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                         )                              
     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:

   I. Introduction

    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

   III. discussion

          A. Fence Violation

               1. Background.

    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

      1. Discussion.

    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

          1. Background.

   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.

      1. Discussion.

   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

          1. Background.

   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.

      1. Discussion

   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
       our rules.

   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.


   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
   file violations.

   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