contrary  to Radio  One's 
          assertion, the Bureau has met its burden of proof by  a 
          preponderance  of  the  evidence,  and  we  affirm  the 
          issuance of  the forfeiture  for violation  of  Section 
          73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules.

     7.   In support  of its  contention that  the Bureau  should 
cancel or  rescind the  forfeiture  amounts attributable  to  the 
violation of Rule  Sections 11.35(a), 73.1125(e),  73.1350(c)(1), 
and 73.1800(a), Radio One reasserts the arguments it made in  its 
response to the NAL and raises four new arguments.  To the extent 
that Radio One is reiterating  arguments made previously, no  new 
evidence has been presented to persuade the Bureau to change  its 
positions stated  in  the  Forfeiture Order.   However,  we  will 
examine the four new arguments raised.  First, Radio One requests 
that the Bureau consider that WBOT(FM) was newly acquired at  the 
time of the inspection.  We do  not find the fact that Radio  One 
acquired  WBOT(FM)  five  and  one  half  months  prior  to   the 
inspection a mitigating  factor.  The  Commission has  repeatedly 
held that it is the  responsibility of a licensee to  familiarize 
itself and  comply with  the applicable  statutes and  Commission 
rules and policies, regardless of the length of time in which  it 
has been engaged in broadcasting.   Bay Television, Inc., 10  FCC 
Rcd  11509  (1995)  (rejecting  licensee's  request  for  lenient 
treatment because it had been on the air for barely six  months).  
Moreover, Radio One  is an experienced  broadcaster with over  20 
years of experience.  As an experienced broadcaster, it should be 
well aware of its responsibility to comply with the  Commission's 
rules and policies. 

     8.   Second,  Radio  One   asks  us   to  consider   ``other 
compelling public interest factors'' in favor of eliminating,  or 
substantially reducing the forfeiture.   However, Radio One  does 
not specifically identify what  public interest factors it  wants 
us to  consider.  Furthermore,  we fully  considered all  of  the 
factors set forth in Section 503(b) of the Communications Act  of 
1934,  as  amended,  ("Act")7  in  determining  the   appropriate 
forfeiture amount in this case.

     9.   Third, in support of  its request for reduction,  Radio 
One cites to WLDI, Inc.8  and WVGO License Limited  Partnership,9 
two cases in which forfeitures were reduced because the licensees 
exhibited an overall history of compliance with the  Commission's 
Rules.   Here, Radio  One  does not  have  a history  of  overall 
compliance with the Commission's Rules.  Contrary to Radio  One's 
assertion that  prior NOVs  are not  relevant to  its history  of 
overall compliance, we have found that prior NOVs are factors  in 
determining  a  licensee's   overall  history  of   compliance.10  
Moreover,  the  Commission  has  considered  the  duration  of  a 
violation in  determining whether  a licensee  has a  history  of 
overall compliance.  11  In  this  case, there  was a  prior  NOV 
issued on November 18, 1999 to Radio One for three violations  at 
WBOT(FM) a  month and  a  half after  it  took ownership  of  the 
station.  The March 14, 2000 inspection of WBOT(FM) revealed  ten 
violations and resulted in a second NOV issued approximately four 
months after  the first  on March  28, 2000.   Moreover, the  EAS 
violation identified in the second NOV spanned a period of almost 
four months, in  spite of  the fact that  Radio One  had the  EAS 
equipment on hand and uninstalled for at least two months of that 
time.  In light of the fact that Radio One had two NOVs issued to 
it within  a  four-month  period  of  time  and  considering  the 
duration of the EAS violation, we do not find that Radio One  has 
a history of overall compliance for its operation of this station 
and therefore we do not find a reduction of the forfeiture to  be 

     10.  Finally,  in  further  support   of  its  request   for 
reduction, Radio  One  cites  to State  University  of  New  York 
("SUNY"),12 a case in which  the Commission reduced a  forfeiture 
where  the  licensee   had  taken  remedial   steps  to   correct 
violations, even though the  licensee had been  the subject of  a 
prior enforcement  action.  In  SUNY,  the Commission  reduced  a 
$23,750 forfeiture to $4,200.   The forfeiture had been  assessed 
because of SUNY's violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 1464, which  prohibits 
the broadcast  of indecent  material.  The  Commission  generally 
does  not  nullify  or  mitigate  forfeitures  because   remedial 
measures  were  taken  to  correct  the  violations.13   However, 
extenuating circumstances in the SUNY case led the Commission  to 
conclude that a reduction of the forfeiture amount was warranted.  
Once SUNY  became aware  of the  possible broadcast  of  indecent 
material, it took WSUC(FM) off the air pending an  investigation, 
sent  a  letter  of  apology  to  the  complainant,  adopted  new 
operating procedures, and instituted criminal proceedings against 
the employee  responsible for  the questionable  broadcasts  (for 
reasons unrelated to the broadcasts).14  By comparison, there are 
no such extenuating circumstances in this case as were present in 
the SUNY case. 

                        IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     11.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS  ORDERED that,  pursuant to  Section 
405 of the Act,15 and 
Section  1.106  of   the  Rules,16  Radio   One's  Petition   for 
Reconsideration of  the  August  14, 2001,  Forfeiture  Order  IS 
DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED.

     12.  Payment of the forfeiture shall  be made in the  manner 
provided for in Section  1.80 of the  Rules17  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.18  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 the 
NAL/Acct. No. 200132260001  and FRN  0003-7390-34.  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. 20554.19

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


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau

  1    Radio  One Licenses,  Inc., 16  FCC Rcd  15326 (Enf.  Bur. 

  2   Effective May 20,  2000, Section 73.1125  of the Rules  was 
amended and the  subsections were,  consequently, reordered.   At 
the time  the  March  28,  2000 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.       

  3    47 C.F.R.  11.35(a), 73.1125(e), 73.1350(c)(1), 73.1560, 
73.1800(a), 73.3526(a)(2). 

  4   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct.  No. 
200132260001 (Enf. Bur., Boston Office, released March 8, 2001).

  5   In  its response  to the  NOV, Radio  One states  that  the 
public inspection file is available at Mr. Calococci's office.

  6  See Metromedia, Inc., et. al, 60 FCC 2d 1075 (1976).  

  7  47 U.S.C.  503(b).

  8  16 FCC Rcd 9571 (Enf. Bur. 2001).

  9  12 FCC Rcd 5918 (MMB 1997). 

  10   See Arnold Broadcasting Company, 16 FCC Rcd 267 (Enf. Bur. 
2001), recon. granted in  part for other  reasons, and denied  in 
part, 16 FCC Rcd 13600  (2001) and Crown Communication, Inc.,  15 
FCC Rcd 21937 (Enf. Bur. 2000) (both cases denying reduction of a 
forfeiture for history of  overall compliance where the  licensee 
had been issued multiple NOVs). 

  11   See Commercial Radio Service Corp., 16 FCC Rcd 3543 (Enf., 
Bur., Tech. & Pub. Safety Div.  2001) (denying a reduction for  a 
history of  overall compliance  where the  licensee had  operated 
eleven specialized  mobile radio  stations without  authorization 
over a five month period of time).  

  12   State University of New York, 13 FCC Rcd 23810 (1998).

  13   See Station KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 258, 259 (1973).

  14  Additionally, notwithstanding  a prior enforcement  action, 
SUNY was determined  to have  an overall  history of  compliance.  
Based on the facts of this case, we have not found that Radio One 
has a history of overall compliance.

     15  47 U.S.C.  405.

     16 47 C.F.R.  1.106.

     17 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

     18 47 U.S.C.  504(a).

     19 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.