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 File No.: EB-07-SE-379
)
Side by Side, Inc. NAL/Acct. No.: 200832100014
)
Toledo, Ohio FRN: 0005850862
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: September 19, 2012 Released: September 19, 2012
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. introduction
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order (Order), we have before us an
Application for Review, filed by Side by Side, Inc. (Side by Side),
former licensee of Ku Band earth station E950401, in response to a
Forfeiture Order issued by the Spectrum Enforcement Division
(Division) of the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau). The Forfeiture Order
held Side by Side liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $5,200 for
willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended (Act), and Sections 25.102(a) and 25.121(e) of
the Commission's rules (Rules), based on Side by Side's operation of
its earth station without Commission authority for more than two years
and its failure to file a timely renewal application for the station.
Consistent with the procedural requirements of Section 1.115(c) of the
Rules, we will treat Side by Side's Application for Review as a
petition for reconsideration and consider herein the new facts and
arguments offered by Side by Side. For the reasons set forth below, we
uphold the Division's findings and decline to further reduce the
forfeiture.
II. background
2. Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules prohibit the
use or operation of any apparatus for the transmission of energy,
communications, or signals by an earth station except under and in
accordance with a Commission-granted authorization. Section 25.121(e)
of the Rules requires the licensee of an earth station to file its
renewal application "no earlier than 90 days, and no later than 30
days, before the expiration date of the license." Absent a timely
filed renewal application, an earth station license automatically
terminates at the end of the license period.
3. By its terms, Side by Side's license for earth station E950401 expired
on August 25, 2005. In response to a Division letter of inquiry, Side
by Side admitted that it had failed to timely renew its earth station
license and had continued to operate earth station E950401 without
Commission authority through October 15, 2007. On January 30, 2008,
the Division released a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
finding that Side by Side continued to operate earth station E950401
without Commission authority after its license expired and failed to
file a timely renewal application for the station by the license
expiration date. Consistent with Bureau precedent at the time, the
Division reduced the base forfeiture for Side by Side's unauthorized
operation of earth station E950401 from $10,000 to $5,000, and reduced
the base forfeiture for Side by Side's failure to file a timely
renewal application for the station from $3,000 to $1,500. The
Division further reduced the aggregate forfeiture from $6,500 to
$5,200 based on Side by Side's voluntary disclosure of the violation
and corrective measures taken prior to any Commission inquiry or
initiation of enforcement action. Accordingly, the Division proposed
an aggregate forfeiture of $5,200 for Side by Side's apparent willful
and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act and Sections
25.102(a) and 25.121(e) of the Rules.
4. In its February 29, 2008, response to the Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture, Side by Side did not dispute that it engaged in
unauthorized operations or that it failed to file a timely renewal
application. Instead, it sought reduction of the proposed forfeiture
based on a claimed inability to pay the forfeiture. In support of this
claim, Side by Side recounted its net losses, expenses it claimed were
unforeseen and unavoidable, and potential limitations on its
fundraising abilities. According to Side by Side, these asserted
expenses and limitations on incoming revenue would force Side by Side
to reallocate payroll funds to pay the forfeiture, resulting in a
potential reduction in staff and ultimately, a limitation on its
ability to serve the public interest. On May 7, 2008, the Division
released the Forfeiture Order denying Side by Side's inability to pay
claim. The Division determined that the $5,200 proposed forfeiture
represented a small percentage of Side by Side's average gross
revenues over the prior three years and was significantly less than
the threshold the Commission uses to determine whether an inability to
pay reduction is appropriate. Accordingly, the Forfeiture Order
imposed the full forfeiture amount proposed in the Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture.
5. On June 6, 2008, Side by Side filed the Application for Review,
challenging only the amount of the forfeiture. Side by Side contends
that the Bureau ignored its non-profit status and did not adequately
consider factors other than gross revenues in assessing whether Side
by Side had the financial resources to pay the forfeiture amount,
reiterating arguments made in its NAL Response regarding limitations
on its fundraising abilities and unexpected expenses. Side by Side
also argues, for the first time, that its unauthorized operation was
"highly unlikely to cause interference" and that it has a history of
overall compliance. Based on these claims, Side by Side asserts that
the Division should have significantly reduced the $5,200 forfeiture
amount.
III. DISCUSSION
6. Under Section 1.106(c)(1) of the Rules, a petition for reconsideration
that relies on facts or arguments not previously presented to the
designated authority may be granted only if (1) the facts or arguments
relate to events that occurred or circumstances that had changed since the
last opportunity to present such matters; or (2) the facts or arguments
were unknown to the petitioner, and could not have been known by the
petitioner with the exercise of ordinary diligence, until after the
petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters. Section 1.106(c)(2)
of the Rules, however, permits grant of a petition for reconsideration
that raises new facts or arguments if the designated authority determines
that consideration of the new information is required in the public
interest.
1. Side by Side, for the first time, seeks reduction of the forfeiture
based on the limited potential for interference resulting from Side
by Side's unauthorized operations. We decline to reduce the
forfeiture amount on this basis. Even had Side by Side adequately
proven that its unauthorized operation would not cause interference,
the Commission has routinely held that the absence of public
harm-such as harmful interference-is not a mitigating factor
warranting reduction of a forfeiture. To hold otherwise would
compromise the fundamental statutory framework in Section 301 of the
Act, requiring that "no person . . . use or operate any apparatus
for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio
. . . except under and in accordance with this chapter and with a
license . . . granted under the provisions of this chapter."
2. Side by Side also argues for the first time that its history of
overall compliance with the Rules warrants a downward adjustment of
the forfeiture. We disagree. Side by Side's violations, while
concurrent, were also distinct, and both violations continued over
significant time periods. The number, duration, and nature of these
violations weigh heavily against a finding that Side by Side had a
history of compliance that would warrant reduction of the forfeiture
amount. We are also unpersuaded that former licensees should be
treated more leniently regardless of the duration of their
unauthorized operation and because of the gloss of former licensure;
any such gloss certainly would have faded during the 52 months of
Side by Side's unauthorized operation. In addition, the Bureau has
already reduced the forfeiture at issue by 60 percent, from $13,000
to $5,200, based on its consideration of the statutory factors in
Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act.
3. Finally, we find no merit to the arguments that the Division ignored
Side by Side's status as a non-profit entity, and that the Division
failed to adequately credit factors other than the company's
significant gross revenues when determining its ability to pay.
These arguments are merely reiterative of arguments previously
raised by Side by Side that the Division fully considered and
properly rejected in the Forfeiture Order. Accordingly, we uphold
the Division's finding that Side by Side willfully and repeatedly
violated Section 301 of the Act and Sections 25.102(a) and 25.121(e)
of the Rules and decline to further reduce the forfeiture amount.
IV. ORDERING Clauses
10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and
1.106 of the Commission's rules, the Application for Review, filed on June
6, 2008, by Side by Side, Inc., which has been appropriately treated by
the Bureau as a petition for reconsideration, is hereby DENIED and the
Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED.
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and
Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Side by Side, Inc. IS
LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand two
hundred dollars ($5,200) for willful and repeated violation of Section 301
of the Act, and Sections 25.102(a) and 25.121(e) of the Rules.
12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within seven (7) calendar
days after the release date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the
forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be
referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for enforcement of the
forfeiture pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended. Side by Side, Inc. shall send electronic notification of
payment to Pamera Hairston at Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov, Nissa Laughner at
Nissa.Laughner@fcc.gov, and Samantha Peoples at Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov on the
date said payment is made.
13. The payment must be made by check or similar instrument, wire
transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number and FRN
referenced above. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed FCC Form
159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form
159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID) and
enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code). Below
are additional instructions you should follow based on the form of payment
you select:
* Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of
the Federal Communications Commission. Such payments (along with the
completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications
Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent
via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088,
SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.
* Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004,
receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. To complete
the wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds,
a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on
the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.
* Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit
card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159
to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then
be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank -
Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
Louis, MO 63101.
14. Any request for full payment under an installment plan should be sent
to: Chief Financial Officer - Financial Operations, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington,
D.C. 20554. If you have questions regarding payment procedures, please
contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201,
or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order
shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt
requested to Mr. Todd Hostetler, Station Manager, Side by Side, Inc., 5115
Glendale Avenue, Toledo, OH 43614-1801, and to counsel for Side by Side,
Inc., A. Wray Fitch III, Esq., Gammon & Grange, P.C., Seventh Floor, 8280
Greensboro Drive, McLean, VA 22102-3807.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
P. Michele Ellison
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
Application for Review, filed by Side by Side, Inc. (June 6, 2008) (on
file in EB-07-SE-379) (Application for Review).
File No. SES-LIC-19950620-00796 (filed June 20, 1995; granted Aug. 25,
1995). Earth station E950401 was licensed to Side by Side, Inc. d/b/a Yes
Ministries.
See Side by Side, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd 7393 (Enf. Bur. 2008)
(Forfeiture Order).
47 U.S.C. S: 301.
47 C.F.R. S:S: 25.102(a), 25.121(e).
Section 1.115(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.115(c), states that the
Commission will deny an application for review of a decision made on
delegated authority if it relies on new questions of fact or law upon
which the delegated authority did not have an opportunity to pass. The
same section, however, notes that such new questions may be presented in a
petition for reconsideration. Id. note. Under the circumstances of this
case, it conserves administrative resources to treat Side by Side's
Application for Review as a petition for reconsideration, and we do so on
our own motion pursuant to our general authority to review petitions for
reconsideration under Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the
Rules. 47 U.S.C. S: 405; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.106. See, e.g., Channel 51 of San
Diego, Inc., Order, 27 FCC Rcd 1922, 1922-23, para. 3 (Enf. Bur. 2012) (on
the Bureau's own motion, treating an application for review raising new
arguments that had not been presented to the delegated authority as a
petition for reconsideration); Letter from Barbara A. Kreisman, Chief,
Video Division, FCC Media Bureau, to Malcolm Stevenson, Esq., 25 FCC Rcd
17042, 17043 (Med. Bur. 2010) (same); Ross Radio & T.V., Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 7600, 7600, para. 1 (Enf. Bur. 1997) (same).
47 U.S.C. S: 301; 47 C.F.R. S: 25.102(a).
47 C.F.R. S: 25.121(e).
See id. S: 25.161(b).
See File No. SES-LIC-19950620-00796.
See Side by Side, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23
FCC Rcd 898, 899, para. 4 (Enf. Bur. 2008) (Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture) (citing Letter from A. Wray Fitch III, Esq., Counsel for
Side by Side, Inc., to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement
Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau at 1-2 (Nov. 14, 2007) (on file in
EB-07-SE-379)).
See id. at 899, para. 6. Although Side by Side's license expired on August
25, 2005, Side by Side did not seek reauthorization until October 17,
2007, when it filed a request for Special Temporary Authority (STA) to
continue operations pending the grant of a new license application. See
SES-STA-20071017-01428 (filed Oct. 17, 2007; dismissed as moot Dec. 27,
2007). This STA was dismissed as moot on December 27, 2007, after Side by
Side's application for a new license for its earth station was granted on
December 26, 2007. See SES-LIC-20071113-01562 (filed Nov. 13, 2007;
granted Dec. 26, 2007).
See Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd at 900, para.
10 (reasoning that a former licensee who operates a station with an
expired license is in better stead than a "pirate" operator who lacks
prior Commission authority to operate). However, as we have recently
emphasized, reduced forfeitures imposed on licensees for unauthorized
operations in past cases have not created sufficient incentives for
licensees to monitor their license expiration dates and adopt appropriate
procedures to ensure substantial compliance. See, e.g., Emigrant Storage
LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 2012 WL 3126903, *2-*3,
paras. 8-9 & *3 n.26 (Enf. Bur. 2012) (Emigrant Storage) (applying the
recommended base forfeitures, as set forth in Section 1.80(b) of the
Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b), of $10,000 for the unauthorized operation of
a station and $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information
when a licensee operated its station without authorization and failed to
file a timely renewal application for its station, and finding no basis
for downward adjustment of these base forfeitures); Call Mobile, Inc.,
Notice of Apparent Liability Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 74, 76-77, para. 11
(Enf. Bur. 2011) (Call Mobile) (same) (response pending); Shubat
Transportation Co., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC
Rcd 3782, 3785-86, para. 12 (Enf. Bur. 2011) (Shubat) (same); BASF Corp.,
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 17300, 17302-03,
paras. 9-10 (Enf. Bur. 2010) (BASF) (same) (forfeiture paid).
See Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd at 901, para.
11.
See id.; see also 47 U.S.C. S: 301; 47 C.F.R. S:S: 25.102(a), 25.121(e).
Request for Reduction of Proposed Forfeiture Due to Inability to Pay,
filed by Side by Side, Inc. (Feb. 29, 2008) (on file in EB-07-SE-379) (NAL
Response).
See id. at 5-6.
See id. at 7. To substantiate these claims, Side by Side submitted a
Statement of Financial Position reflecting gross revenues and
contributions for the four month period from October 1, 2007, through
January 31, 2008; a Statement of Financial Position reflecting gross
revenues and contributions for the 12-month period from October 1, 2006,
through September 30, 2007; tax returns from 2004 and 2005 reflecting
gross revenues and contributions from October 1, 2004, through September
30, 2006; a statement reflecting the current account status of Side by
Side; and an Unpaid Bills Detail as of February 29, 2008. Side by Side
requested confidential treatment of its financial statements and other
financial documents. See id. at 2; see also infra note 20.
See supra note 3.
See id. at 7395-96, para. 8. Side by Side requested confidential treatment
of certain financial documents and business information that it supplied
to the Bureau during the course of this investigation. See supra note
18. We will continue to defer action on the confidentiality request, as
we need not disclose potentially sensitive information in this Order. See
47 C.F.R. S: 0.459(d)(3).
See Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 7396, para. 9.
Application for Review at 2.
See id. at 2-3.
See id. at 2.
See id. at 1.
See id. at 3.
47 C.F.R. S: 1.106(c)(1).
Id. S: 1.106(c)(2).
See Application for Review at 1-2.
See, e.g., Liberty Cable Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd
16105, 16113, para. 25 (2001) (rejecting a cable company's claim that the
forfeiture should be downwardly adjusted because the company "took care to
avoid interference before commencing [unauthorized] service"); Pac. W.
Broadcasters, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 50 FCC 2d 819, 820,
para. 4 (1975) (rejecting a broadcaster's claim that the forfeiture should
be downwardly adjusted because its operation at excessive power levels did
not cause public harm or complaint); Nat'l Weather Networks, Inc., Notice
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 3922, 3927, para. 13
(Enf. Bur. 2006) (rejecting a licensee's claim that the forfeiture should
be downwardly adjusted because its unauthorized operation of an earth
station did not cause interference or disrupt other users) (forfeiture
paid).
47 U.S.C. S: 301.
See, e.g., Discussion Radio, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice
of Apparent Liability, 19 FCC Rcd 7433, 7438, para. 15 (2004) (proposing
forfeitures of $5,000 and $1,500 against a broadcaster who both operated
its station for 14 months without Commission authority and failed to
timely file its renewal application), modified on other grounds,
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 2206 (Med.
Bur. 2009); Criswell College, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
21 FCC Rcd 5106, 5108, para. 9 (Enf. Bur. 2006) (rejecting the argument
that the unauthorized operation of a station and the failure to timely
file a renewal application are a single violation and proposing separate
base forfeitures for these violations) (forfeiture paid).
See supra note 12.
See, e.g., Paulino Bernal Evangelism, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC
Rcd 9532, 9536, para. 12 (Enf. Bur. 2006) (in determining whether a
licensee has a history of overall compliance, offenses need not be "prior"
to be considered nor must they be the subject of a "final [Commission]
determination"), review granted in part, denied in part, Order on Review,
23 FCC Rcd 15959 (2008); see also cf. JMK Commc'ns, Inc., Forfeiture
Order, 19 FCC Rcd 16111, 16114, paras.11-12 (Enf. Bur. 2004) (denying a
reduction for a history of compliance when the licensee committed
additional violations following the violations on which the forfeiture was
based).
See, e.g., Crocodile Broad. Corp., Inc., Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd
12724, 12726, para. 8 (Enf. Bur. 2011) (denying a reduction for a history
of overall compliance where a licensee operated at unauthorized times for
several years in disregard of the Commission's denial of its request for
Special Temporary Authority for night operation); LSM Radio Partners,
L.L.C., Forfeiture Order, 25 FCC Rcd 10631, 10634, para. 11 (Enf. Bur.
2010) (denying a reduction for a history of overall compliance where the
licensee operated without operational Emergency Alert System (EAS)
equipment for approximately 21 months), recon. granted in part, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 14413 (Enf. Bur. 2011); TV 45 Product.,
Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 11259, 11261, para. 8 (Enf. Bur. 2002)
(denying a reduction for a history of overall compliance where the
licensee operated without operational EAS equipment for one year).
As the Commission has emphasized, "[a]ll licensees are responsible for
knowing the terms of their licenses and for filing a timely renewal
application if they seek to operate beyond that term." See Biennial
Regulatory Review - Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87,
90, 95, 97, and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the
Development and Use of the Universal Licensing System in the Wireless
Telecommunications Services, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 21027, 21071,
para. 96 (1998), recon. granted in part, Memorandum Opinion and Order on
Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 11476 (1999). We are also mindful that the
historical reduction of forfeitures based on former licensee status
reduces incentives for licenses to know and comply with the terms of their
licenses and the Rules. See supra note 13. Moreover, in recent cases, we
have upwardly adjusted the base forfeiture amounts in cases where the
unauthorized operation continued for an extended period of time. See,
e.g., BASF, 25 FCC Rcd at 17303, para. 11 (five years of unauthorized
operation); Shubat, 26 FCC Rcd at 3786, para. 13 (six years of
unauthorized operation); Call Mobile, 26 FCC Rcd at 77-78, para. 12 (two
and a half years of unauthorized operation); see also Emigrant Storage,
2012 WL 3126903 at *3 n.26 (emphasizing that "the relative duration of a
violation is a critical factor," as failure to take this factor into
consideration when assessing forfeitures creates "perverse incentives").
We note that in adopting the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
and the Forfeiture Order, the Division carefully considered the nature,
circumstances, extent, and gravity of Side by Side's unauthorized
operations and untimely filing of a renewal application. See 47 U.S.C. S:
503(b)(2)(E); Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 7395, para. 6 (finding that
"no mitigating circumstances warrant cancellation or further reduction of
the proposed forfeiture amount"); Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd at 900-01, para. 8 (stating expressly that the
Division had "considered the statutory factors"). As a result of this
analysis, the Division reduced the total base forfeiture from $13,000 to
$5,200 based on various factors, including Side by Side's voluntary
disclosure and the corrective measures taken prior to any Commission
inquiry or enforcement action. See Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd at 900-01, paras. 10-11.
Application for Review at 2-3. In adopting the Forfeiture Order, the
Division carefully reviewed Side by Side's arguments that it had limited
fundraising abilities, annual losses, recent unexpected expenses, and
potential limits on fundraising abilities, as well as its assertion that
it may have to rely on payroll allocations to pay the forfeiture, as
potential evidence of Side by Side's inability to pay the forfeiture. The
Division ultimately found that Side by Side failed to demonstrate that it
could not pay the forfeiture or that payment of the forfeiture would
significantly impair Side by Side's financial solvency or ability to serve
the public. See Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 7395-96, para. 8. We note
that parties have routinely made, and the Commission has routinely
rejected, arguments for reduction of a forfeiture based on non-profit
status, either when standing alone or when used to show an inability to
pay a forfeiture. See, e.g., Lebanon Educ. Broad. Found., Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 1442, 1446, para. 12 (Enf. Bur. 2006)
("Where the Rule is violated, Section 1.80 provides that a monetary
forfeiture may be imposed, and there is no exemption or reduction based on
the noncommercial status of a station."); Donald Donovan Jackson,
Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 15327, 15329, para. 9 (Enf. Bur. 2004) (
"[O]peration for purposes other than financial gain will not, on its own,
warrant the cancellation or reduction of a forfeiture."); Concilio Mision
Cristiana Fuente De Agua Viva, Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 19132, 19134,
para. 7 (Enf. Bur. 2002) (rejecting a radio licensee's argument that its
non-profit status, in and of itself, warranted reduction of the
forfeiture), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 6210
(Enf. Bur. 2003) (forfeiture paid); Valley Pub. Television, Inc.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Forfeiture Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22795,
22796, paras. 5-6 (1998) (rejecting a non-profit public television
licensee's claim that payment of a $9,000 forfeiture would threaten its
continued provision of service to the public where the financial data
submitted by the licensee showed that it had the ability to pay the
forfeiture).
See Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and
Procedure and Part 0 Rules of Commission Organization, Report and Order,
26 FCC Rcd 1594, 1606, para. 27 (2011) (delegating to the relevant
bureaus or offices the authority to dismiss or deny petitions for
reconsideration of staff level decisions that are procedurally defective
or that merely repeat arguments that have been previously considered and
rejected). See also, e.g., EZ Sacramento, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18257, 18257, para. 2 (Enf. Bur. 2000) (in denying a
petition for reconsideration of related forfeiture orders, the Bureau
emphasized that "[a] petition [for reconsideration] that simply reiterates
arguments previously considered and rejected will be denied.") (citing
WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 685, 686, para. 2 (1964),
aff'd sub nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965)).
47 U.S.C. S: 301; 47 C.F.R. S:S: 25.102(a), 25.121(e).
47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 405.
47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.106.
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b).
47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).
47 U.S.C. S: 301.
47 C.F.R. S:S: 25.102(a), 25.121(e).
See id. S: 1.80.
47 U.S.C. S: 504(a).
An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be
obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.
(Continued from previous page . . . )
(continued . . . )
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1508
6
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1508