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                  )
                                 )
Halifax Christian Community       )       File Number EB-04-TP-054
Church, Inc. Licensee of WFBO-    )     NAL/Acct. No. 200532700003
LP                                )                FRN: 0006871339
Flagler Beach, Florida            )
                                 )


                      FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted:             February             7,            2005                                                                            
Released:  February 9, 2005

By the Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars 
($10,000) to Halifax Christian Community Church, Inc., 
(``Halifax'') licensee of low power FM (``LPFM'') radio 
station WFBO-LP, Flagler Beach, Florida, for willful and 
repeated violation of Sections 11.35, 73.840, 73.845, and 
73.1660(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'').1  The 
noted violations involve Halifax's failure to install and 
maintain operational Emergency Alert System (``EAS'') 
equipment and its overpower operation with a non-certified 
transmitter from an unauthorized location.

II.   BACKGROUND 

     2.   In response to a complaint, agents of the 
Enforcement Bureau's Tampa Office (``Tampa Office'') 
investigated station WFBO-LP in Flagler Beach, Florida.  On 
February 20, 2004, before inspecting the main studio, the 
agents observed the station's transmitter operating at 450 
watts, a level significantly above the station's authorized 
power of 27 watts.  The transmitter consisted of a non-
certified exciter attached to a non-certified 500-watt 
amplifier and was located approximately 1 miles from its 
licensed geographic coordinates.  During the inspection of 
the main studio, the agents observed that the station had 
EAS equipment but had not installed any of it.  The station 
owner was unable to product any EAS logs and stated that the 
station had never installed any EAS equipment and that he 
planned to install the equipment that weekend.  The station 
owner also acknowledged that the transmitter was not located 
at its licensed coordinates, had always been located in its 
current location, and had been operating overpower to 
increase its coverage.  The agents returned to the 
transmitter site with the station owner, who lowered the 
transmitter's power level before the agents reached the 
power meter.  During this inspection, the agents observed 
the transmitter operating at 320 watts.       

     3.   On December 6, 2004, the Tampa Office issued a 
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to Halifax in 
the amount of twenty-one thousand dollars ($21,000) for the 
apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.35, 
73.840, 73.845, and 73.1660(a)(2) of the Rules.2  Halifax 
filed a response to the NAL requesting partial cancellation 
or reduction of the proposed forfeiture on January 7, 2005.  

III.        DISCUSSION

     4.   The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was 
assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,3 
Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``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 Halifax'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

     5.   Section 11.35(a) of the Rules states that 
broadcast stations are responsible for ensuring that 
required EAS equipment is installed so that the monitoring 
and transmitting functions are available during the times 
the station is in operation.6  If the EAS encoder or decoder 
becomes defective, a licensee may operate without the 
defective EAS equipment for 60 days, pending the equipment's 
repair.7  A licensee must log the date and time the 
equipment was removed and restored to service.8  If the 
repair or replacement of defective EAS equipment cannot be 
completed within 60 days, the licensee must submit an 
informal request to the District Director of the FCC field 
office serving the area for additional time to repair the 
defective equipment.9  In addition, Section 73.3549 of the 
Rules allows licensees to request from the Audio Division of 
the Media Bureau an extension of authority to operate 
without the required EAS equipment, beyond the time granted 
by the District Director.10  

     6.   In its response to the NAL, Halifax claims that it 
installed its EAS equipment on October 21, 2003, but that 
its EAS decoder never communicated properly with the 
printer.  Because manually logging messages became too 
burdensome, Halifax asserts it removed its EAS decoder for 
repair on an unspecified date.  It claims to have received 
the repaired equipment on February 16, 2004.  Because it 
claims to have requested an extension of authority to 
operate without an EAS decoder from the Media Bureau in a 
letter dated December 22, 2003, Halifax asserts it was in 
compliance with the Rules even though its EAS unit was not 
installed or operational during the agents' inspection and 
requests cancellation of the proposed EAS forfeiture.  

     7.   Although Halifax asserts it had previously 
installed operational EAS equipment at the station, Halifax 
failed to produce any EAS logs, which would document when 
the equipment was installed, when tests were conducted, when 
the EAS equipment was removed for repair, and when the 
equipment was returned after repair, or other evidence to 
corroborate its response to the NAL.  Given that Halifax 
failed to provide corroboration of its response to the NAL 
and failed to disclose to the agents the assertions 
contained in its NAL on February 20, 2004, we must rely on 
the evidence that the agents obtained during its inspection.  
On February 20, 2004, although EAS equipment was present at 
the station, none of it was installed or operational.  On 
that day, there was no evidence at the station that any EAS 
equipment had ever been installed.  Finally, in response to 
questions regarding its EAS equipment, the station owner 
contemporaneously stated that he had not installed EAS 
equipment before and planned on installing the equipment 
that weekend.  Thus, based on the evidence, we find that 
Halifax willfully11 and repeatedly12 violated Section 11.35 
by failing to install and maintain operational EAS 
equipment.  We also note that Halifax's assertion that it 
was in compliance with the Rules, because it submitted a 
request for an extension of authority to operate without an 
EAS decoder is incorrect.  Even if Halifax filed the 
extension request, it did not submit an initial request with 
the District Director of the Tampa Office, as required by 
Section 11.35(c), and did not receive approval from any 
Commission representative to operate without EAS equipment 
for more than 60 days.13   

     8.   Section 73.840 of the Rules requires the station 
to maintain the transmitter power output (``TPO'') as near 
as practicable to its authorized value, but not less than 
90% of the minimum TPO, nor greater than 105% of the maximum 
authorized TPO. 14  Halifax does not deny that it operated 
Station WFBO-LP's transmitter at over 1000% of its 
authorized power on more than one day.  Thus, based on the 
evidence, we find that Halifax willfully and repeatedly 
violated Section 73.840 of the Rules by operating its 
station at significantly greater power than its 
authorization allows.  We are particularly troubled that 
Halifax operated its station at such a high level for a 
prolonged period of time to increase its coverage and 
attempted to cover up the extent of its violation during the 
inspection.  

     9.   Section 73.845 of the Rules requires each LPFM 
station to maintain and operate its station in accordance 
with the terms of its station authorization.15  Station 
WFBO-LP's station authorization specified its authorized 
transmitter location by geographic coordinates.  Halifax 
does not deny that its transmitter was located approximately 
1-1/2 miles away from its authorized location on more than 
one day.  Thus, based on the evidence, we find that Halifax 
willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.845 of the 
Rules by operating its station at an unauthorized location.

     10.   Section 73.1660(a)(2) of the Rules requires every 
LPFM station to use a certified transmitter.16  In its 
response to the NAL, Halifax claims that its amplifier was 
certified, because it had an FCC Identifier.17  Halifax 
admits, however, that, prior to March 17, 2004, it used a 
non-certified LPFM exciter in violation of the Rules.  
Halifax claims it was forced to purchase a non-certified 
transmitter to comply with the deadline in its construction 
permit, as no certified transmitters were available on the 
market at that time, and could not afford to purchase an 
additional certified transmitter when they became 
commercially available.  Halifax, therefore, asks not to be 
held accountable for this violation, as it obtained a 
certified transmitter on March 17, 2004.  We disagree.  Even 
if there were no certified LPFM transmitters available for 
sale before its construction permit expired, Halifax could 
have requested from the Commission a waiver of Section 
73.1660(a)(2) of the Rules or an extension of its 
construction permit.  Halifax, however, did not contact the 
Commission to request a waiver or extension and instead 
chose to ignore Section 73.1660 altogether.  Moreover, 
Halifax's remedial actions to replace its transmitter after 
the agents' inspection are expected and do not warrant a 
cancellation or reduction in the forfeiture amount.18  
Therefore, based on the evidence, we find that Halifax 
willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1660(a)(2) of 
the Rules by operating its station with a non-certified 
transmitter.

     11.  Halifax asserts that the forfeiture should be 
reduced because there have been no prior offenses committed 
by it and because its President has a ``long-time'' record 
of compliance with the Rules.  Halifax does appear to have a 
past, albeit short, history of compliance.  However, after 
considering Halifax's blatant disregard for the Commission's 
power limits, we conclude that a reduction of the forfeiture 
amount based on a history of compliance with the Rules is 
inappropriate.19  

     12.  Halifax also requests a reduction of the 
forfeiture based on its inability to pay.  We have reviewed 
the financial information provided by Halifax and find that 
a reduction of the forfeiture to $10,000 on the basis of 
inability to pay is appropriate.20  In so reducing the 
proposed forfeiture, however, we caution Halifax that 
further violations may result in additional enforcement 
measures, including revocation of its license.

     13.  We have examined Halifax'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 Halifax willfully and repeatedly 
violated Sections 11.35, 73.840, 73.845, and 73.1660(a)(2) 
of the Rules. Although cancellation of the proposed monetary 
forfeiture is not warranted, reduction of the forfeiture 
amount to $10,000 is appropriate based on Halifax's 
demonstrated inability to pay.

IV.   ORDERING CLAUSES

     14.  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,21 Halifax Christian Community Church, 
Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of 
ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for willfully and repeatedly 
violating Sections 11.35, 73.840, 73.845, and 73.1660(a)(2) 
of the Rules by failing to install and maintain operational 
Emergency Alert System equipment and operating overpower 
with a non-certified transmitter from an unauthorized 
location. 

     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.22  Payment by check or money 
order may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, 
Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 
73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.  Payment by overnight 
mail may be sent to Bank One/LB 73482, 525 West Monroe, 8th 
Floor Mailroom, Chicago, IL 60661.  Payment by wire transfer 
may be made to ABA Number 071000013, receiving bank Bank 
One, and account number 1165259.  The payment should note 
NAL/Acct. No. 200532700003, and FRN 0006871339.  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. 20554.23 

     16.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order 
shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return 
Receipt Requested to Ronald L. Kocher, President, 45 Pine 
Hill Lane, Palm Coast, Florida 32164.  



                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 
                              COMMISSION



                              George R. Dillon
                              Assistant Chief, Enforcement 
                         Bureau
               
_________________________

147 C.F.R.  11.35(a), 73.840, 73.845, 73.1660(a)(2).

2Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 
200532700003 (Enf.  Bur., Tampa  Office, December  6, 2004) 
(``NAL'').

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

447 C.F.R.  1.80.

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

647 C.F.R.  11.35(a).

747 C.F.R.  11.35(b).

8Id. 

947 C.F.R.  11.35(c).

1047 C.F.R.  73.3549. 

11Section  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).   

12As  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).

13Halifax  did  not  provide  any evidence  of  mailing  or 
receipt of the extension request, such as a confirmation or 
tracking  number  or  signed  return  receipt.   The  Audio 
Division of  the Media  Bureau has  no record  of Halifax's 
extension request. 

1447 C.F.R.  73.840.

1547 C.F.R.  73.845.

16 47 C.F.R.  73.1660(a)(2)

17Halifax's LPFM transmitter consisted of an exciter and an 
amplifier.   Although  Halifax  correctly  notes  that  its 
amplifier  did have  an  FCC Identifier,  according to  the 
Commission's   equipment    authorization   database,   the 
manufacturer  requested  authorization  for  the  amplifier 
under   the  notification   process.   Thus,   contrary  to 
Halifax's assertions,  the amplifier was not  certified, as 
required by the LPFM Rules.  See 47 C.F.R.  73.1660. 

18See  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).  

19See  All  American  Telephone,  Inc., 16  FCC  Rcd  16601 
(2001).

20The  Commission  has  determined   that,  in  general,  a 
licensee's  gross revenues  are the  best indicator  of its 
ability  to  pay  a   forfeiture.   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);  Local  Long 
Distance,  Inc., 16  FCC Rcd  24385 (2000)  (forfeiture not 
deemed  excessive where  it  represented approximately  7.9 
percent   of  the   violator's  gross   revenues);  Hoosier 
Broadcasting   Corporation,   15   FCC  Rcd   8640   (2002) 
(forfeiture  not  deemed  excessive  where  it  represented 
approximately   7.6  percent   of   the  violator's   gross 
revenues).  In this case, the reduced forfeiture represents 
a smaller  percentage than those  issued in the  Local Long 
Distance, Inc. and Hoosier Broadcasting Corp., cases, and a 
higher percentage compared to  the forfeiture issued in PJB 
Communications of Virginia, Inc.

2147 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

2247 U.S.C.  504(a).

23See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.