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-02-HL-073
Trade Center Management, Inc.   )    
Licensee of AM Station KHRA     )       NAL/Acct.             No. 
Honolulu, Hawaii               )     
                                )       FRN 0006351688

                        FORFEITURE ORDER

     Adopted:    April 5, 2004          Released:   April 7, 2004         

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   In  this  Forfeiture  Order  (``Order''),  we  issue  a 
monetary forfeiture  in  the  amount of  eight  thousand  dollars 
($8,000), to Trade  Center Management,  Inc. (``Trade  Center''), 
licensee of  Station  KHRA,  Honolulu, Hawaii,  for  willful  and 
repeated violation  of  Section 73.3526(b)  of  the  Commission's 
Rules ("Rules").1  The  noted violation  involves Trade  Center's 
failure to maintain the Station KHRA's public inspection file  at 
the main studio.

     2.   On October 31, 2002, the Commission's Honolulu, Hawaii, 
Resident Agent  Office ("Honolulu  Office")  issued a  Notice  of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL")2  in the amount of  ten  
thousand dollars ($10,000) to Trade Center.  Trade Center filed a 
response on November 27, 2002.  

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     3.   On August 2, 2002, Commission agents from the  Honolulu 
          Office inspected KHRA and its main studio.  The  agents 
          found  that  there  was   no  public  inspection   file 
          available at the main  studio.  KHRA's General  Manager 
          stated  that  there  was  no  public  inspection   file 
          maintained at the main studio.

     4.   On October 31, 2002, the  Honolulu Office issued a  NAL 
          for violation of Section  73.3526(b) of the Rules.   On 
          November 27, 2002, Trade Center submitted a response to 
          the  NAL.   In  that   response,  Trade  Center   seeks 
          cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.  Trade  Center 
          asserts that  it  misunderstood the  public  inspection 
          file requirement,  believing that  it was  required  to 
          maintain a ``technical'' file at its transmitter  site.  
          Trade Center also  asserts that most  of the  documents 
          required to be kept in the public inspection file  were 
          in a cabinet at the main  studio, that no one had  ever 
          asked for KHRA's public inspection file and that no one 
          was ever denied access to  any document required to  be 
          kept in the public inspection file.  In addition, Trade 
          Center states that it now has a public inspection  file 
          available at  the  main studio  and  that it  has  good 
          record  of  compliance  with  FCC  requirements.     In 
          addition, Trade  Center argues  that it  relied on  the 
          advice of its engineer.

                           III. DISCUSSION
          5.   The proposed  forfeiture amount  in this  case  is 
being 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)  (``Forfeiture  Policy  Statement'').    In 
examining Trade  Center'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 other  such matters  as 
justice may require.5

          6.   Section   73.3526(b)   of   the   Rules   requires 
commercial broadcast  stations to  maintain a  public  inspection 
file at the main  studio of the station.   It is undisputed  that 
there was no public file available during the agents'  inspection 
of KHRA's main studio on August  2, 2002, or prior to that  date.  
Trade Center made a conscious decision to a have a  ``technical'' 
file available  at  its transmitter  site  but not  at  the  main 
studio.  We  find  that  Trade  Center's  violation  of   Section 
73.3526(b) of the Rules was willful 6 and repeated. 7

          7.   Trade Center's  apparent misunderstanding  of  the 
public file rule does not mitigate its violations.  Licensees are 
responsible for knowing and  observing the rules affecting  their 

          8.   Even if most of the documents required to be  kept 
in the  public inspection  file were  in a  cabinet at  the  main 
studio, this fact would not would  not be the basis for a  ``good 
faith'' reduction of the proposed forfeiture because Trade Center 
did not make those documents available  to the FCC agent when  he 
requested the public file.

          9.   Even  if  no  actual  harm  resulted  from   Trade 
Center's violation, there was a significant risk of harm  because 
the public inspection  file would  not have been  available if  a 
member of the public requested it. 9  We find that the violations 
are not mitigated by any lack of harm.

          10.  No mitigation is warranted  on the basis of  Trade 
Center's correction of the  violation.  As the Commission  stated 
in  Seawest  Yacht  Brokers,  9   FCC  Rcd  6099,  6099   (1994), 
``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.''10 

          11.  Trade Center  argues that  it was  relying on  the 
advice of its engineer that it was not in violation of the  FCC's 
requirements.  ``[T]he Commission  has long  held that  licensees 
and other Commission regulatees are responsible for the acts  and 
omissions of their employees and independent contractors and  has 
consistently  refused   to  excuse   licensees  from   forfeiture 
penalties where actions of  employees or independent  contractors 
have resulted in violations.''11

     12.  We do, however, find that Trade Center has a history of 
overall compliance and, accordingly, reduce the forfeiture amount 
to $8,000.

     13.  We have  examined Trade  Center's response  to the  NAL 
pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in conjunction  with 
the Forfeiture  Policy Statement  as well.   As a  result of  our 
review, we conclude  that Trade Center  willfully and  repeatedly 
violated Section 73.3526(b) of the Rules and find that,  although 
cancellation  of  the   proposed  monetary   forfeiture  is   not 
warranted, reduction  of  the  forfeiture  amount  to  $8,000  is 

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     14.  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,12 Trade Center Management, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A  MONETARY 
FORFEITURE in the amount of  eight thousand dollars ($8,000)  for 
willfully and  repeatedly  violating Section  73.3526(b)  of  the 

     15.  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.13  
Payment shall 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. 200332860001, and FRN0006351688.   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. 
     16.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order  shall 
be sent by Certified Mail  Return Receipt Requested and by  First 
Class Mail to Trade Center's counsel, John Crigler, Esq.,  Garvey 
Schubert Barer, 1000 Potomac Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 2007-


                         David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau


  1    47 C.F.R.  73.3526(b).

  2   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct.  No. 
200332860001 (Enf. Bur.,  Honolulu Office,  released October  31, 

  3   47 U.S.C.  503(b).

  4   47 C.F.R.  1.80.

  5   47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

  6    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,' 
... means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission  of 
such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision  of 
this Act or any rule  or regulation of the Commission  authorized 
by this Act ....''  See  Southern California Broadcasting Co.,  6 
FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).   

  7    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, 6 FCC  Rcd 
4387, 4388 (1991)  and Western Wireless  Corporation, 18 FCC  Rcd 
10319 at fn. 56 (2003).

  8   See, e.g. In  the Matter of Rego,  Inc., 16 FCC Rcd  16795, 
1697 (Enf. Bur. 2001).

  9   In the  Forfeiture Policy Statement,  the Commission  found 
that the  omission of  even a  single item  (the  issues/programs 
list) from  the public  inspection file  is a  serious  violation 
because it  ``diminishes the  public's ability  to determine  and 
comment on  whether  the  station  is  serving  the  community.''  
Forfeiture Policy Statement at 17104-05, para. 39.

  10  See also Callais Cablevision, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 22626, 22629 
(2002); Radio Station KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 258, 259 (1973);  and 
Executive Broadcasting Corp., 3 FCC 2d 699, 700 (1966).

  11  Eure Family Limited Partnership, 17 FCC Rcd 21861, 21863-64 
(2002)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted)  and  cases   cited 

  12   47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

  13   47 U.S.C.  504(a).

  14   See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.