Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Robert J. and Katherine M. Bohn.

Download Options

Released: November 1, 2011

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

November 1, 2011
DA 11-1823
In Reply Refer to:
1800B3-ML/ATS
Released: November 1, 2011
Dennis C. Brown, Esq.
8124 Cooke Court, Suite 201
Manassas, VA 20109

In re:

Robert J. and Katherine M. Bohn

FRN: 0006123392
Station KCNQ(FM)
Kernville, CA
Facility ID 36324
File No. BRH-20061027ACI
NAL/Act. No. MB200741410381
Station KRVQ-FM
Lake Isabella, CA
Facility ID 35856
File No. BRH-20061027ACT
NAL/Act. No. MB200741410380
Station KVLI(AM)
Lake Isabella, CA
Facility ID 35857
File No. BR-20061027ACQ
NAL/Act. No. MB200741410382

Petition for Reconsideration

Dear Counsel:
We have before us a Petition for Reconsideration ("Petition") filed on March 9, 2011, by Robert
and Katherine Bohn (collectively, the "Licensees"), licensees of Stations KCNQ(FM), Kernville,
California, KRVQ-FM (formerly KVLI-FM), Lake Isabella, California, and KVLI(AM) (formerly
KQAB(AM)), Lake Isabella, California (collectively, the "Stations"). The Petition requests
reconsideration of two forfeiture orders1 issued to the Licensees for willfully violating Section 73.3539 of
the Commission's Rules ("Rules")2 and willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"),3 by failing to file a timely license renewal application
for, and engaging in unauthorized operation of, each of the Stations. For the reasons stated below, we
deny the Petition.


1 Robert J. and Katherine M. Bohn, Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1188 (MB 2011) ("KCNQ Forfeiture Order");
Robert J. and Katherine M. Bohn, Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1192 (MB 2011) ("KVLI and KQAB Forfeiture
Order
").
2 47 C.F.R. 73.3539.
3 47 U.S.C. 301.

Background. On September 25, 2007, the Media Bureau ("Bureau") issued three separate
Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NALs") to the Licensees, each proposing a forfeiture in the
amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for the violations of Section 73.3539 of the Rules and Section
301 of the Act.4 As noted in the NALs, the Licensees' renewal applications were due on August 1, 2005,
four months prior to the December 1, 2005, expiration date for the Stations' licenses.5 The Licensees,
however, did not file the applications until October 27, 2006, more than 10 months after the Stations'
licenses had expired, and did not seek Special Temporary Authority ("STA") to continue Station
operations pending consideration of the renewal applications.
The Licensees submitted three separate responses ("Responses") to the NALs on October 22,
2007, asserting that the proposed forfeitures should be cancelled because: (1) the proposed forfeitures
were excessive compared to forfeiture amounts issued to other licensees for similar violations; (2) the
violations did not adversely affect the public interest; and (3) the Licensees' failure to timely file the
renewal applications was partially due to difficulties with the Commission's electronic filing system. On
February 8, 2011, the Bureau rejected the Licensees' arguments and issued two separate forfeiture orders
for a total forfeiture amount of twenty one thousand dollars ($21,000).6
On March 9, 2011, the Licensees filed the instant Petition.7 They repeat their argument from the
Responses that the forfeitures should be rescinded because the forfeiture amount is inconsistent with
Melody Music, Inc. v. FCC,8 asserting that "in numerous similar cases of the failure of a Broadcast
licensee to file a timely license renewal application, the Commission has found appropriate a forfeiture of
from five hundred to seven hundred fifty dollars."9 They also argue that: (1) assessing the Licensees a
larger forfeiture than is issued to certain licensees who file their untimely renewal applications closer in
time to the license expiration date was "arbitrary and capricious" because the Bureau "did not reference
any standard for determining the rate at which a forfeiture should be increased based on the period of time
elapsing between license expiration and the filing of a renewal application";10 and (2) the Bureau must


4 Robert J. and Katherine M. Bohn, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 17291 (MB 2007) ("KCNQ(FM) NAL"); Robert J. and Katherine M. Bohn, Memorandum
Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 17295 (MB 2007) ("KVLI-FM
NAL
"); Robert J. and Katherine M. Bohn, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 17298 (MB 2007)("KQAB(AM) NAL"). Each NAL proposed the full $3,000 base forfeiture
amount for the failure to file a timely renewal application violation, but reduced the proposed forfeiture for the
unauthorized operation violation from the $10,000 base amount to $4,000.
5 See 47 C.F.R. 73.1020, 73.3539(a).
6 KCNQ Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 1191 (issuing $7,000 forfeiture); KVLI and KQAB Forfeiture Order, 26
FCC Rcd at 1195 (issuing $14,000 forfeiture).
7 Petition at 1.
8 Melody Music, Inc. v. FCC, 345 F.2d 730, 733 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (finding that the Commission must treat similar
violations in a similar manner).
9 Petition at 1; Response at 2, citing American River Folk Society, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 17639 (MB 2007) (issuing a proposed forfeiture of $500 where
LPFM licensee failed to timely file a license renewal application for the station and engaged in unauthorized
operation of the station after its license had expired); Roswell Interarts Organization, Memorandum Opinion and
Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 11931 (MB 2007) (issuing a proposed forfeiture
of $500 where FM translator licensee failed to timely file a license renewal application for the station and engaged
in unauthorized operation of the station after its license had expired); Educational Radio Foundation of East Texas,
Inc
., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 11449 (MB
2007) (same).
10 Petition at 3-4.
2

consider the justice of its action, which impairs the Licensees' ability to continue to serve their
communities with entertainment and information programming that is not otherwise available.11
Discussion. Reconsideration is warranted only if the petitioner sets forth a material error of fact or
law, or presents new facts not known or existing until after the petitioner's last opportunity to present
such matters.12 Moreover, a petition for reconsideration that merely reiterates arguments previously
considered and rejected will be denied.13
With respect to the Licensees' first claim that we should rescind the forfeitures under Melody
Music, the Bureau previously rejected this argument in the two Forfeiture Orders, holding that a seven
thousand dollar ($7,000) forfeiture is standard for a licensee who fails to timely file a license renewal
application and engages in unauthorized operation of a full-service station,14 and the cases the Licensees
cited in which the Bureau reduced the forfeiture of licensees committing similar violations contained
mitigating circumstances not present in the current cases.15 Because Licensees raise an argument already
considered and rejected, it will not be reexamined.16
Next, the Licensees argue that levying a larger forfeiture against the Licensees than against
certain licensees who file their untimely renewal applications closer in time to the violation was "arbitrary
and capricious."17 We reject this argument. Under Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section
1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,18 the Bureau has the discretion to adjust the proposed forfeiture based on the
"nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation." In keeping with this discretion, however, the


11 Id. at 4.
12 See WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), aff'd sub nom. Lorain Journal Co. v.
FCC
, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 967 (1966).
13 Id.
14 KCNQ Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 1189, and KVLI and KQAB Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 1193,
citing Hawkins Broadcasting Company, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 4497 (MB 2007) (issuing a proposed forfeiture of $7,000 where licensee failed to timely file
a license renewal application for the station and engaged in unauthorized operation of the station after its license had
expired); Detroit Lakes Broadcasting Company, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 16820 (MB 2007) (same); WBLB, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order and
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 7522 (MB 2007) (same).
15 Specifically, the Bureau noted that cases in which the Bureau issued a forfeiture below the base amount for a late
filing violation were inapposite because they involved either: (1) licensees who were providers of secondary FM
service; or (2) licensees that filed their renewal applications within two days after the expiration of their station
license. See KCNQ Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 1188-89, citing Christian Radio Translator
Association/Salmon, Inc
., Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 11288 (MB 2009); Soul's Harbor Assembly of God
Church
, Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 8406 (MB 2009); University of Southern Mississippi, Memorandum Opinion
& Order, 22 FCC Rcd 5609 (MB 2007); see also KVLI and KQAB Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 1193-94, citing
Christian Radio Translator Association/Salmon, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 11288 (MB 2009); Soul's
Harbor Assembly of God Church
, Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 8406 (MB 2009); University of Southern
Mississippi
, Memorandum Opinion & Order, 22 FCC Rcd 5609 (MB 2007).
16 See WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC at 686 (Commission has no duty to debate for a second time matters on which it has
already deliberated and spoken).
17 Petition at 3-4.
18 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(E); 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4).
3

Bureau consistently has assessed the full three thousand dollar ($3,000) base forfeiture amount for
licensees who, as here, file their renewal applications more than thirty days after the expiration of their
licenses.19
Finally, the Licensees maintain that the Bureau should cancel the forfeitures because the "family-
owned, locally-operated" Stations "serve their communities of license with entertainment and
informational programming which is not otherwise available as a first service to the community" and the
Orders "are devoid of any indication that the Bureau considered the justice of impairing the [Licensees']
ability to continue providing service to these remote communities located in mountains."20 We interpret
this argument to mean the Bureau should cancel the forfeitures because paying them would represent a
financial hardship to the Licensees and the Licensees serve their communities of license. Again, we
disagree. Licensees do not claim and provide no documentation to support an argument that they are
unable to pay the forfeitures. While we recognize that the Stations have served their communities, such
service does not excuse Rule violations.21 Rather, serving a station's community of license in the public
interest is a fundamental requirement under the Act for all broadcast licensees.22
Conclusion/Actions. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT the Petition for Reconsideration filed
on June 16, 2009, by Robert J. and Katherine M. Bohn, IS DENIED.
Sincerely,
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
cc:
Robert J. and Katherine M. Bohn


19 See, e.g., Cornell College, Forfeiture Order, 25 FCC Rcd 14322, 14322 (MB 2010) (issuing full $3,000 base
forfeiture amount to licensee for failing to timely file license renewal application when licensee submitted license
renewal application on March 9, 2005, more than 30 days after the February 1, 2005, expiration date); MM&K of
Alva, Inc.
, Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1141 (MB 2010) (issuing full $3,000 base forfeiture amount to licensee for
failing to timely file license renewal application when licensee submitted license renewal application on July 19,
2006, more than 30 days after the June 1, 2005, expiration date); Meade County Communications, Inc., Forfeiture
Order, 24 FCC Rcd 7546, 7546 (MB 2009) (issuing full 3,000 base forfeiture amount to licensee for failing to timely
file license renewal application when licensee submitted license renewal application on April 12, 2005, more than
30 days after the August 1, 2004 expiration date).
20 Petition at 4.
21 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"). Indeed, every
Station must serve the public interest to warrant renewal of its license. See 47 U.S.C. 309(k). The Bureau already
made the finding that the Stations served the public interest in granting the Stations' license renewal applications
and, therefore, whether the Stations serve their respective communities is not at issue here.
22 See KCNQ(FM) NAL, 26 FCC Rcd at 17293 (granting renewal where station had served the public interest,
convenience, and necessity during it subject license term); KVLI-FM NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 17297 (same);
KQAB(AM) NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 17300 (same).
4

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.