**DA 08-2244** *In Reply Refer to:*

1800B3-JWR

NAL/Acct No.: MB20051810029

FRN: 0006362651

Released: October 7, 2008

[**CERTIFIED MAIL -- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED**]{.underline}

Peter Gutmann, Esq.

Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PLLC

1401 I Street, NW\
Washington, DC 20005

In re: WBLT(AM), Bedford, VA

WBLT, Inc.

Facility ID: 4534

File No. BR-20031211AAV

Dear Mr. Gutmann:

The Chief, Audio Division, has before him the April 13, 2005, letter
filed on behalf of WBLT, Inc. ("WBLT"), former licensee of Station
WBLT(AM), Bedford, Virginia (the "Station").[^1] The Response requests
the cancellation or substantial reduction of a March 16, 2005, Notice of
Apparent Liability for a Forfeiture ("*NAL*")[^2] in the amount of six
thousand dollars (\$6,000) for violation of Section 73.3539 of the
Commission\'s Rules (the "Rules") and Section 301 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act").[^3] The violations involve WBLT\'s
failure to timely file a license renewal application for the Station and
its unauthorized operation of WBLT(AM) after its license for the Station
had expired. By this action, we cancel the *NAL* and admonish WBLT for
filing the renewal application in paper format without demonstrating
good cause.[^4]

*Background.* As noted in the *NAL*, WBLT\'s renewal application for the
current WBLT(AM) license term was due on June 1, 2003, four months prior
to the October 1, 2003, license expiration date.^2^ According to
Commission records, no such application was filed, and the station\'s
license expired on October 1, 2003. Subsequently, on December 3, 2003,
the staff wrote to WBLT indicating that the station\'s license had
expired and that (1) all authority to operate the station was
terminated; and (2) the station\'s call letters were deleted from the
Commission\'s data base.^3^ Upon receipt of this letter, WBLT contacted
communications counsel and properly tendered the subject license renewal
application for WBLT(AM), a request for special temporary authorization
(\"STA\") to continue operation pending consideration of the license
renewal application, and one day later, a Petition for Reconsideration
of the December 3 letter terminating WBLT\'s operating authority and
deleting the call sign.^4^ The staff granted the STA request on December
16, 2004.

In its Response, WBLT states that the untimely filing of the subject
application is not a situation in which it ignored or neglected its
renewal obligation. Referencing the explanation in its December 11,
2003, STA request, WBLT states that it made a good-faith effort to file
its renewal application on a timely basis. Specifically, WBLT states
that it filed the subject application in paper form on May 27, 2003,
five days prior to the due date, together with the filing fee and FCC
Form 159.[^5] WBLT states that the items were sent to the Commission\'s
lockbox in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. WBLT states that its bank statement
subsequently showed that its check was deposited by the Commission on
June 13, thus it assumed that its renewal application had been accepted
and would be processed routinely. In early December 2003, WBLT states
that it became aware that the Commission\'s database showed no record of
the renewal application, and further showed that its license had
expired. \"At that point,\" WBLT states, it contacted communications
counsel, who prepared and electronically filed both the renewal
application and an STA request. WBLT states, among other things, that
WBLT(AM) is the only AM station, and one of only two stations licensed
to Bedford, Virginia, and that it serves a small community in
competition with an FM station licensed to Cumulus. WBLT maintains that
\"in all candor,\" it is not fair to impose the same magnitude of
forfeiture upon its \"small, marginal operation\" as would be imposed
upon a profitable, major market broadcast facility. WBLT states that it
does not claim an inability to pay the proposed forfeiture, but that it
would impose a \"disproportionately heavy burden\" upon its operations.

*Discussion.* Section 73.3539 of the Rules requires a broadcast licensee
to file its license renewal application four months before the license
expiration date. Moreover, Section 301 of the Act requires any person
operating apparatus for the transmission of communications by radio to
obtain a license under the provisions of the Act. It is undisputed that,
not only was WBLT\'s renewal application untimely, it was filed 10 weeks
after WBLT(AM)\'s license had expired. Despite WBLT\'s assertion that it
neither \"ignored nor neglected its renewal obligation,\" we find that
its violation of Section 73.3539 of the Rules was willful[^6] and
repeated.[^7]

As noted in the *NAL*, the proposed forfeiture amount in this case was
determined in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,[^8] Section
1.80 of the Rules,[^9] and the Commission\'s *Forfeiture Policy
Statement.*[^10] In considering WBLT\'s response, Section 503(b) of the
Act requires that the Bureau take into account 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 other such matters as justice may require.[^11]
Given the close proximity of the date established for mandatory
electronic filing of license renewal application (March 21, 2003) and
the due date for Virginia license renewal applications (June 1, 2003),
we believe that favorable action on WBLT's Response is warranted.

We cannot completely excuse WBLT's failure to file its license renewal
application properly, however. WBLT filed its renewal application in
paper format rather than electronically, as required.[^12] Licensees are
responsible for knowing and observing the rules affecting their
activities, including the timely submission of required forms.[^13]
Untimely or improperly filed renewal applications disrupt the orderly
processing of renewal applications in accordance with the staggered
filing set forth in Section 73.1020 of the Rules.[^14] Because it
appears that its license renewal application for the Station was
improperly filed in paper form, and WBLT does not provide any showing of
good cause for its failure to file electronically, we will admonish WBLT
for its failure properly to file its license renewal application for
WBLT(AM).

*Conclusion/Actions*. In view of the foregoing, WBLT, Inc.'s April 13,
2005, response to our March 16, 2005, *NAL* in the amount of \$6,000 IS
GRANTED, and the Notice of Apparent Liability (MB-200531810029) for
violation of Sections 73.3539 of the Rules and 301 of the Act is HEREBY
CANCELLED. WBLT, Inc. is instead hereby ADMONISHED for filing the
renewal application in paper format without demonstrating good
cause.[^15]

Sincerely,

Peter H. Doyle, Chief

Audio Division

Media Bureau

cc : WBLT, Inc.

[^1]: Response to Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, filed by
    WBLT, Inc. on April 13, 2005 ("Response").

[^2]: *See* *Letter to Peter Gutmann Esq. from Peter Doyle, Chief, Audio
    Division*, reference 1800B3 (March 16, 2005).

[^3]: [47 C.F.R. §
    73.3539](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&docname=47CFRS73.3539&ordoc=2011203011&findtype=L&db=1000547&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw);
    [47 U.S.C. §
    301](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&docname=47USCAS301&ordoc=2011203011&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw).

[^4]: WBLT, Inc. acquired the Station in April of 2002. *See* File No.
    BAL-20020225AAX, granted on April 12, 2002. An application to assign
    WBLT(AM)'s license to 3 Daughters Media, Inc. was granted on
    September 19, 2005. *See* File No. BAL-20050721ABJ.

[^5]: In WBLT's STA request and the petition for reconsideration, WBLT
    states that it attempted to timely file the WBLT(AM) license renewal
    application in paper form. *See NAL*, n.4. In the Response, WBLT
    also indicates that it erroneously tendered a check with the
    WBLT(AM) renewal application in the amount of \$325.00, more than
    twice the \$150.00 application fee required of license renewal
    applicants at the time. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1104 (2003).

[^6]: For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, [47 U.S.C. §
    503(b)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&docname=47USCAS503&ordoc=2011203011&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw),
    the term "willful" means the violator knew it was taking the action
    in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the Commission\'s
    rules.

[^7]: Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines "repeated" as "the commission
    or omission of \[any\] act more than once or, if such commission or
    omission is continuous, for more than one day." 47 U.S.C. §
    312(f)(1). *See also Southern California*, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387-4388 (1991), *recon. denied*, 7 FCC Rcd 3454
    (1992) (applying this definition of repeated to Sections 312 and
    503(b) of the Act).

[^8]: [47 U.S.C. §
    503(b)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&docname=47USCAS503&ordoc=2011203011&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw).

[^9]: [47 C.F.R. §
    1.80](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&docname=47CFRS1.80&ordoc=2011203011&findtype=L&db=1000547&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw).

[^10]: *See* [*Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80
    of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines*, 12 FCC Rcd
    17087, 17100
    (1997)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1997263097&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=17100&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=2011203011&db=4493&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw),
    ("*Forfeiture Policy Statement*"), *recon. denied*, [15 FCC Rcd 303
    (1999)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&serialnum=1999290806&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=Y&ordoc=2011203011&db=4493&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw);
    [47 C.F.R. §
    1.80(b)(4)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&docname=47CFRS1.80&ordoc=2011203011&findtype=L&db=1000547&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw),
    note to paragraph (b)(4), Section I.

[^11]: [47 U.S.C. §
    503(b)(2)(D)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&docname=47USCAS503&ordoc=2011203011&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw).

[^12]: *See New FCC Form 303-S Available for Use*, Public Notice, 18 FCC
    Rcd 5088 (MB Mar. 21, 2003); *see also* Instructions for FCC 303-S
    ("Application for Renewal of Broadcast Station License").

[^13]: *See, e.g.* [*Rego, Inc*., Forfeiture Order, 16 FCC Rcd 16795,
    16797 (EB
    2001)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2001785912&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=16797&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=2011203011&db=4493&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw).

[^14]: 47 C.F.R. § 731020.

[^15]: *See, e.g., American Family Association,* Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16530 (EB 2003) (NAL cancelled and licensee
    admonished based on response to NAL).