FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 5, Pages 3728 to 4696, April 9 - April 27, 2012 Page: 4,130

                                
violation of Sections 73.1690(b)(1) and (b)(5) of the Rules.6 The Bureau also found that White violated
Sections 73.1350 and 73.1345 of the Rules by engaging in unauthorized operation of the Station from
March 19, 2009, thru June 22, 2009.'
4.     On October 9, 2009, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and
Order in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to White for these violations.8 White filed a
response requesting cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture ("Response") on November 3, 2009.
5.     In the Response, White admits to the violations but maintains that the proposed forfeiture
should be cancelled or reduced because: (1) the Station serves a geographical area that consistently receives
fewer than six stations; (2) any violation of the Rules was inadvertent and resulted from his lack of
experience with making technical filings required by the Commission; and (3) he is unable to pay the
proposed forfeiture amount.
III.   DISCUSSION
6.     The Bureau assessed the forfeiture in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the
Act,9 Section 1.80 of the Rules,0 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement." In assessing
forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances,
extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, the record of
compliance, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.12
7.     White argues the Bureau should waive or reduce the forfeiture because the Station plays
an important role in transmitting local information to an area consistently receiving fewer than six
stations.'3 We disagree. While we laud White for serving his community, such service does not justify
reducing or canceling the forfeiture. Indeed, every broadcast station must serve the public interest to
qualify for and maintain its license.'4
8.     White also argues that any violation of the Rules was inadvertent and resulted from his
lack of experience with the Commission filing process.'s However, as the Commission has held,
violations resulting from inadvertent error or failure to become familiar with the FCC's requirements are
6 47 C.F.R.  73.1690(b)(1), (b)(5).
747 C.F.R.  73.1350; 47 C.F.R.  1345.
8 John White, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 12541 (MB 2009) ("NAL").
947 U.S.C.  503(b).
to 47 C.F.R.  1.80.
" 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 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
12 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(E).
"3 Response at 3.
14 See, e.g., Thousand Islands Corp., Memorandum Opinion & Order, 47 FCC 2d 264, 266 (1974) ("licensees are
expected to make continued efforts to serve the community to which they are licenses and will not be relieved of
liability for violations by the fact that they fulfill their responsibility to serve their communities").
15 Response at 2-3.

4130

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-616