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.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
Greenwood Acres Baptist Church ) File No. EB-02-OR-302
Licensee of AM Broadcast Station KASO ) NAL/Acct No. 200332620004
) FRN 0007-7594-00
in Minden, Louisiana
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: January 29, 2007 Released: January 31, 2007
By the Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
1. By this Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order"), we deny a Petition
for Reconsideration, filed on July 1, 2004, by Greenwood Acres Baptist
Church ("Greenwood"), licensee of AM broadcast station KASO, Minden,
Louisiana. Greenwood seeks reconsideration of a Forfeiture Order in
which Greenwood was assessed the amount of thirteen thousand six
hundred dollars ($13,600) for willful violation of Sections 73.49 and
73.3526(a)(2) of the Commission's ("Rules"). The noted violations
involve Greenwood's failure to maintain an effective locked fence
enclosing its antenna structure and failure to maintain all required
material in its public inspection file. For the reasons discussed
below, we affirm the monetary forfeiture amount of $13,600.
2. On September 12, 2002, an agent ("field agent") from the Commission's
New Orleans, Louisiana Field Office ("New Orleans Office") inspected
AM broadcast station KASO in Minden, Louisiana, and observed that the
fence enclosing KASO's tower was unlocked and had a large opening in
it. The field agent also noted that most of the required materials
were missing from the station's public inspection file. On December 5,
2002, the New Orleans Office issued an NAL, proposing a forfeiture in
the amount of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) for the fence and
public inspection file violations. In its Response, Greenwood denied
the fence violation, arguing that it remains locked at all times
except for maintenance purposes. Greenwood conceded to an incomplete
public inspection file, but argued that the violation warranted merely
an admonishment. Greenwood also sought a substantial reduction or
cancellation of the forfeiture based on an inability to pay.
3. On June 2, 2004, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") released a
Forfeiture Order. The Bureau upheld the field agent's determination
that a broken hasp, padlock and chain did not secure the gate to the
fence to prohibit unauthorized access and noted that a hole in the
fence also rendered the enclosure ineffective. The Bureau also upheld
the public inspection file violation, refuting Greenwood's contention
that the subject violation is minor. The Bureau pointed out that
Greenwood's public inspection files contained deficits in five
categories of mandatory documents. The Bureau declined to reduce the
forfeiture assessment for Greenwood's correction of the violations,
because remedial actions are expected of licensees, and do not
constitute mitigating factors that warrant reduction of a forfeiture.
Further, the Bureau rejected Greenwood's claim of inability to pay the
forfeiture, because Greenwood did not provide sufficient information
with which to evaluate its financial condition. Finally, the Bureau
reduced the proposed forfeiture of $17,000 to $13,600 for Greenwood's
history of overall compliance.
4. On July 1, 2004, Greenwood filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the
Forfeiture Order asking the Bureau to dismiss or withdraw the
Forfeiture Order. Greenwood made substantially the same arguments that
it had in its Response to the NAL. Greenwood asked that no forfeiture
should be imposed or that if a forfeiture is imposed, it should be
reduced from $13,600 to an amount of less than five hundred dollars
A. Fence Violation
5. Section 73.49 of the Rules provides that antenna structures that have
radio frequency potential (voltage) at their base must be enclosed
within an effective locked fence. The Commission has imposed
forfeitures for violations of this rule in numerous cases, primarily
because of the safety concerns to the public that unsecured fences
6. We reaffirm the determination that the field agent's findings
establish that Greenwood violated Section 73.49 of the Rules. We find
that Greenwood's arguments are without merit and, accordingly, we
reject them for the reasons listed below.
7. First, Greenwood disputes the credibility of the field agent's finding
that the antenna was not enclosed with an effective locked fence.
Greenwood opines that "this case was instigated by the false
representations of a disgruntled former employee, . . . [and] is the
bad-faith product of a biased inspection." Greenwood argues that in
order for an inspection to be valid, the licensee or its
representative must accompany a field agent at the time of the
8. Greenwood's argument is without merit. Section 1 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") states that the Commission "shall
execute and enforce the provisions of this Act" and does not require
supervision of Commission enforcement activities by the Commission's
regulatees. Consistent with the statutory mandate, Section 73.1225 of
the Rules does not require that a Commission inspection be witnessed
by the subject of the inspection. Moreover, no advance notice or
appointment is necessary for the Commission to conduct an inspection.
Instead, the rule requires that "the licensee of a broadcast station
[shall] make the station available for inspection by representatives
of the FCC during the station's business hours, or at any time it is
in operation." In this case, the field agent conducted properly his
inspection during business hours. Greenwood does not claim otherwise.
9. Second, Greenwood argues that except for maintenance, the fence "was
never left unlocked. . . . There is, and continues to be, a chain
wrapped tightly around the gate with a padlock. . . . [We] flatly
den[y] the existence of any hole in the fence." There is no question
that the inspector found the gate unsecured. His report included clear
color photographs of the unsecured gate and the large hole in the
fence. There was a broken hasp that did not secure the gate to the
fence. A padlock dangled from the end of a chain that hung uselessly
down the side of the fence instead of securing the fence to prohibit
unauthorized access. In addition, there was a hole in the fence that
was large enough for a small person to easily step through, rendering
the enclosure doubly ineffective. These facts were observed and
photographed by the field agent, consistent with established
procedure, and noted by the Bureau in the Forfeiture Order. We reject
Greenwood's unsupported claims that it was not in violation.
10. Third, Greenwood asserts that the assessed $7,000 forfeiture amount
"equates this situation with a circumstance in which there is no fence
at all. . . ." Neither the tower fencing rule set forth in Section
73.49 of the Rules, nor the forfeiture amount set forth in Section
1.80(b)(4) of the Rules distinguishes between an antenna structure
that is enclosed within an ineffective locked fence, and one that has
no fence at all. In both cases the base forfeiture amount of $7,000 is
not the maximum amount that may be assessed, but merely the starting
point from which the forfeiture amount is derived. In assessing
forfeiture amounts, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section
1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, require 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. The Commission has explained that forfeiture amounts
reflect "the degree of harm or potential for harm that may arise from
the violation." Failure to maintain an effective locked fence in
accordance with Section 73.49 of the Rules constitutes a serious
public safety issue because it exposes the public to hazardous
electrical charge. In view of the danger to the public represented by
the unsecured fence and apparent prolonged lack of adequate inspection
of the fence by the licensee, we find no grounds to reduce the
forfeiture amount based on the hazard to the public that Greenwood's
unsecured fence represented.
A. Public Inspection File
11. Section 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules requires broadcast licensees to
maintain a public inspection file containing specified information
related to station operations. The public inspection file rules
require broadcast stations to maintain this information for members of
the community of license so that its residents may monitor a station's
performance. These rules are essential to ensure that a station
remains responsive to the programming needs of its community.
Accordingly, the base forfeiture amount for violation of this rule is
at the highest dollar level that the Commission imposes for a single
violation. On the date of inspection, Greenwood's public inspection
file lacked the following information: (1) Greenwood's most recent
application to the Commission; (2) a copy of the service contour map;
(3) a copy of the current ownership report; (4) requests from
candidates for political office, and (5) the issues/programs lists.
12. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Greenwood revisits its previous
argument that Tabback and Sarkes Tarzian - which resulted in
admonishments and not monetary forfeitures - are "virtually identical"
to the facts in Greenwood.
13. This argument is without merit. The Forfeiture Order included an
extensive discussion that distinguished Tabback and Sarkes Tarzian
from the instant proceeding. We reaffirm the distinction between the
referenced cases and the instant case, and the appropriate sanction,
14. Tabback is a case that arose not from a Commission station inspection,
but from an application for renewal of Station KAZM(AM) ("KAZM"),
Sedona, Arizona. The claims made regarding rule violations were made
not by a field agent conducting an inspection, but by a party opposing
the station's renewal. A rule violation discovered by a field agent
is, when the inspection is conducted pursuant to correct procedures,
firm evidence of a rule violation. The respondent may provide further
evidence of the circumstances surrounding its violation, but the facts
observed during the field agent's inspection are not in doubt. On the
other hand, a rule violation alleged by a complainant in a renewal
proceeding is treated as an allegation rather than as fact. The
instant case is thus distinguishable from Tabback by the nature of the
case, because we have a field agent inspection rather than an
allegation by a complainant.
15. Greenwood further argues that Tabback applies because Mr. Tabback,
president and general manager of the subject radio station, "admitted
that issues and programs lists, letters from the public, and ownership
reports were missing," yet the Media Bureau (formerly the Mass Media
Bureau) found only one violation of the rules. To the contrary, Mr.
Tabback disputed each allegation with an affidavit. The Media Bureau
accepted Mr. Tabback's affidavit as evidence. Mr. Tabback stated,
however, that he believed that he was not required to keep copies of
annual ownership reports in the public inspection file. The Media
Bureau determined this omission was more significant. Accordingly,
while three categories of documents were alleged by commenters to be
missing, and were discussed in the Letter Ruling, based upon Mr.
Tabback's sworn statement and representations, the Media Bureau
admonished the licensee for only one public inspection file violation:
failing to place a copy of an annual ownership report in the public
inspection file. The Commission upheld this decision.
16. Sarkes Tarzian concerned multiple renewal applications for station
licenses in Indianapolis, Indiana. In a petition to deny the renewal
applications, the complainant alleged, among other things, that two
annual employment reports were missing from the licensee's public
inspection file. The Commission determined that this "isolated and
inadvertent rule violation" raised no question of the fitness of the
applicants for renewal, and admonished the licensees to henceforth
"scrupulously" observe the public inspection file rule. Unlike the
instant case involving five public inspection file violations, Sarkes
Tarzian involved only one violation.
17. Greenwood further argues that the Bureau's public inspection file
determinations were discriminatory, pointing out that "white males in
[an]affluent community" were assessed a lower forfeiture than "a
Church whose clergy, parishioners and staff are largely minorities, in
a non-affluent community." Greenwood also believes that the forfeiture
of $10,000 for lack of public inspection file information is
"stunningly harsh" because "$10,000 is the maximum fine."
18. These arguments are without merit. We have discussed the relevant
factors that led to the holdings in the instant proceeding as well as
in Tabback and Sarkes Tarzian, and none of them were discriminatory.
Greenwood provides no evidence for its baseless allegation of
discrimination, nor do we find any. Where, as here, a field agent
discovers rule violations, the Commission will follow the codified
standards for assessing a forfeiture.
19. The Bureau has given a downward adjustment in assessed forfeitures in
some cases where there were a limited number or quantity of missing
public inspection files. In the instant proceeding, however, we find
that a lack of all issues/programs lists, the service contour map, a
copy of the most recent application Greenwood filed with the
Commission, a current ownership report and political file, represents
such an extensive failure to provide essential information to the
public that no downward adjustment is appropriate.
A. Inability to Pay
20. In assessing forfeiture amounts, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and
Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules require that the Commission take into
account, among other things, the party's ability to pay a forfeiture.
A successful claim to reduce a forfeiture for inability to pay
requires specific supporting financial documentation. Thus, the
Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in
response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits
(1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2)
financial statements prepared according to generally accepted
accounting practices ("GAAP"); or (3) some other reliable and
objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's
current financial status.
21. Greenwood proffers an unattested profit and loss statement covering
the nine-month period from January 2002 to September 2002 as evidence
of an inability to pay the forfeiture amount. Greenwood argues that
this document represents "every financial statement that existed" and
is sufficient to successfully support its claim of an inability to pay
the forfeiture amount. The document - which covers only a fraction of
the station's financial activity since the station was acquired in
September of 2000 - shows a net loss for the referenced time period.
22. Greenwood's inability to pay claim is without merit. In the NAL, the
Forfeiture Order and now in the instant Order, we repeat: the
Commission requires licensees claiming an inability to pay a
forfeiture to provide tax returns or financial statements prepared in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, or other
reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the
licensee's current financial status. For Greenwood to successfully
pursue its claim of inability to pay, it must prove that it does not
have access to the resources necessary to pay the forfeiture. Since
Greenwood has not proven this, we are unable to determine that it
cannot pay the forfeiture amount and we will not reduce the forfeiture
on the basis of Greenwood's unsubstantiated claim of inability to pay.
23. Next, Greenwood argues that its income is derived "largely from
donations." To the extent that Greenwood argues that because it relies
on charitable contributions, it should not be subject to a monetary
forfeiture, we reject this argument. Treating Greenwood differently
from all other licensees would be inappropriate and not in keeping
with precedent. Any group - including a religious group - may buy and
operate a licensed radio or television station, and takes, along with
its franchise, enforceable public duties. Greenwood, by conducting its
ministry through use of a radio license, "has elected to occupy a
forum that is not only distinctly public in character, but one of a
limited number of such public forums," and "subjects itself to public
interest obligations." These public interest obligations include the
responsibility to comply with our rules and incurring the consequences
of not doing so.
24. With respect to inability to pay determinations, the Commission does
not distinguish among the sources of a licensee's revenues; it is well
established that we begin with consideration of the documented gross
revenues of the entity when determining whether the violator may be
granted a reduction in forfeiture for inability to pay. So long as the
gross revenues are adequately documented, the Commission does not
require identification of the sources of revenue. Thus, the sources of
Greenwood's revenue are immaterial to our consideration of any request
for reduction in the forfeiture we impose for Greenwood's violation of
25. We have examined Greenwood's Petition for Reconsideration of the
Forfeiture Order pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by
Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, and in conjunction with the
Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. As a result of our review,
we conclude that no further reduction in the forfeiture is warranted.
IV. ordering clauses
26. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the
Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Greenwood Acres
Baptist Church of the Enforcement Bureau's Forfeiture Order for the
NAL/Acct. referenced above IS DENIED.
27. IT IS ALSO ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act
and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Greenwood Acres Baptist Church IS
LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,600 for
willfully violating Sections 73.49 and 73.3526(a) of the Rules.
28. 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, money order 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 the 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.
29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Order shall be sent by
Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and by First Class Mail to
Greenwood Acres Baptist Church and to its counsel, Christopher D.
Imlay, Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper, P.C., 14356 Cape May Road,
Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
George R. Dillon
Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau
Greenwood Acres Baptist Church, Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 9838 (Enf.
Bur. 2004) ("Forfeiture Order").
47 C.F.R. SS 73.49 and 73.3526(a)(2).
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200332620004
(Enf. Bur. New Orleans Office, Dec. 5, 2002) ("NAL").
Greenwood Response to Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
("Response") (filed Jan. 9, 2003).
Id. at 3.
Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 9839.
Id. at 9839-40.
Id. at 9840.
Id. at 9840-41.
Id. at 9841.
Petition for Reconsideration at 9.
See, e.g., Buchanan Broadcasting Company, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 15 FCC Rcd 24363 (2000); see also M.B. Communications, Inc., 20 FCC
Rcd 9536 (Dir., NE Region Enf. Bur. 2005), aff'd M.B. Communications,
Inc., 21 FCC Rcd 9073 (Enf. Bur., 2006); and East Texas Broadcasting
Company, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22491 (Enf. Bur. 2004).
Petition for Reconsideration at 4, n.2.
Id. at 5, n.3.
47 U.S.C. S 151.
47 C.F.R. S 73.1225.
Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 519 (CIB 1996) (any
delay in an inspection can shelter a serious violation).
Petition for Reconsideration at 5.
Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 9839.
Id. at 9838-39.
See JMK Communications, Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 16111, 16113 (Enf.
Bur. 2004) (agent's observations and accompanying contemporaneous
photographs successfully rebut licensee claims and later-submitted
offerings disputing fence violation). Moreover, even if the gate were
unlocked for maintenance purposes, this would not be a defense to the
subject violation, and would not excuse the hole in the fence in any
event. MAPA Broadcasting, Forfeiture Order, 16 FCC Rcd 22403 (Enf. Bur.
2001) (gate open for maintenance at time of inspection is not a defense to
the violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules), recon. denied, 17 FCC Rcd
10519 (Enf. Bur. 2002).
Petition for Reconsideration at 6.
47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(4) ("Guidelines for Assessing Forfeitures, Section I
Base Amounts for Section 503 Forfeitures"). The Forfeiture Guidelines
established a $7,000 forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations.
47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(D).
The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80
of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order,
12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17098 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999)
("Forfeiture Policy Statement").
See, e.g., Pilgrim Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd
12251, 12252 (Enf. Bur. 2004).
Review of the Commission's Rules regarding the Main Studio and Local
Public Inspection files of Broadcast Television and Radio Stations, Report
and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15691, 15691 (1998).
Applications and related materials category, 47 C.F.R. S 73.3526(e)(2).
Contour maps category, 47 C.F.R. S 73.3526(e)(4).
Ownership and related materials category, 47 C.F.R. S 73.3526(e)(5).
Political File category, 47 C.F.R. S 73.3526(e)(6).
Radio issues/programs lists category, 47 C.F.R. S 73.3526(e)(12).
Response at 4 citing Tabback Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11899 (2000) ("Tabback"); Sarkes Tarzian, Inc.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 65 FCC 2d 127 (1977) ("Sarkes Tarzian");
Petition for Reconsideration at 6-7. Greenwood erroneously asserts that
both Tabback and the instant case concern multiple minor public inspection
Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 9839-40.
See Access.1 Communications Corp.-NY, Forfeiture Order, 18 FCC Rcd 22289,
22292 (Enf. Bur. 2003) (upholding the field agent's finding, despite the
owner's assertion that the tower complied with the Rules); William L.
Needham and Lucille Needham, Forfeiture Order, 18 FCC Rcd 5521 (Enf. Bur.
2003) (upholding the field agent's determination of a rule violation,
despite tower owner's assertion to the contrary), recon. granted in part,
19 FCC Rcd. 8184 (Enf. Bur. 2004).
Response at 7.
Letter from Linda Blair, Chief, Audio Services Division, Mass Media
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Tabback Broadcasting Company
at 6, n.7 (Mar. 10, 1999) ("Letter Ruling").
Letter Ruling at 6.
Tabback, 15 FCC Rcd at 11901.
Sarkes Tarzian, 65 FCC 2d at 132.
Petition for Reconsideration at 7. We note that $10,000 is not the
"maximum fine" but rather the base amount for the forfeiture that could be
assessed for each day the violation by a broadcast licensee continues.
Using the adjustment criteria, this amount could be increased to $32,500
for each day of a continuing violation, not to exceed a total of $325,000
for any single violation. See 47 C.F.R. SS 1.80(b)(1) and (b)(4).
Lebanon Educational Broadcasting Foundation, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
21 FCC Rcd 1442 (Enf. Bur. 2006) (licensee assessed a $4000 forfeiture for
three missing public file information categories: the station's contour
map, the Public and Broadcasting manual, and six quarters of
issues/programs lists); JMK Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 21 FCC Rcd 1427 (Enf. Bur. 2006) (licensee assessed a $1250
forfeiture for failure to include the most current ownership report and a
$4000 forfeiture for failure to include an adequately detailed
issues/programs log in its public information file); Snow Hill
Broadcasting, LLP, Forfeiture Order, 20 FCC Rcd. 14415 (Enf. Bur. 2005)
(licensee assessed a $4000 forfeiture for failure to retain in its public
inspection file a political file, "The Public and Broadcasting" manual, a
file of letters and email from the public, and a file with quarterly
issues/programs lists for the year 2003.)
Greenwood appears to acknowledge that its remedial efforts with respect to
the fencing violation and public inspection file violations should not
result in a downward adjustment in the forfeiture amount. It is well
settled that curative remedial efforts neither mitigate violations nor
serve to decrease forfeiture amounts because such efforts are expected of
licensees in order to comply with the rules. See AT&T Wireless Services,
Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21866, 21870 (2002) (remedial action to
correct tower painting violation was not a mitigating factor warranting
reduction of forfeiture); Seawest Yacht Brokers, Forfeiture Order, 9 FCC
Rcd 6099, 6099 (1994) (corrective action taken to comply with the rules is
expected, and does not mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations);
Station KGVL, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 42 FCC 2d 258, 259
(1973) (licensees not excused for past violations by reason of subsequent
corrective action); c.f., Radio One Licenses, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 18 FCC Rcd 15964, 15965 (2003), recon. denied, 18 FCC Rcd 25481
(2003) (reducing a forfeiture from $9,200 to $8,000 for emergency alert
system ("EAS") rule violations because the licensee had identified the
problems and had ordered replacement equipment prior to the New Orleans
Office's on-site inspection).
See PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7
FCC Rcd 2088, 2089 (1992) ("PJB Communications"); see also Forfeiture
Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17106-07.
Response at 5, Exhibit A.
Petition for Reconsideration at 8.
The argument may also be disingenuous. We note that Greenwood has failed
to provide any evidence of its revenues during the fourth quarter of any
year in which it has operated: the fourth quarter includes the Christmas
Holiday season and end-of-tax-year cycles, a traditionally significant
time period for tax-deductible donations to non-profit institutions.
NAL at 3 P 11.
Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 9840-41.
Advanced Telecom, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 23430 (Enf. Bur.
2000) citing Barry A. Stevenson, Order, 12 FCC Rcd 1976, 1977 (CIB 1997).
We note further that where a licensee's gross revenues are sufficiently
great, the mere fact that it is operating at a loss does not, by itself,
mean that it cannot afford to pay a forfeiture. PJB Communications, 7 FCC
Rcd at 2089; see also Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17106-07.
Response at 5; Petition for Reconsideration at 8.
King's Garden, Inc. v. FCC, 498 F.2d 51, 60 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert.
denied, 419 U.S. 996 (1974).
Faith Center, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 82 FCC 2d 1, 13 (1980),
cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1007 (1984).
Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17106.
Id. at 17107.
Id. at 17087.
47 U.S.C. S 504(a).
See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.
(...continued from previous page)
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-322
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-322