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-02-IH-0819      
     AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION     )   NAL/Acct. No. 200432080203  
     Licensee of Station KBMP(FM),   )   FRN 0005025911              
     Enterprise, Kansas              )   Facility ID No. 91037       

                            ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

   Adopted: June 22, 2006 Released: June 23, 2006

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:


   1. In this Order on Reconsideration, we grant in part and deny in part a
   Petition filed by American Family Association ("AFA"), the licensee of
   non-commercial educational radio Station KBMP(FM), Enterprise, Kansas,
   seeking reconsideration of our Forfeiture Order assessing a monetary
   forfeiture to AFA in the amount of $10,000. As discussed below, although
   we find that the statute of limitations bars us from assessing a
   forfeiture for AFA's admitted violation of our main studio rule, we uphold
   the forfeiture for AFA's failure to respond fully to an Enforcement Bureau
   letter of inquiry. We therefore reduce the forfeiture amount to $3,000 and
   admonish AFA for its main studio violation.


   2. The Enforcement Bureau released a Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture ("NAL") to AFA on July 28, 2004. As discussed more fully in the
   NAL, AFA placed Station KBMP(FM) into operation on March 6, 2002, with a
   main studio colocated with that of its commonly owned Station KCFN(FM),
   Wichita, Kansas, prior to Media Bureau action on a main studio rule waiver
   request to allow such colocation. AFA subsequently requested Media Bureau
   action on the waiver request "before we are hit with forfeitures" due to
   the lack of a local main studio for Station KBMP(FM).

   3. By letter dated October 31, 2002, the Audio Division of the Media
   Bureau granted AFA's waiver request, without prejudice to whatever
   enforcement action might be taken with respect to AFA's admitted violation
   of the Commission's main studio rule. The Media Bureau concurrently
   granted AFA's application for license for Station KBMP(FM). The Media
   Bureau then referred the matter to the Enforcement Bureau for possible
   enforcement action.

   4. On November 13, 2003, the Investigations and Hearings Division of the
   Commission's Enforcement Bureau sent a letter of inquiry to AFA, notifying
   AFA that the Bureau "is investigating allegations that [AFA] . . .
   violated the Commission's broadcast main studio rule" and directing it to
   provide nine categories of information and copies of all documents
   relevant to AFA's responses. AFA responded with a letter dated November
   21, 2003, that only addressed two categories of information and provided
   only one responsive document.

   5. The NAL proposed a forfeiture in the base amount of $7,000 for AFA's
   apparent violation of section 73.1125. With respect to the Bureau's LOI to
   AFA, the Bureau found that AFA had failed to provide seven out of nine
   categories of information identified by the Bureau and had not offered any
   explanation for its incomplete response. The Bureau accordingly proposed a
   forfeiture in the amount of $3,000 for this violation, reduced from the
   base amount of $4,000 because AFA had provided a partial response. After
   reviewing AFA's response to the NAL, the Bureau issued the Forfeiture
   Order, assessing a forfeiture for the full $10,000 amount specified in the


    A.  Section 503(b)(6) Precludes A Forfeiture For The Main Studio

   6. AFA argues that section 503(b)(6) of the Communications Act, as amended
   (the "Act"), bars the Commission from assessing a forfeiture against a
   broadcast station licensee if the violation charged occurred more than one
   year prior to the date of issuance of the required notice or notice of
   apparent liability. AFA claims that its main studio violation at Station
   KBMP(FM) ended on October 31, 2002, whereas the NAL was not issued until
   July 28, 2004.

   7. Section 503(b)(6)(A), which applies to broadcast licensees, provides
   that no forfeiture may be imposed "if the violation charged occurred - (i)
   more than 1 year prior to the date of issuance of the required notice or
   notice of apparent liability; or (ii) prior to the date of commencement of
   the current term of [the station's] license, whichever is earlier." In
   this case, AFA's license term began on October 31, 2002, the same date on
   which the main studio violation ended due to the Media Bureau's grant of
   AFA's main studio waiver request. Accordingly, at the time of the
   violation, AFA held no license for Station KBMP(FM). Because AFA was a
   permittee, rather than a licensee, section 503(b)(6)(A)(ii) does not apply
   and the applicable statute of limitations was one year, pursuant to
   section 503(b)(6)(B). Although the grant of the station's license was
   intended to be "without prejudice" to any subsequent enforcement action
   "in light of AFA's apparent violation of the Commission's main studio
   requirements," such action did not extend the applicable statute of
   limitations. Accordingly, because section 503(b)(6)(B) applies, and that
   provision would permit the NAL to have been issued only within one year of
   the end of the main studio violation on October 31, 2002, the NAL in this
   case was untimely. Accordingly, we grant reconsideration of the imposition
   of a $7,000 forfeiture for AFA's admitted main studio violation, and
   hereby admonish AFA for that violation.

   B. AFA Willfully Failed To Respond In Full To A  Bureau Order.

   8. AFA has admitted its "failure to provide a satisfactory response" to
   the Bureau's LOI. However, it claims that its Response to the LOI was made
   in good faith, based on its "understanding [that] the Enforcement Bureau
   was only opening an investigation into this matter over a year after the
   violation had ceased because it was somehow unaware that the main studio
   waiver had been granted." This "understanding" was merely an assumption by
   AFA that it did not verify.

   9. As noted supra, the Media Bureau explicitly stated when it granted the
   main studio waiver to AFA that its action was without prejudice to further
   action by the Commission "in light of AFA's apparent violation of the
   Commission's main studio requirements." Moreover, the first sentence of
   the Enforcement Bureau LOI stated that the Bureau "is investigating
   allegations that [AFA] . . . violated the Commission's broadcast main
   studio rule." Both of these documents placed AFA on clear and unambiguous
   notice that, notwithstanding the Media Bureau's grant of its waiver
   request, its failure to maintain a main studio for Station KBMP(FM) was
   subject to investigation and possible enforcement action. In response, AFA
   unilaterally ignored the Enforcement Bureau's LOI in seven of the nine
   categories of information sought, with no explanation for not responding
   to the other categories. It apparently did so because it assumed that our
   enforcement options for AFA's admitted violations were limited to monetary
   forfeiture and that option was foreclosed by the statute. This assumption,
   however, is neither accurate nor appropriate for a licensee faced with a
   Commission inquiry. We therefore find no basis for reducing or eliminating
   the $3,000 forfeiture imposed on AFA in the Forfeiture Order for failing
   to comply with a Bureau order.


   10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 405(a) of the
   Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and section
   1.106(j) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.106(j), the "Petition
   for Reconsideration of Forfeiture Order" filed by American Family

   maintain a main studio for Station KBMP(FM), Enterprise, Kansas, from
   March 6, 2002 to October 31, 2002, in willful violation of section 73.1125
   of the Commission's rules.


   Kris Anne Monteith

   Chief, Enforcement Bureau

   "Petition for Reconsideration of Forfeiture Order" filed by American
   Family Association on November 26, 2004 ("Petition").

   American Family Association, Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22025 (EB 2004)
   ("Forfeiture Order").

   The main studio rule is set forth in section 73.1125 of the Commission's
   rules (47 C.F.R. S 73.1125).

   American Family Association, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
   19 FCC Rcd 14072 (EB 2004).

   Letter from Patrick J. Vaughn, General Counsel, AFA, to Marlene H. Dortch,
   Secretary of the Commission, dated September 5, 2002.

   Letter from Peter H. Doyle, Chief, Audio Division of Commission's Media
   Bureau, to Patrick J. Vaughn, dated October 31, 2002 ("Media Bureau Waiver

   See File No. BLED-20020306ABB.

   Letter from William D. Freedman, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Patrick J. Vaughn, dated November 13,
   2003 ("LOI").

   Letter from Patrick J. Vaughn to David Brown, dated November 21, 2003
   ("Response"). See NAL, 19 FCC Rcd at 14074 P 6.

   NAL, 19 FCC Rcd at 14077 P 15.

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(6).

   Petition at 5.

   See Manahawkin Communications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC
   Rcd 342, 356 P 22 (2001).

   Media Bureau Waiver Grant at 3.

   Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 22028 P 9.

   Petition at 6. It is not pertinent whether a licensee's acts or omissions
   were specifically intended to violate the applicable law or rule. The term
   "willful," as used in section 503(b) of the Act, has been interpreted to
   mean simply that the acts or omissions were committed knowingly. See
   Liability of Cate Communications Corp., 60 RR 2d 1386 (1986). In this
   case, AFA does not argue that its Response, which was verified by Mr.
   Vaughn, its General Counsel, was submitted without its knowledge.

   As we explained in the Forfeiture Order, AFA could have alleviated its
   alleged confusion by simply requesting clarification from the Enforcement
   Bureau staff person identified as the contact person in the LOI prior to
   the date AFA's Response was due. Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 22028, n.
   25. AFA did not do so. The Petition notes that AFA's Response did include
   a sentence stating, "Please contact me if you have further questions
   regarding AFA's compliance with 47 C.F.R. Section 73.1125 at KBMP-FM,
   Enterprise, Kansas." However, that is no substitute for providing, for
   each category of information requested, either the information requested
   or an explanation as to why the information was not available. Licensees
   are expected to respond fully to requests for information from the
   Commission. See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC
   Rcd 7589, 7591 P 4 (2002) (forfeiture paid). Allowing licensees to provide
   incomplete responses, requiring the Bureau to do follow-up inquiries,
   would be a substantial and wholly unnecessary drain on the Bureau's

   Media Bureau Waiver Grant at 3 (emphasis added).

   LOI at 1.

   The Commission can admonish a licensee regardless of the statute of
   limitations on forfeiture and, were the transgression serious enough,
   consider the violation in a licensing context (renewal or revocation). See
   47 U.S.C. SS 309(k), 312(a).

   Federal Communications Commission DA-06-1307


   Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1307