Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      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            )                                
                                                                  
     Rama Communications, Inc.   )     File Number: EB-05-TP-450  
                                                                  
     Licensee of Station WTIR    )   NAL/Acct. No.: 200732700005  
                                                                  
     Cocoa Beach, FL             )               FRN: 0005008016  
                                                                  
     Facility ID # 55005         )                                
                                                                  
                                 )                                


                                FORFEITURE ORDER

   Adopted:  February 28, 2007  Released:  March 2, 2007

   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 fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) to Rama
       Communications, Inc. ("Rama"), licensee of station WTIR, in Cocoa
       Beach,  Florida, for willful and repeated violation of Sections
       11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). The noted
       violations involve Rama's failure to maintain operational Emergency
       Alert System ("EAS") equipment and failure to maintain effective
       locked fences or enclosures around the bases of its antenna
       structures.

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. In response to two complaints received in November 2005, agents from
       the Commission's Tampa Office of the Enforcement Bureau ("Tampa
       Office") inspected the main studio of station WTIR in Cocoa Beach,
       Florida on January 10 and 11, 2006. On both dates, the agents observed
       that the entrance gate to the perimeter property fence was torn down,
       leaving a wide opening that was adjacent to the station's studio
       parking lot. There were no individual fences around any of the antenna
       structures. During the January 11, 2006 inspection, the agents
       observed that the station's EAS unit was installed, but not
       operational. The wiring from the EAS unit had been removed. The
       station did not maintain an EAS log, which stated when the equipment
       became damaged or when required EAS tests were conducted. The
       station's most recent required EAS test receipt was dated August 3,
       2005.

    3. On December 19, 2006, the Tampa Office issued a Notice of Apparent
       Liability for Forfeiture to Rama in the amount of fifteen thousand
       dollars ($15,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of
       Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules. Rama submitted a response to
       the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on its
       remedial good faith efforts to comply with the Rules.

   III. DISCUSSION

    4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance
       with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
       Section 1.80 of the Rules, 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
       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
       other such matters as justice may require.

    5. Section 11.35(a) of the Rules requires all broadcast stations to
       ensure that EAS encoders, EAS decoders, attention signal generating,
       and receiving equipment is installed and operational so that the
       monitoring and transmitting functions are available during the times
       the station is in operation. Broadcast stations must also determine
       the cause of any failure to receive required monthly and weekly EAS
       tests, and must indicate in the station's log why any required tests
       were not received and when defective equipment is removed and restored
       to service. On January 11, 2006, during an inspection during normal
       business hours, Rama's EAS equipment was installed, but not
       operational. The wiring had been removed from the EAS unit. The
       station engineer was aware that the equipment was damaged but did not
       know when it was damaged or when it would be repaired. The station did
       not maintain a log that stated when the EAS equipment became damaged
       or when required EAS tests were conducted. The station's most recent
       required EAS test receipt was dated August 3, 2005. There was no
       evidence that the EAS equipment was operational after August 3, 2005.
       In its response to the NAL, Rama states that it has since installed an
       operational EAS system and trained its employees on EAS log keeping.
       It asserts it is now in compliance with Section 11.35(a) of the Rules.

    6. Section 73.49 of the Rules requires antenna towers having radio
       frequency potential at the base (series fed, folded, unipole and
       insulated base antennas) to be enclosed with effective locked fences
       or other enclosures. Individual tower fences need not be installed if
       the towers are contained within a protective property fence. On
       January 10 and 11, 2006, there were no individual fences around the
       station's antenna towers that had radio frequency potential at their
       bases. The station maintained a perimeter property fence, but the gate
       to that fence was torn down. The opening in the perimeter fence was
       located adjacent to the WTIR studio parking lot and allowed direct
       access to the property. Thus, the perimeter property fence was not
       protective. In response to the NAL, Rama states that the perimeter
       fence was damaged in a storm and that it has since repaired the
       perimeter fence and erected new fences around the bases of the antenna
       structures. It asserts it is now in compliance with Section 73.49 of
       the Rules.

    7. Based on the evidence, we find that Rama willfully and repeatedly
       violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to
       maintain operational EAS equipment and failing to maintain effective
       locked fences or enclosures around the bases of its antenna
       structures.

    8. In its response to the NAL, Rama requests that the $15,000 forfeiture
       be reduced based on its remedial good faith efforts to comply with the
       Rules. However, corrective action taken to come into compliance with
       the Rules after an inspection and cooperation with agents is expected,
       and does not nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations.

    9. We have examined Rama'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 Rama willfully
       and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules and
       that no reduction of the proposed $10,000 forfeiture is warranted.

   IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

   10. 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, Rama Communications, Inc. IS
       LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fifteen thousand
       dollars ($15,000) for violation of Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the
       Rules.

   11. 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. 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: Associate Managing Director, Financial Operations,
       445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.

   12. 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. at its address of record and to its counsel, Todd
       Steiner, Putbrese, Hunsaker & Trent, P.C., 200 S. Church St.,
       Woodstock, VA 22664.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Dennis P. Carlton

   Regional Director, South Central Region

   Enforcement Bureau

   47 C.F.R. SS 11.35(a), 73.49.

   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200732700005
   (Enf. Bur., Tampa Office, December 19, 2006) ("NAL").

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

   47 C.F.R. S 1.80.

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

   47 C.F.R. S 11.35(b).

   Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 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).

   The term "repeated," when used with reference to the commission or
   omission of any act, "means the commission or omission of such act more
   than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than
   one day." 47 U.S.C. S 312(f)(2).

   Rama cites Surrey Front Range Ltd  Partnership in support of its request
   for a reduction. Surrey Front Range Ltd  Partnership, 7 FCC Rcd
   6361(1992). However, in that case, the notice of apparent liability was
   amended and the proposed forfeiture reduced from $7,500 to $6,000 because
   the Field Operations Bureau found the station was missing fewer
   issues/programs lists than originally alleged. The Bureau denied Surrey's
   request for a further reduction based on its corrective action, stating
   "[c]orrective action likewise is not a downward adjustment criterion.
   Remedial action, although commendable, does not nullify a forfeiture
   penalty."

   See Seawest Yacht Brokers, Forfeiture Order, 9 FCC Rcd 6099 (1994).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b); 47 C.F.R. SSS 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4), 11.35(a),
   73.49.

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

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-882

   4

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-882