Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1343 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Appalshop, Inc.
Licensee of Translator Stations 
W201AI, Coeburn, Virginia
W255BT (formerly W202AL), Norton, Virginia
W201AJ, Big Stone Gap, Virginia
and 
W216BO, Hansonville, Virginia
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Facility ID No. 2472
NAL/Acct. No. MB20041810038
File No. BR-20030724ACY
Facility ID No. 2482
NAL/Acct. No. MB20041810039
File No. BR-20030724ACZ
Facility ID No. 2480
NAL/Acct. No. MB20041810040
File No. BR-20030724ADC
Facility ID No. 92652
NAL/Acct. No. MB20041810041
File No. BR-20030724ADJ
FRN: 0008539959
FORFEITURE ORDER
Adopted:  June 5, 2008 Released:  June 6 2008
By the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Forfeiture Order (“Order”), we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one 
thousand dollars ($1,000), to Appalshop, Inc. (“Licensee”), licensee of Translator Stations W201AI, 
Coeburn, Virginia, W255BT (formerly W202AL), Norton, Virginia, W201AJ, Big Stone Gap, Virginia, 
and W216BO, Hansonville, Virginia (collectively, “Stations”), for its willful and repeated violation of 
Section 73.3539 of the Commission’s Rules (“Rules”)1 by failing to timely file license renewal 
applications for the Stations.  
II. BACKGROUND
2. On August 3, 2004, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) 
in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) to Licensee for these violations.2 Licensee filed a Request 
for Reduction of Proposed Forfeiture (“Request”) on August 31, 2004.   
3. As noted in the NAL, Licensee’s renewal applications for the current Stations’ license term 
were due on June 1, 2003, four months prior to the October 1, 2003, expiration date.3 Licensee did not 
  
1 47 C.F.R. § 73.3539.
2 Letter to Appalshop, Inc.  from Peter Doyle, reference 1800B3-EEB (MB Aug. 3, 2004).
3 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.1020, 73.3539(a).
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1343 
2
file the applications until July 24, 2003, and provided no explanation for the untimely filing of the 
renewal applications.  On August 3, 2004, the staff advised Licensee of its apparent liability for a 
forfeiture of $6,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3539 of the Rules, based on the fact 
that Licensee failed to timely file renewal applications for the Stations.4 In response, Licensee filed the 
subject Request.
4. In support of its Request, Licensee states that its failure to timely file the renewal application 
was unintentional.  It explains that, when it filed its application to renew the license for Station 
WMMT(FM), Whitesburg, Kentucky, it mistakenly believed the translator stations rebroadcasting 
WMMT(FM) would be treated as “auxiliary” stations whose licenses would be automatically renewed 
with the WMMT(FM) license.  It also states that it mistakenly believed that it had until April 1, 2004, the 
due date for filing renewal applications for stations licensed to Kentucky, to file the applications to renew 
the Stations’ licenses, since they rebroadcast a primary station licensed to Kentucky.  Licensee claims that 
its late-filed applications were the result of a “reasonable, good faith misunderstanding” of the 
Commission’s Rules and did not constitute a willful violation of the Rules. Licensee asserts these reasons 
warrant a reduction or cancellation of the assessed forfeiture.
III. DISCUSSION
5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 
503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement.7 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, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.8  
6. Licensee does not dispute that it failed to file timely renewal applications for the Stations, 
but states that these violations were unintentional.  Specifically, Licensee asserts that because of its lack 
of familiarity with the Commission’s Rules, it mistakenly believed that either it was not required to file 
renewal applications for the Stations or that the renewal applications were not due until April 1, 2004.  It 
is, however, a well established and long-standing principle that mistaken belief or ignorance of the law is 
not a mitigating factor and does not warrant a downward adjustment of an assessed forfeiture.9  Violations 
resulting from inadvertent error or failure to become familiar with the FCC's requirements are willful 
violations.10  In the context of a forfeiture action, “willful” does not require a finding that the rule 
  
4 The Commission granted the above-referenced license renewal applications on August 3, 2004.
5 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
6 47 C.F.R. § 1.80. 
7 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).  
8 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
9 See Richard Mann d/b/a The Antique Radio Collector Toledo, Ohio, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2008 WL 
1914220 (EB 2008) (denying request to reduce forfeiture based on petitioner’s claim that it was unaware that its 
actions constituted a violation of the Commission’s Rules); Profit Enterprises, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 8 FCC Rcd 
2846 (1993) (denying the mitigation claim of a manufacturer/distributor who thought that the equipment 
certification and marketing requirements were inapplicable, stating that its “prior knowledge or understanding of the 
law is unnecessary to a determination of whether a violation existed ... ignorance of the law is [not] a mitigating 
factor”); see also Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387-
88 (1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (“Southern California”).
10 See PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 2088 (1992); Southern 
California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4387 (stating that “inadvertence … is at best, ignorance of the law, which the Commission 
does not consider a mitigating circumstance”). 
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1343 
3
violation was intentional.  Rather, the term “willful” means that the violator knew that it was taking the 
action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the Rules.11  
7. We have considered Licensee’s response to the NAL in light of the above statutory factors, 
our Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement.  We conclude that Licensee willfully12 and repeatedly13
violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules.  However, given the Commission’s recent decisions assessing 
forfeitures in the amount of $250 against licensees of translator stations for violations of Section 73.3539 
of the Rules, we reduce the forfeiture amount sua sponte to $250 for each Station, for a total of $1,000.14  
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules,15 that Valley Baptist Church 
and Christian School, SHALL FORFEIT to the United States the sum of $1,000 for willfully and 
repeatedly violating Section 73.3539 of the Commission’s Rules with respect to Translator Stations 
Translator Stations W201AI, Coeburn, Virginia, W255BT (formerly W202AL), Norton, Virginia, 
W201AJ, Big Stone Gap, Virginia, and W216BO, Hansonville, Virginia.
9. Payment of the proposed forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to 
the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Acct. No. 
and FRN No. referenced in the caption above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to 
Federal Communications Commission, at P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by 
overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank—Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 
Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 
021030004, receiving bank: TREAS NYC, BNF: FCC/ACV--27000001 and account number as expressed 
on the remittance instrument. If completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account number in block 
number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters “FORF” in block number 24A (payment type 
code).16
10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that copies of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by Certified 
Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Cheryl Marshall, Appalshop, Inc., 91 Madison Ave., Whitesburg, 
  
11 See Five Star Parking d/b/a Five Star Taxi Dispatch, Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd 2649 (EB 2008) (declining to 
reduce or cancel forfeiture for late-filed renewal based on licensee’s administrative error); Southern California, 6 
FCC Rcd at 4387.  See also Domtar Industries, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 13811, 
13815 (EB 2006); National Weather Networks, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 3922, 
3925 (EB 2006).  
12 Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines “willful” as “the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of [any] 
act, irrespective of any intent to violate” the law.  47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).  The legislative history of Section 312(f)(1) 
of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. REP. No. 97-
765, 51 (Conf. Rep.), and the Commission has so interpreted the terms in the Section 503(b) context.  See Southern 
California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4387-88. 
13 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, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388 (applying this definition of repeated to Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act). 
14 See, e.g., Good News Translator Assoc., Memorandum Opinion and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 
22 FCC Rcd 20922 (MB 2007) (finding translator licensee apparently liable for monetary forfeiture in the amount of 
$250 for its willful violation of Section 73.3539 of the Rules); Bible Broadcasting Network, Inc., Memorandum 
Opinion and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 11445 (MB 2007) (same).
15 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.283, 1.80.
16 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1343 
4
Kentucky 41858, and by First Class Mail to its counsel, John Crigler, Esq., Garvey Schubert Barer, Flour 
Mill Building, 5th Floor, 1000 Potomac St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20007-3501.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division 
Media Bureau