FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 11, Pages 8850 to 9847, July 30 - August 17, 2012 Page: 8,919
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
from April 15, 2002, when the license expired, until August 3, 2011, when its request for STA was
granted. Although Emigrant argues that its failure to file for the renewal of the station's authorization
was an "oversight," it is well established that administrative oversight or inadvertence is not a mitigating
factor. s By operating station WPKM212 after the license had expired, Emigrant apparently violated
Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Emigrant also apparently violated Section
1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPKM212.
7. Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act'9 and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules20 provide that any
person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be
liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that
the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the Rules,
and "repeated" means more than once or for more than one day.2' Based on the record before us, it
appears that Emigrant's apparent violations of Section 301 of the Act and Sections 1.903(a) and 1.949(a)
of the Rules are both willful and repeated.22
8. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs
us to consider factors such as "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."23 Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of
$10,000 for operation of a station without Commission authority and a base forfeiture amount of $3,000
for failure to file required forms or information.24 The Commission has held that a licensee's continued
operation without authorization and its failure to timely file a renewal application constitute separate
violations of the Act and the Rules and warrant the assessment of separate forfeitures.25 Accordingly, we
"8 See Southern California Broad. Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387, para. 3 (1991),
recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (Southern California) (stating that "inadvertence ... is at best, ignorance of
the law, which the Commission does not consider a mitigating circumstance').
19 47 U.S.C. 503(bX)(1)(B).
20 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a).
21 See 47 U.S.C. 312(f)(1), (2). See also Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, para. 5 (the definitions of
willful and repeated contained in the Act apply to violations for which forfeitures are assessed under Section 503(b)
of the Act).
2 While Section 503(b)(6) of the Act generally bars the Commission from proposing a forfeiture for violations that
occurred more than a year prior to the issuance of an NAL, we may consider the fact that Emigrant's misconduct
occurred over an extended period (during the more than nine year period between 2002 and 2011) to place "the
violations in context, thus establishing the licensee's degree of culpability and the continuing nature of the
violations." Roadrunner Transportation Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9669, 9671-72, para. 8 (2000); see also
BASF Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 17300, 17302, para 9 (Enf. Bur. 2010)
(forfeiture paid) (BASF Corporation); Call Mobile, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 74, 76,
para 10 (Enf. Bur. 2011) (response pending) (Call Mobile). The apparent unlawful operation in this case continued
from April 15, 2002 (the license expiration) through August 3, 2011 (the STA grant). Therefore, the forfeiture
amount we propose herein relates to Emigrant's apparent continuing violations that ceased during the past year.
23 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(E). See also 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4), Note to paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment
Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures; Forfeiture Policy Statement, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100,
para. 27 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Forfeiture Policy Statement).
24 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b). See also Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099, para. 22 (noting that
althoughuh we have adopted the base forfeiture amounts as guidelines to provide a measure of predictability to the
forfeiture process, we retain our discretion to depart from the guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case
basis, under our general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act").
" See Discussion Radio, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19
FCC Rcd 7433, 7438, para 15 (2004).
Federal Communications Commission
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 11, Pages 8850 to 9847, July 30 - August 17, 2012, book, August 2012; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc133015/m1/86/: accessed February 19, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.