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, DC 20554

In the Matter of

Life on the Way Communications, Inc.






File No.: EB-SED-12-00000906

NAL/Acct. No.: 201332100005

FRN: 0009016239


Adopted: January 20, 2016 Released: January 21, 2016

By the Commission:

We deny in part and dismiss in part the Application for Review filed by Life on the Way Communications, Inc. (Life on the Way), licensee of domestic fixed satellite service earth station E970117, Van Nuys, California. Life on the Way seeks review of a Forfeiture Order issued by the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) imposing an $18,000 forfeiture against it for willfully violating Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), and Section 25.102(a) of the Commission's rules by operating station E970117 without Commission authorization for more than eight years. The Forfeiture Order also affirmed an Admonishment against Life on the Way for willfully violating Section 310(d) of the Act and Section 25.119 of the Commission's rules for assigning without authorization the license for station E970117. In its Application for Review, Life on the Way raises arguments previously argued before the Bureau and rejected, as well as a new argument that the Bureau had not been afforded an opportunity to consider.

Upon review of the Application for Review and the entire record, we conclude that Life on the Way fails to demonstrate that the Enforcement Bureau erred regarding the arguments raised previously before the Bureau. Specifically, the Bureau properly decided that the NAL was issued on February 21, 2013, within the one-year statute of limitations for forfeiture actions under Section 503(b)(6) of the Act. As the Bureau stated, "the date of issuance of a notice of apparent liability is the date of its public notice, which in this case was the date the Commission released the document." Life on the Way concedes that actions taken by the Bureau pursuant to delegated authority (like the Forfeiture Order) become effective "upon release of the document containing the full text of such action." Moreover, the Daily Digest of February 22, 2013, itself explicitly stated that the NAL was released on February 21, 2013. We thus disagree with Life on the Way's contention that release is based not on the date of the NAL's public notice, but rather on the date the item was included in the Commission's Daily Digest. The Bureau also properly decided that Life on the Way's mistaken belief that it held the license to operate station E970117 did not excuse Life on the Way's unauthorized operation violation. As stated in the Forfeiture Order, "[l]icensees . . . are expected to know and comply with the [Commission's r]ules . . . . [and] violations resulting from inadvertent error or failure to become familiar with the FCC's requirements can be and often are willful violations." As a result, the Bureau properly decided the arguments raised previously in the Forfeiture Order and we uphold its decisions for the reasons stated therein. Accordingly, with respect to these arguments, we deny the Application for Review.

Life on the Way also improperly raises for the first time in the Application for Review that, even if the NAL was released on February 21, 2013, the NAL would have been issued outside the one-year statute of limitations, because one year means 365 days, even in 2012, a leap year. Specifically, Life on the Way argues that 366 days elapsed from the last day of its unauthorized operation of station E970117 to the NAL's release. Section 1.115(c) prohibits parties from raising new arguments in an Application for Review. Accordingly, we dismiss the Application for Review with respect to this new argument. Moreover, as a separate and independent basis for our decision, we find that, even if Life on the Way's leap year argument were properly raised, we would find it to be without merit as courts addressing this issue in comparable circumstances have concluded that a "one-year" statute of limitations ends on the calendar date of the year following the year it began, "even when the intervening period includes the extra leap year day." Consequently, we affirm the Forfeiture Order.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 5(c) of the Act and Section 1.115 of the Commission's rules, the Application for Review filed by Life on the Way Communications, Inc. IS DENIED IN PART and IS DISMISSED IN PART.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED and that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Life on the Way Communications, Inc. SHALL PAY A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000) as specified in the Forfeiture Order for willful violation of Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Commission's rules.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Admonishment for violation of Section 310(d) of the Act and Section 25.119 of the Commission's rules IS AFFIRMED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Gary Curtis, Vice President, Life on the Way Communications, Inc., 14820 Sherman Way, Van Nuys, CA 91405-2233, and to Jeffrey D. Southmayd, Esq., Counsel for Life on the Way Communications, Inc., Southmayd & Miller, 4 Ocean Ridge Boulevard South, Palm Coast, FL 32137.


Marlene H. Dortch