******************************************************** 
                      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                  )
                                                           )
Angel Vera-Maury                  )     File Number: EB-05-SJ-013
Licensee of WRSS(AM)              )   NAL/Acct. No.: 200532680003
San Sebastian, PR                 )               FRN: 0004065629
Facility ID # 499971              )
                                 )

                        FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted:  August 29, 2005                    Released:  August 
31, 2005

By the  Regional  Director,  South  Central  Region,  Enforcement 
Bureau:

I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of five thousand six hundred 
dollars ($5,600) to Angel Vera-Maury, licensee of station 
WRSS(AM) in San Sebastian, Puerto Rico, for willful violation of 
Section 73.49 of the Communication's Rules (``Rules'').1  The 
noted violation involves Mr. Vera-Maury's failure to enclose the 
station's antenna structure within an effective locked fence or 
other enclosure.

II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   On April 8, 2005, resident agents from the San Juan 
Office of the Enforcement Bureau (``San Juan Office'') informed 
the contract engineer for station WRSS(AM) that they would be 
conducting an inspection of the station's transmitter site later 
that day.  The contract engineer stated that the agents would 
find an opening in the base fence surrounding the station's 
transmitter. 
 
     3.   Still on April 8, 2005, the agents conducted an 
inspection at the studio and transmitter site for station 
WRSS(AM) in San Sebastian, Puerto Rico.  The agents found an 
opening in the fence surrounding the base of the antenna that 
would allow access to the base.  The agents also observed that 
the perimeter property fence did not have a working gate.  The 
gate for the property fence was lying to the side of the access 
road on an angle and was not in use.

     4.   On May 18, 2005, the San Juan Office issued a Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to Mr. Vera-Maury in the amount 
of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for the apparent willful 
violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules.2  On June 15, 2005, Mr. 
Vera-Maury submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction 
or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

  III.    DISCUSSION

     5.   The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was 
assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the 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 Mr. Vera-Maury'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 73.49 of the Rules requires that antenna towers 
having radio frequency potential at the base must be enclosed 
within effective locked fences or other enclosures.  Individual 
tower fences need not be installed if the towers are contained 
within a protective property fence.  On April 8, 2005, station 
WRSS (AM)'s antenna structure was not enclosed by an effective 
locked fence or other enclosure.  The contract engineer for the 
station informed the agents of this fact prior to the inspection.  
The agents observed a gap in the fence surrounding the base of 
the structure that would allow access to the base of the 
transmitter.  Moreover, the antenna structure was not contained 
within a protective property fence.  The agents observed that the 
gate for the property fence was broken and lying to the side of 
the access road, thus allowing unimpeded access to the property.  
Mr. Vera-Maury does not deny any of these facts.  Thus, based on 
the evidence, we find that Mr. Vera-Maury willfully6 violated 
Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose his station's 
antenna structure within an effected locked fence or other 
enclosure.  

     7.   Mr. Vera-Maury requests a reduction or cancellation of 
the forfeiture based on his good faith efforts to comply with the 
Rules.  Mr. Vera-Maury asserts that arrangements were being made 
to replace the fence prior to the agents' inspection.  He also 
claims that the fence was replaced immediately following the 
inspection.7  However, Mr. Vera-Maury failed to provide 
sufficient detail regarding his arrangements and was unable to 
produce any documentation of these arrangements.  Moreover, the 
contract engineer for the station made no mention of any 
arrangements by the station to repair the fence when he noted 
that the agents would find a fencing violation.  Accordingly, we 
find we cannot reduce the proposed forfeiture on the basis of 
good faith efforts to comply with the Rules.  

     8.   We have examined Mr. Vera-Maury's response to the NAL 
pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in conjunction with 
the Forfeiture Policy Statement.  As a result of our review, we 
conclude that Mr. Vera-Maury willfully violated Section 73.49 of 
the Rules.  However, consistent with Mr. Vera-Maury's claim, we 
reduce the proposed forfeiture to $5,600 based on Mr. Vera-
Maury's history of compliance with the Rules.  

  IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     9.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 
503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and 
Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 
Angel Vera-Maury IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the 
amount of five thousand six hundred dollars ($5,600) for 
willfully violating Section 73.49 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.8  
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, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340.  Payment by overnight mail 
may be sent to Mellon Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 
1540670, Pittsburgh, PA 15251.   Payment by wire transfer may be 
made to ABA Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and 
account number 911-6106.  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. 
20554.9 

     11.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall 
be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt 
Requested to Angel Vera-Maury at his record of address and to his 
attorney, Christopher D. Imlay, Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper, 
P.C., 14356 Cape May Road, Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011.  


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              Dennis P. Carlton
                              Regional Director, South Central 
                         Region
                              Enforcement Bureau

_________________________

147 C.F.R. § 73.49.

2Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 
200532680003 (Enf. Bur., San Juan Office, May 18, 2005) 
(``NAL'').

347 U.S.C. § 503(b).

447 C.F.R. § 1.80.

547 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

6Section 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).   

7The agents do not know whether Mr. Vera-Maury replaced the fence 
the day after the inspection.  Regardless, Mr. Vera-Maury's 
remedial actions to repair the fence after the agent's inspection 
are expected and do not warrant a reduction in the forfeiture 
amount.  See AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 21861, 
21864-75 (2002); Sonderling Broadcasting Corp., 69 FCC 2d 289, 
291 (1978); Odino Joseph, 18 FCC Rcd 16522, 16524, para. 8 (Enf. 
Bur. 2003); South Central Communications Corp., 18 FCC Rcd 700, 
702-03, para. 9 (Enf. Bur. 2003); Northeast Utilities, 17 FCC Rcd 
4115, 4117, para. 13 (Enf. Bur. 2002). 

847 U.S.C. § 504(a).

9See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.