******************************************************** 
                      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                 )
                                )    File No. EB-02-TP-550
Rama Communications, Inc.        )
Licensee of  Station WLAA(AM     )    NAL/Acct. No. 200432700011
Winter Park, Florida             )
                                )    FRN:  0005-0080-16
                                )

                        FORFEITURE  ORDER

   Adopted:  December 22, 2004          Released:  December 23, 
2004

By the Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of eighteen thousand dollars 
($18,000) to Rama Communications (``Rama''), licensee of AM radio 
station WLAA, Winter Garden, Florida, for willful and repeated 
violation of Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the 
Commission's Rules (``Rules'').1  The noted violations involve 
Rama's failure to maintain operational Emergency Alert System 
(``EAS'') equipment, and failure to make available the required 
public file documents during regular business hours. 

     2.   On March 5, 2004, the Commission's Tampa, Florida 
District Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to Rama for a forfeiture in 
the amount of eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000).2  Rama filed a 
response to the NAL on April 5, 2004.

II.  BACKGROUND

     3.   On June 3, 2003, the Tampa Office received a complaint 
regarding WLAA's operations.  On June 13, 2003, agents from the 
Tampa Office inspected WLAA.  During the inspection, the agents 
tried twice to run an EAS test using the shared EAS equipment 
with co-located and co-owned station WOKB(AM) also in Winter 
Garden, Florida.  The tests were not successfully transmitted 
over station WLAA.  The station logs for WLAA showed no entries 
of EAS tests for the past six months.  Further, the public 
inspection file for WLAA did not contain a copy of the current 
Commission license, contour maps, most recent ownership report, 
employment reports, issues/program lists or local public notice 
announcements.  On July 25, 2003, the agents made another 
investigation which revealed that the entire public file was not 
available at the main studio, but at another address instead.

     4.   On March 5, 2003, the Tampa Office issued the subject  
NAL to Rama for apparent willful and repeated violation of 
11.35(a) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules.  Rama responded to the 
NAL stating that the station's recent move caused a problem with 
the  EAS equipment on station WLAA, but not station WOKB which 
shares the EAS equipment.  The engineer corrected the EAS problem 
as soon as he was made aware of it after the inspection.  
Similarly, Rama states that the EAS log book should have been 
marked to reflect that it contained EAS records for both WLAA and 
WOKB, instead of just WOKB.  Rama admitted that during the June 
13 inspection the public inspection file had missing items, but 
maintains that the file was then relocated and was available at 
the new location, and that ``the contents of the public 
inspection file has been addressed by the station manager.''  
Rama seeks an elimination of the forfeiture or a reduction, based 
on the violations being technical in nature and not warranting an 
$18,000 forfeiture.

III.      DISCUSSION

     5.      The proposed 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 (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). 5  In examining 
Rama'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 such other matters as justice may require.6

             6.     Section 11.35(a) of the Rules requires that 
broadcast stations be responsible for ensuring that EAS Encoders, 
EAS Decoders, and Attention Signal generating and receiving 
equipment used as part of the EAS are installed such that 
monitoring and transmitting functions are available during the 
times that the stations are in operation.  On June 13, 2003, 
Rama's EAS equipment for WLAA was not operational.7  Rama does 
not contest the violation and states that its engineer fixed the 
problem quickly.8 The Commission has consistently found that 
while commendable, ``corrective action taken to come into 
compliance with Commission rules or policy is expected, and does 
not nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations.''9  
Further, under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act,10 a broadcast 
licensee that ``willfully or repeatedly'' fails to comply with 
any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation or order issued 
by the Commission under the Act'' is subject to forfeiture 
liability.  In this context, ``willful'' simply means the 
conscious and deliberate commission or omission of an act, 
irrespective of any intent to violate statutory or regulatory 
requirements.11  Further, ``repeated'' means the violation 
continued for more than one day.12  In that regard, we note that 
according to Rama, the violation had existed since a recent move. 
As such, the equipment was inoperable for more than one day.  
Accordingly, we conclude that Rama willfully and repeatedly 
violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules.

      7.  Section 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules requires that a 
station's public inspection file be available for inspection at 
any time during regular business hours.  In its response, Rama 
does not contest that its public inspection file was incomplete 
for the first inspection on June 13, but does admit that the file 
had been relocated to a different location and was not at the 
main studio at the time of the second inspection on July 25, 
2003.  Rama claims further that ``the contents of the public 
inspection file has been addressed by the station manager,'' but 
provides no indication when the missing contents were actually 
added to the file.  Again, as noted above, corrective action 
taken to come into compliance with Commission rules does not 
nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations.13  The 
public inspection file was not available as required at the time 
of inspection.  Accordingly, we find that Rama willfully violated 
Section 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules, and conclude that the later 
correction of the public inspection file status does not mitigate 
the proposed forfeiture.  

     8.   Finally, Rama argues that the violations were 
``technical'' in nature and as such, should not warrant an 
$18,000 forfeiture.  We disagree; the Commission has found that 
an EAS equipment failure or failure to maintain a public 
inspection log are not merely technical or minor violations,14 
and the assessed forfeiture amounts are specifically set out in 
the ``Guidelines for Assessing Forfeitures'' in the Commission's 
Rules.15  We have examined Rama'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 
Rama willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 
73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules and we find no grounds to reduce or 
cancel the forfeiture amount proposed in the NAL. 

IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     9.   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,16 Rama Communications, Inc., licensee of Station 
WLAA(AM), in Winter Garden, Florida, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY 
FORFEITURE in the amount of  eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000) 
for its willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.3526(c)(1) 
and 11.35(a) of the Rules.  

     10.  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.17 
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 Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal 
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 
60673-7482.  Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Bank One/LB 
73482, 525 West Monroe, 8th Floor Mailroom, Chicago, IL 60661.   
Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 071000013, 
receiving bank Bank One, and account number 1165259.  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. 20554.18        

     11.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall 
be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt 
Requested to Rama Communications, Inc., P.O. Box 680889, Orlando, 
FL 32868.



                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                    


                              George R. Dillon
                              Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

1 47 C.F.R. §§ 11.35(a), 73.3526(c)(1).
2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 
200432700011 (Enf. Bur., Tampa, Florida Office, released March 5, 
2004). 
3  47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
4  47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
5  12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). 
6  47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).
7  Moreover, there were no entries in the station's log to 
indicate any problem or malfunction of the EAS equipment, as 
required by 47 C.F.R. § 11.35(b).
8 Rama's response included a sworn statement by its engineer that 
he successfully  rewired  the  EAS equipment  when  told  of  the 
problems  discovered  during  the  Commission's  June  13,   2004 
inspection.   
9  Seawest Yacht Brokers, 9 FCC Rcd 6099 (1994); AT&T Wireless 
Services, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 21866, 21871 (2002).
10 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 
11 See 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1) (emphasis added); see also Southern 
California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387-88, ¶ 5 (1991). 
12 As provided by 47  U.S.C. § 312(f)(2), a continuous  violation 
is ``repeated''  if it  continues for  more than  one day.    The 
Conference Report for Section  312(f)(2) indicates that  Congress 
intended to apply this  definition to Section 503  of the Act  as 
well as  Section 312.   See  H.R. Rep.  97th  Cong. 2d  Sess.  51 
(1982).  See Southern California Broadcasting Company, supra,  at 
4388 and Western Wireless Corporation, 18 FCC Rcd 10319 at fn. 56 
(2003).
13 See note 9, infra.
14 See Mapa Broadcasting, L.L.C., 17 FCC Rcd 10519 (Enf. Bur. 
2002) (finding that not having the required EAS equipment was not 
a minor violation) and Jesse C. Ross and Ernestine A. Ross, 
Forfeiture Order (Enf. Bur. released Oct. 22, 2004) (assessing 
the same forfeiture amount for violations of the same rules).
15  47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).  The forfeiture amount for each 
violation is also set out in the Policy Statement, supra, at 
Appendix A.
16 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).                        
17 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).
18 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.