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                 )
                                 )
Broadcast Learning Center, Inc.  )  File Number EB-02-PA-
328                              
WHS405                           )  NAL/Acct. No. 
200332400004
Cherry Hill, New Jersey          )  FRN:  0007-83-6190
                                 )
                                 )

                      FORFEITURE ORDER 

Adopted:  May 21, 2004                       Released:   May 
25, 2004

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                         I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this  Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we  issue a 
monetary  forfeiture in  the  amount of  three thousand  two 
hundred dollars ($3,200) to  Broadcast Learning Center, Inc. 
(``BLCI'') for  apparent willful  and repeated  violation of 
Section 74.532(e) of the  Commission's Rules (``Rules'')1 by 
operating station WHS405 at an unauthorized location.

     2.   On January 6, 2003, the Commission's Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania  Office  (``Philadelphia   Office'')  issued  a 
Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') to BLCI in the amount 
of four  thousand dollars ($4,000).2  BLCI  filed a response 
on February 4, 2003 and supplemented its response on May 11, 
2004.

                       II.  BACKGROUND

     3.   The license for station  WHS405 authorizes BLCI to 
operate  an   aural  broadcast  auxiliary  station   on  the 
frequencies   948.375  MHz   and   948.625   MHz  near   the 
intersection of 11th Street  and Moss Avenue, Hammonton, New 
Jersey.  However, on October 15, 2002, an FCC agent with the 
Philadelphia  Office inspected  the station  and found  that 
BLCI was operating the  station at an unauthorized location.  
Specifically, BLCI  was operating the station  at 308 Dutton 
Mill Road, Brookhaven, Pennsylvania,  which is over 30 miles 
from the site authorized in the license. 

     4.   On  October  21,  2002,  the  Philadelphia  Office 
issued a Notice of Violation (``NOV'') to BLCI for operating 
station WHS405 at an  unauthorized location, in violation of 
Section 74.532(e) of the Rules.  By letter dated October 30, 
2002,  BLCI  submitted  a  response  to  the  NOV.   In  the 
response, BLCI acknowledged to  have operated station WHS405 
at the unauthorized location since  at least March 17, 1998.  
BLCI stated that  although it had filed  an application with 
the Commission  to relocate the  station to 308  Dutton Mill 
Road,  Brookhaven, Pennsylvania,  it  was  unaware that  the 
Commission returned  the application on September  27, 1998.  
BLCI  stated that  on  October 24,  2002,  it filed  another 
license  modification  application  and an  application  for 
Special  Temporary  Authority.   On  January  6,  2003,  the 
Philadelphia Office  issued a  NAL for willful  and repeated 
violation of Section 74.532(e) of the Commission's Rules.
     
     5.   In its response to the NAL, BLCI acknowledges that 
it violated Section 74.532(e) but denies that its conduct 
was ``willful, deliberate or intentional.''  It argues that 
the public was not harmed and that it promptly corrected the 
violation.  BLCI also claims that it is financially unable 
to pay the forfeiture and that it has a history of 
compliance with Commission rules and regulations.

                      III.  DISCUSSION

     6.   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.5 In examining BLCI'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  such other matters as justice 
may require.6  

     7.   Section 74.532(e) of the Rules provides that each 
aural broadcast auxiliary station will be licensed at a 
specified transmitter location to communicate with a 
specified receiving location, and the direction of the main 
radiation lobe of the transmitting antenna will be a term of 
the station authorization.  Based on the agent's inspection 
and BLCI's responses, it is undisputed that between March 
17, 1998 and October 15, 2002, BLCI operated aural broadcast 
auxiliary station WHS405 at an unauthorized location. 

     8.   BLCI concedes that it was operating station WHS405 
from  an   unauthorized  location,   but  argues   that  its 
misconduct  was not  ``willful, deliberate  or intentional'' 
even though  it also admits  that its staff failed  to study 
the primary station  license ``in detail to  detect that the 
transmitter address  was incorrect''  and to learn  that its 
application to  relocate the  station to the  proper address 
was returned.  These arguments  are rejected because we find 
BLCI's failure to ascertain that it was not operating at its 
authorized location  to be willful  misconduct.7  Similarly, 
BLCI's  argument  that  ``no  other station  was  harmed  or 
interfered with''  by its unintentional action  and that the 
``public's safety  was never put  in risk or  jeopardy'' are 
also rejected.   The absence of interference  or any showing 
of harm  to the public interest  does not entitle BLCI  to a 
reduction of the proposed forfeiture.8           

     9.   BLCI  points out  that it  has taken  a number  of 
corrective steps  to cure the Rule  violation.  According to 
the  company,  after  the   violation  was  brought  to  its 
attention   by   the   Commission,  it   immediately   filed 
applications for license  modification and Special Temporary 
Authority.  BLCI  states that  these applications  have been 
approved  by  the  Commission,  and  that  BLCI  is  now  in 
``complete compliance.''  BLCI claims  that it  ``spent more 
than $3,000 in attorney and  engineering fees to correct the 
violation  and  bring  our station  into  FCC  compliance.'' 
BLCI's remedial repair actions subsequent to notification of 
the violation  do not  warrant cancellation or  reduction of 
the  proposed  forfeiture.9   It is  well  established  that 
``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

     10.   BLCI submits federal income tax returns for years 
2000,  2001, and  2002 to  demonstrate that  payment of  the 
monetary forfeiture will constitute  a ``financial burden on 
the station's  operation''.11    In  further support  of its 
inability  to pay  showing, BLCI  also states  that it  is a 
``non commercial educational station  with a good portion of 
our revenue coming from  individual donations,'' lists other 
important financial obligations that  it faces and discusses 
why  it needs  to set  aside a  cash reserve.   However, the 
Commission  has determined  that, in  general, a  licensee's 
gross revenues are the best  indicator of its ability to pay 
a   forfeiture.12   After   reviewing  the   financial  data 
submitted, we find insufficient  evidence in BLCI's response 
to  support cancellation  of the  forfeiture or  a reduction 
based upon inability to pay.

     11.  Finally,   in   support   of   its   request   for 
cancellation or reduction, BLCI states that it has a history 
of full  compliance with FCC regulations.   We have reviewed 
Commission records and concur.

     12.  Based  on  the  findings  of the  NAL  and  BLCI's 
response  thereto, we  conclude  that  BLCI's violations  of 
Section 74.532(e) of the  Rules were willful and repeated.13  
Considering the entire record  and the factors listed above, 
we  find  that  reduction  of  the  proposed  forfeiture  is 
warranted because of the compliance  record of BLCI with the 
Commission's  Rules. Accordingly,  the forfeiture  amount is 
reduced  from  four  thousand   dollars  ($4,000)  to  three 
thousand two hundred dollars ($3,200).

                    IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     13.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  THAT,  pursuant  to 
Section 503(b) of  the Act14, and sections  0.111, 0.311 and 
1.80(f)(4) of  the Commission's Rules15,  Broadcast Learning 
Center's Inc.  IS LIABLE  FOR A  MONETARY FORFEITURE  in the 
amount of  three thousand, two hundred  dollars ($3,200) for 
its willful  and repeated violation of  Section 74.532(c) of 
the Rules. 

     14.   Payment  of the forfeiture  shall be made  in the 
manner  provided for  in  Section 1.80  of the  Commission's 
Rules16 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.17  Payment  may be 
made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt 
Management Center at (202) 418-1995 or 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  the NAL/Acct. No. 200332400004, and 
FRN:  0007-83-6190  referenced  above.   Requests  for  full 
payment under an installment plan  should be sent to: Chief, 
Credit and  Debt Management  Center, 445 12th  Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20554.18

 
 
     15.    IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED that  a  copy  of  this 
Forfeiture  Order shall  be sent  by Certified  Mail, Return 
Receipt  Requested,  and  First   Class  Mail  to  Broadcast 
Learning  Center,  Inc.,  1445  Skippack  Pike,  Blue  Bell, 
Pennsylvania 19422  and to  its counsel, Edward  W. Hummers, 
Jr., Holland  & Knight LLP, 2099  Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., 
Suite 100, Washington, D.C.  20006-6801.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


                         
                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

     1   47 C.F.R.  74.532(c).

     2  Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 
NAL/Acct. No. 200332400004 (Enf. Bur., Philadelphia Office, 
released January 6, 2003).

     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 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).

     8 See In re AGM-Nevada, LLC, 18 FCC Rcd 1476 (Enf. Bur. 
     2003).  

     9 See Radio Station KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 258, 259 
(1973).

10              Seawest Yacht Brokers, 9 FCC Rcd 6099, 6099 
(1994). 

     11 See PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 
2088 (1992) (forfeiture not deemed excessive where it 
represented approximately 2.02 percent of the violator's 
gross revenues); Hoosier Broadcasting Corporation, 15 FCC 
Rcd 8640, 8641 (Enf. Bur. 2002) (forfeiture not deemed 
excessive where it represented approximately 7.6 percent of 
the violator's gross revenues); Afton Communications Corp., 
7 FCC Rcd 6741 (Com. Car. Bur. 1992) (forfeiture not deemed 
excessive where it represented approximately 3.9 percent of 
the violator's gross revenues).

     12  See PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc. at 2088, 
2089. 

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

     14 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

     15 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

     16 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

     17 47 U.S.C.  504(a).

     18 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.