**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

**In the Matter of** )

> )

Statcom Communications Corp. ) File No. EB-00-PA-088

1324 Forest Avenue )

Staten Island, New York 10302 ) NAL/Acct. No. X3240003

NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

**Released: August 8, 2000**

By the District Director, Philadelphia Office, Enforcement Bureau:

# I. Introduction

1.  In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
    that Statcom Communications Corp. ("Statcom"), the licensee of Land
    Mobile radio station WPHC348, has apparently violated Section
    90.403(e) of the FCC Rules (the "Rules").[^1] The violation is
    failure to take effective measures to avoid causing harmful
    interference to stations WPBV410 and WPDU414 on the frequency
    461.525 MHz. We conclude that Statcom is apparently liable for
    forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars (\$4,000).

## II. Background

2.  Since 1993, MPS Communications, Inc. ("MPS") has been licensed to
    operate a repeater station on the frequency 461.525 MHz in Trenton,
    New Jersey and Neptune, New Jersey under the Land Mobile Radio
    licenses WPBV410 and WPDU414, respectively. However on June 17,
    1997, the Commission issued Statcom a license to operate a repeater
    station on the same frequency from the World Trade Center in New
    York City. During the month of February 1998, Steve Budassi filed a
    complaint with the Philadelphia Office alleging that MPS and its
    customer, Delaware Valley Bus Lines ("Delaware"), were experiencing
    harmful interference to their radio communications on the frequency
    461.525 MHz.[^2] Mr. Budassi claimed that the transmissions from
    Statcom completely override the transmissions from the MPS stations
    in the areas of central, and northern New Jersey.

3.  During the morning of March 18, 1999, two FCC agents from the
    Philadelphia Office investigated Mr. Budassi's complaint made in
    person on February 16, 1999. On numerous occasions that morning, the
    FCC agents observed Statcom, WPHC348 begin transmitting on the
    frequency 461.525 MHz while the MPS stations WPBV410 and WPDU414
    were already active. The FCC agents determined that Statcom's signal
    was of sufficient strength to blanket the signals from both MPS
    stations in their areas of operation in Mercer and Monmouth Counties
    NJ, and north.[^3] As a result, Statcom was causing harmful
    co-channel interference to MPS' radio communications

4.  On October 8, 1999, the District Director of the Philadelphia Office
    issued an Official Notice of Violation ("NOV") to Statcom for the
    harmful interference caused to MPS , in violation of Section
    90.403(e) of the Rules. On October 28, 1999 Statcom submitted a
    response to the NOV stating that it had taken additional steps to
    comply with Sections 90.403(e) of the Rules as directed in the NOV.
    Statcom stated that it would ensure that the Allen Luxury Car
    Service ("Allen"), its customer on the WPHC348 system, would take
    all reasonable measures to effectively monitor for transmissions
    from the MPS stations prior to transmitting.

5.  By letter dated January 21, 2000, Steve Budassi submitted another
    complaint to the Philadelphia Office stating that MPS and Delaware
    continue to seek relief from the harmful interference caused by the
    Statcom station WPHC348. In response, FCC agents from the
    Philadelphia Office conducted further investigation into Mr.
    Budassi's complaint. The FCC agents again confirmed that Statcom was
    causing harmful co-channel interference to MPS' radio communications
    because MPS was unable to clearly hear the transmissions from its
    repeater stations when Statcom began transmitting. On February 25,
    2000 and February 26, 2000, an FCC agent from the New York City
    Office inspected station WPHC348. The FCC agent observed that the
    Statcom station WPHC348 did not have installed effective monitoring
    equipment capable of detecting the transmissions on the frequency
    461.525 MHz from the MPS stations.

6.  On March 16, 2000, the District Director of the Philadelphia Office
    issued a second NOV to Statcom for the harmful interference caused
    to the MPS stations in violation of Section 90.403(e) of the Rules.
    The Philadelphia Office suggested that Statcom install monitoring
    equipment on station WPHC348 capable of detecting both MPS stations.
    On March 22, 2000, Statcom filed a response to the NOV stating the
    installation of a repeater monitor receiver at the Statcom
    transmitter site on One World Trade Center will not resolve MPS's
    problem. Statcom added that it had hired Antenna Site Technology to
    prepare an evaluation of the optimal method for responding to the
    Commission's directive. Subsequently, on April 27, 2000, Statcom
    submitted a letter to the Philadelphia Office stating that it would
    install a repeater monitor receiver at the control station of its
    customer, Allen Luxury Car Service. Statcom also expressed its
    concern about the inability of any receiver to monitor a station
    located in the Trenton, New Jersey area from such a heavily
    congested site as the One World Trade Center.

7.  On May 2, 2000, FCC agents from the Philadelphia Office monitored
    the frequency 461.525 MHz from the roof of the One World Trade
    Center and were able to receive the transmissions from the MPS
    stations WPBV410 and WPDU414. By letter dated May 5, 2000, the
    Philadelphia Office informed Statcom of the agents' May 2, 2000
    findings and reminded Statcom that it was still in violation of
    Section 90.403(e) of the Rules.

8.  On May 31, 2000 at 10:30 a.m., an FCC agent from the Philadelphia
    Office detected the Statcom station WPHC348 begin transmitting on
    the frequency 461.525 MHz while the MPS station WPBV410 was already
    active. The FCC agent observed that Statcom's co-channel
    transmission caused harmful interference to Delaware's radio
    communications in progress, in violation of Section 90.403(e) of the
    Rules.

### III. Discussion

9.  Section 90.403(e) of the Rules requires that licensees shall take
    reasonable precautions to avoid causing harmful interference. This
    includes monitoring the transmitting frequency for communications in
    progress and such other measures as may be necessary to minimize the
    potential for causing interference. The FCC agents have confirmed
    that the customers of the MPS stations WPBV410 and WPDU414
    experience interference on the frequency 461.525 MHz in the
    stations' authorized areas of operation in Mercer and Monmouth
    Counties NJ, and north when Statcom transmits simultaneously.
    Specifically, throughout the morning of February 17, 2000 and on May
    31, 2000 at 10:30 a.m., the Statcom station WPHC348 began
    transmitting on the frequency 461.525 MHz while the MPS stations
    WPBV410 or WPDU414 were already active. The FCC agents witnessed
    that Statcom's co-channel transmissions caused harmful interference
    to radio communications of MPS and Delaware in progress. The
    Philadelphia Office issued a NOV to Statcom on October 8, 1999 and
    on March 18, 2000 for violation of Section 90.403(e) of the Rules.
    However, Statcom has not taken effective measures to avoid causing
    harmful co-channel interference to stations WPBV410 and WPDU414.

10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Statcom willfully[^4]
    and repeatedly[^5] violated Section 90.403(e) of the Rules. The
    Commission's *Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
    1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines*, 12 FCC
    Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), *recon. denied*, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999)
    ("Policy Statement"), sets the base amount for causing harmful
    interference at four thousand dollars (\$4,000). In assessing the
    monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act"),[^6] that include
    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. Applying the Policy Statement and statutory factors to
    the instant case, we believe that a monetary forfeiture of four
    thousand dollars (\$4,000) is warranted for the violation.

##### 

##### IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
    Act[^7] and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules[^8] Statcom
    Communications Corp is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR
    A FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars (\$4,000) for
    failure to effectively monitor for communications in progress prior
    to transmitting, in violation of Section 90.403(e) of the Rules.

12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
    NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, Statcom Communications Corp. SHALL PAY
    the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written
    statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
    forfeiture.

13. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by credit card through the
    Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995 or
    by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of
    the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection
    Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box
    73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. The payment should note the
    NAL/Acct. No. X3240003.

14. The response, if any, must be mailed to Federal Communications
    Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Technical and Public Safety
    Division, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 and MUST
    INCLUDE THE NAL/Acct. No. X3240003.

15. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture
    in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner
    submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year
    period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally
    accepted accounting practices ("GAAP"); or (3) some other reliable
    and objective documentation that accurately reflects the
    petitioner's current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay
    must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to
    the financial documentation submitted.

16. Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice of Apparent
    Liability under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Credit
    and Debt Management Center, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
    20554.[^9]

17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this NOTICE OF APPARENT
    LIABILITY shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
    to Statcom Communications Corp., 1324 Forest Avenue, Staten Island,
    New York 10302.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

John E. Rahtes

District Director

> Philadelphia Office

[^1]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.403(e).

[^2]: Mr. Budassi filed a similar complaint with the Personal
    Communications Industry Association ("PCIA") on November 22, 1995.

[^3]: Both MPS stations WPBV410 and WPDU414 are authorized an area of
    operation of 64 kilometers radius (40 miles) centered on their
    transmitter site.

[^4]: Section 312(f)(1), which also applies to Section 503(b), provides:
    \[t\]he term "willful", when used with reference to the commission
    or omission of any act, means the conscious and deliberate
    commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to
    violate any provisions of the Act or any rule or regulation of the
    Commission authorized by this Act or by a treaty ratified by the
    United States. See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd
    4387 (1991).

[^5]: Section 312(f)(2), which also applies to Section 503(b), provides:
    \[t\]he term "repeated", when used with reference to the commission
    or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act
    more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for
    more than one day.

[^6]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

[^7]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^8]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80.

[^9]: See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.