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                )
JMK Communications, Inc.        ) File Number:  EB-03-CF-334
Licensee of Station WPWC(AM)    )
Dumfries-Triangle, VA           )           NAL/Acct.       No. 
                                ) FRN  0006-1615-09

                        FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted:  December 22, 2004             Released:   December  27, 

By the Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau:


     1.   In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars 
($14,000) to JMK Communications, Inc. (``JMK''), licensee of 
radio station WPWC(AM), Dumfries, Virginia, for willful and 
repeated violation of Sections 73.1745(a), 73.3526(e)(5), and 
73.3526(e)(12) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules").1  The noted 
violations involve JMK's operation of station WPWC(AM) at 
unauthorized power levels and its failure to place the most 
current ownership report and a list of programs that have 
provided WPWC's most significant treatment of community issues in 
the public inspection file.    

     2.   On March 4, 2004, the District Director of the 
Commission's Columbia, Maryland Office (``Columbia Office'') 
issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to 
JMK for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty-two thousand dollars 


     3.   On July 2, 2003, an agent from the Commission's 
Columbia Office conducted an inspection of station WPWC.  The 
agent found that the EAS receiver was not tuned to the proper 
station and the reception of the second station was very noisy.  
The agent noted that the EAS equipment was installed at the 
station's unattended transmitter, and noted its monitoring and 
transmitting functions were not available to the station's 
operators at either WPWC's main studio in Annandale, Virginia or 
its secondary studio in Woodbridge, Virginia.  The agent also 
found that, according to the station logs, WPWC operated with its 
daytime power and antenna during nighttime hours.  The authorized 
daytime power is 1080 watts while the authorized nighttime power 
is 540 watts.  The station's logs indicated that WPWC changed to 
its nighttime power level and antenna at 8:30 p.m.EST instead of 
the authorized 8:15 p.m. EST on May 4, 2003 and May 8 through May 
19, 2003.  The agent discovered that JMK's public file included 
neither station WPWC's most recent ownership report nor a current 
and complete issues/programs list.  On August 7, 2003, the 
Columbia Office sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to JMK to 
clarify issues raised during the inspection.  JMK responded to 
the LOI on August 22, 2003.  On March 4, 2004, the Columbia 
Office issued the instant NAL to JMK, to which JMK responded on 
April 14, 2004.  In its response to the NAL, which includes a 
declaration made under the penalty of perjury by the station's 
chief engineer, Alfred Hammond, JMK seeks cancellation or 
reduction of the forfeiture.    


     4.   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, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 
303 (1999) (``Policy Statement'').  Section 503(b) of the Act 
requires that the Commission, in examining JMK's response, 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.5

     5.   Section 11.35(a) of the Rules requires that broadcast 
stations have EAS equipment installed so that the monitoring and 
transmitting functions are available during the times the 
stations and systems are in operation.  The investigating agent 
found that JMK had violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules because 
the EAS monitoring and transmitting functions were not available 
to the station operators at their normal duty positions.  
However, as JMK points out, WPWC's EAS equipment is installed at 
the station's transmitter site and operates automatically with 
the capability of a remote control override.  WPWC's EAS set-up 
is consistent with Section 11.51(m) of the Rules which permits 
automatic operation of the EAS system by broadcast stations that 
use remote control.  Further, although the NAL appears to cite 
JMK for not monitoring its primary EAS source and having its EAS 
equipment improperly tuned to its secondary EAS source, no 
separate violation of Section 11.52(d) of the Rules6 was noted.  
We agree with JMK that there was no violation of Section 11.35(a) 
of the Rules.  Therefore, we cancel the portion of the forfeiture 
assessed for violation of Section 11.35(a) of the Rules and 
reduce the forfeiture amount by $8,000.            

     6.   Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules states, in pertinent 
part, that no broadcast station shall operate with power other 
than that specified and made a part of the license unless 
otherwise provided in Part 73 of the Rules.  The NAL found that 
JMK did not change station WPWC's operating power level from its 
authorized daytime power of 1080 watts to its authorized 
nighttime power of 540 watts at the time required by its station 
authorization.  The NAL found that on May 4, 2003, and from May 8 
to May 19, 2003, WPWC changed from nighttime to daytime power at 
8:30 p.m. EST instead of the authorized 8:15 p.m. EST.  In his 
declaration, Mr. Hammond states that the changeover to nighttime 
power and antenna is controlled by a reliable computer and is not 
linked to manual logging.  Thus, Mr. Hammond claims, 
notwithstanding an inadvertent error in preparing the logs, the 
nighttime power limits were not exceeded.

     7.   At the time the investigating agent reviewed the 
station logs, he noted that the transmitter operating parameters 
were the same day after day.  The agent noted that blanks on the 
pre-printed log form were completed with meter readings and a 
statement that tower lights were functioning properly prior to 
copying the forms for use in the log.  He noted that the dates 
and times of the meter readings and entries relating to the EAS 
were then manually added.  He also noted that the individual 
pages were then signed by Mr. Hammond.  In its LOI to JMK, the 
Columbia Office asked JMK, ``Do you acknowledge that the above 
described documents, presented as the station logs, showing 
unvarying operating parameters do not accurately reflect the 
station operation?''  In response, JMK stated, ``[w]e 
respectfully do not agree that these documents do not accurately 
reflect the station operation.''  The District Director 
interpreted this statement as an affirmation that the station 
logs were accurate.  In its response to the NAL, supported by Mr. 
Hammond's declaration, JMK asserts that the logs were in error.  
Initially, JMK asserted that WPWC's station logs were accurate.  
Now, JMK asserts that the station logs are inaccurate.  After 
considering JMK's response to the LOI and the agent's 
contemporaneous observation of the logs, the District Director 
considered the station logs to be accurate.  We accept that 
determination.  Thus, we find that on May 4, 2003, and May 8 
through May 19, 2003, JMK operated station WPWC at unauthorized 
power levels.  Alternatively, JMK argues that an occasional lapse 
of fifteen minutes hardly warrants imposition of the maximum 
forfeiture amount that would apply to a far more serious 
situation as when a station fails to reduce power at all.  We 
note that the base forfeiture amount for each violation of 
Section 73.1745(a) is $4,000.  JMK's records indicate that it 
violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules over 10 times in May, 
2003.  We see no reason to reduce the forfeiture and thus, we 
sustain the imposition of one $4,000 forfeiture for these 

     8.   Section 73.3526(e)(5) of the Rules requires commercial 
broadcast stations to place a copy of the most recent, complete 
ownership report in the public inspection file.  Although JMK 
states that it had filed the latest ownership report with the 
Commission, JMK admits that the latest ownership report was not 
in the public file.  JMK further states that the file did contain 
the previous report, which was identical in substance to the 
latest report.  JMK also asserts that the purpose of the public 
file rule, which is to ensure public access to current 
information, was served because members of the public looking at 
the public file would have been able to get current information 
from the previous year's report.  We do not agree and conclude 
that the public file rule was violated because it requires that a 
copy of the latest ownership report be included in the public 
inspection file and it was not.

     9.   Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules requires commercial 
broadcast stations to place in the public inspection file every 
three months a list of programs that have provided the station's 
most significant treatment of community issues during the 
preceding three months.  The rule also explains the information 
that the list should contain.  JMK admits, and we conclude, that 
WPWC's public file contained an inadequately detailed 
issues/programs list.    

     10.   Although JMK admits the two public file violations, 
JMK also argues that the proposed forfeiture amount is excessive 
in comparison to forfeiture amounts that have been assessed for 
more severe public file infractions.  In support of this 
contention, JMK cites to Maria Salazar, 17 FCC Rcd 14090 (2002), 
Riverside Broadcasting, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 18322 (2000), and 
Telemedia Broadcasting, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 14064.  In Salazar and 
Riverside, much like in the instant case, the base forfeiture 
amount was assessed for violations of the public inspection file 
rules.  Our treatment of JMK's violation of the public file rules 
is consistent with our treatment of the violations in the Salazar 
and Riverside cases.  In Telemedia, the Chief of the 
Investigations and Hearings Division (``IHD'') of the Enforcement 
Bureau found that, although Telemedia had violated Section 
73.3526 of the Rules by failing to provide the complete public 
inspection file upon request, its violation was the result of an 
oversight caused by Telemedia being in the midst of a main studio 
remodeling at the time of the request.  The Chief of IHD 
determined that, based on the facts of the case, an admonishment 
was appropriate in Telemedia.  Here we have no finding of 
oversight and no chaos of a studio remodeling at the time the 
public file was requested, yet, required information was not in 
the public file. Accordingly, we do not believe that the sanction 
for JMK's behavior should be limited to an admonishment.                

     11.  We have examined JMK's response to the NAL pursuant to 
the statutory factors above, and in conjunction with the Policy 
Statement.  As a result of our review, we conclude that JMK 
willfully7 and repeatedly8 violated Sections 73.1745(a), 
73.3526(e)(5), and 73.3526(e)(12) and impose a monetary 
forfeiture in the amount of $14,000.


     12.  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,9 JMK Communications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY 
FORFEITURE in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) 
for willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.1745(a), 
73.3526(e)(5), and 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules.

     13.  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.10  
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. 20554.11 

     13.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall 
be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to JMK 
Communications, Inc., 4525 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, 
California 90010, and its counsel, Peter Gutmann, Esq., at Womble 
Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, 1401 Eye Street, NW, 7th Floor, 
Washington, DC 20005.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                              George R. Dillon
                              Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau

1 47 C.F.R.  73.1745(a), 73.3526(e)(5), and 73.3526(e)(12).
2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 
200432340004 (Enf. Bur., Columbia Office, released March 4, 
3 47 U.S.C.  503(b).
4 47 C.F.R.  1.80.
5 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).
6  47 C.F.R.  11.52(d) (requires broadcast stations to monitor 
two EAS sources).
7 Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  312(f)(1), which 
applies to violations for which forfeitures are assessed under 
Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that ``[t]he term `willful', 
when used with reference to the commission or omission of any 
act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of 
such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of 
this Act . . . .''  See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 
FCC Rcd 4387-88 (1991). 
8 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 Co. at 4388 (1991).
9 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).
10 47 U.S.C.  504(a).
11 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.