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-
                              )         NAL/Acct.             No. 
Trade Center Management, Inc.                )                        
FRN 0006-3516-88
Licensee, Station KHRA(AM)              )
Honolulu, Hawaii                   )


     Adopted:  June 21, 2005            Released:  June 23, 2005

By the Acting Chief, Enforcement Bureau:


     1.    In this Memorandum Opinion and Order (``Order''), we 
       deny the petition for reconsideration filed by Trade 
       Center Management, Inc. (``Trade Center''), licensee of 
       Station KHRA(AM) Honolulu, Hawaii.  Trade Center seeks 
       reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order1 in which the 
       Chief, Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau''), found it liable 
       for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $8,000 for 
       willful and repeated violation of Section 73.3526(b) of 
       the Commission's Rules (``Rules'').2  The noted violation 
       involves Trade Center's failure to maintain Station 
       KHRA's public inspection file at the station's main 
     2.   On August 2, 2002, Commission agents from the 
Commission's Honolulu, Hawaii Resident Agent Office inspected 
Station KHRA and its main studio.  The agents found that there 
was no public inspection file maintained at the main studio.  
KHRA's General Manager stated that there was no public inspection 
file maintained at the main studio.  On October 31, 2002, the 
Honolulu Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture (``NAL'') to Trade Center for willful and repeated 
violation of Section 73.3526(b) of the Rules.  Trade Center 
responded to the NAL on November 27, 2002.  On April 7, 2004, the 
Enforcement Bureau issued a Forfeiture Order in which it upheld 
the NAL but reduced the forfeiture amount from $10,000 to $8,000 
based on Trade Center's history of overall compliance with the 
Commission's rules. 3.   On May 6, 2004, Trade Center filed a 
petition for reconsideration (``petition'') of the Forfeiture 
Order.  In its petition, Trade Center argues that it did not 
violate the public inspection file rule because most of the 
documents required to be maintained for public inspection were 
available at KHRA's main studio when the inspection was 
conducted.  Trade Center also argues that the record does not 
support the Commission's finding that Trade Center's violation of 
the public file rule was willful or repeated.  III.    DISCUSSION
4.   The 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.5  In 
examining Trade Center's petition, 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 any other such matters as 
justice may require.6    
     5.   In its petition, Trade Center reiterates that KHRA's 
General Manager, Mr. Ki-Yeoun Kim, declared in response to the 
NAL that most of the documents to be kept in a public inspection 
file were in a cabinet at the main studio at the time of the 
inspection.7  Therefore, Trade Center argues, the Bureau's 
finding that the public inspection file was not available was 
inaccurate.  Although we note that Mr. Kim did make this 
statement in his declaration, we also note that in the same 
declaration, Mr. Kim stated:

          ``After receiving the NAL in early  November, 
          I have consulted with communications counsel, 
          who has explained the FCC's public inspection 
          file requirements  to  me.  Based  upon  that 
          advice, I  have created  a public  inspection 
          file which is now available for inspection by 
          the public  Mondays  through  Fridays  during 
          regular business hours.''8 (emphasis added)

Thus, by Mr. Kim's own admission, he did not create the public 
inspection file until after the issuance of the NAL more than 
three months after the inspection.  We therefore find no reason 
to alter our finding that Trade Center failed to maintain a 
public inspection file for Station KHRA at the station's main 

     6.   Trade Center next argues that the record does not 
support the Bureau's finding that Trade Center's conduct was 
willful or repeated, taking issue with the Order's statement that 
``[e]ven 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 be the basis for a ``good faith'' reduction of the 
forfeiture because Trade Center did not make those documents 
available to the FCC Agent when he requested the public file.''  
Trade Center asserts that this statement implies that Mr. Kim 
consciously withheld the public file from the agents.  We do not 
believe the statement makes any implication about Mr. Kim's 
intentions.  Moreover, Mr. Kim's intentions are irrelevant to the 
issue of whether Trade Center's violation of Section 73.3526(b) 
of the Rules was willful.  The term ``willful,'' as used in 
Section 503(b) of the Act, does not require a finding that the 
rule violation was intentional or that the violator was aware 
that it was committing a rule violation.9  Rather, the term 
``willful'' simply requires that the violator knew it was taking 
the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the 
Commission's rules.10  As stated in the Order, Trade Center made 
a conscious decision to have a technical file available at KHRA's 
transmitter site but not at its main studio.  Because of this 
decision, and the fact that there was no public inspection file 
at the main studio, Trade Center's violation of Section 
73.3526(b) was willful.  Nothing in Trade Center's petition leads 
us to any other conclusion.  Further, Trade Center attributes its 
not producing the public inspection file to a mutual mistake in 
assumptions between the investigating agent and Mr. Kim.  
Assuming that Mr. Kim, because of his lack of proficiency in 
English, did not understand that the agent was requesting the 
public inspection file, the fact remains that there was no public 
inspection file at the main studio for Mr. Kim to produce.

     7.        Finally, although Trade Center asserts that the 
               record does not justify the Order's finding that 
               Trade Center repeatedly11 violated the public 
               inspection file rule, we can reach no other 
               conclusion given Trade Center's admission that it 
               did not create the public inspection file until 
               after it received the NAL.

     8.        Based on the foregoing, which establishes that 
               Trade Center's violation of the public inspection 
               file rule was both willful and repeated, we 
               conclude that the $8,000 forfeiture should be 

IV.       ORDERING CLAUSES    9.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED 
that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act12 and Section 1.106 of 
the Rules,13 Trade Center Management, Inc.'s petition for 
reconsideration of the April 7, 2004 Forfeiture Order IS DENIED.
     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.14  
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 Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 358340, 
Pittsburg, PA 15251-8340.  Payment by overnight mail may be sent 
to Mellon Bank/LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, 
Pittsburg, PA 15251.  Payments by wire transfer may be made to 
ABA Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account 
number 911-6106.

     11.       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT this Order shall be 
sent by regular mail and by certified mail, return receipt 
requested, to Henry A. Solomon, Esq., Garvey Schubert Barer, 1000 
Potomac Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007-3501.                   
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION                                
Kris Anne Monteith                      Acting Chief, Enforcement 

1  19 FCC Rcd 6287 (Enf. Bur. 2004).

2 47 C.F.R.  73.3526(b).

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 See petition at page 2.  See also response to NAL,  Declaration 
of Ki-Yeoun Kim, paragraph 2.

8 See Declaration of Ki-Yeoun Kim at paragraph 3.

9 47 U.S.C.  312(f)(1).  

10 Id.  

11 Section 312(f)(2) defines the term repeated as the  commission 
or omission of any  act more than once  or if such commission  or 
omission is  continuous, for  more  than one  day.  47  U.S.C.   

12 47 U.S.C.  405.

13 47 C.F.R.  1.106.

14 47 U.S.C.  504(a).