Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+---------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | ) | File Number EB-07-SF-051        |
|                                  |   |                                 |
| Martha S. and Miguel G. Campos   | ) | NAL/Acct. No. 200832980001      |
|                                  |   |                                 |
| San Jose, California             | ) | FRN: 0017083221                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
+----------------------------------+---+---------------------------------+

## FORFEITURE ORDER

**Adopted: May 19, 2008 Released: May 21, 2008**

By the Regional Director, Western Region, Enforcement Bureau:

# I. INTRODUCTION

1.  In this Forfeiture Order ("*Order*"), we issue a monetary forfeiture
    in the amount of eight hundred dollars (\$800) to Martha S. and
    Miguel G. Campos, owners and operators of a Citizens Band ("CB")
    radio station in San Jose, California, for willful violation of
    Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    ("Act").[^1] On October 31, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau's San
    Francisco Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture ("*NAL*") in the amount of \$10,000 to the Campos for
    operating a modified CB radio station on a frequency not authorized
    for CB use. In this *Order*, we consider the Campos' arguments that
    they were not aware of the severity of their violations, and that
    they do not have the ability to pay the forfeiture.

# II. BACKGROUND

2.  On April 7, 2006, the Enforcement Bureau's San Francisco Office
    received a complaint alleging intentional interference to CB radio
    communications on 27.055 MHz**.** The complaints alleged that the
    source of the interference was located at the residence of CB radio
    operators, Martha and Miguel Campos, in San Jose, California.

3.  On August 24, 2006, after subsequent complaints, the San Francisco
    Field Office issued a Warning Letter to Miguel G. Campos ("August
    Warning Letter"). The Warning Letter informed Mr. Campos that,
    pursuant to Section 95.407 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules") (CB
    Rule 7),[^2] he must operate his CB station only on the 40 channels
    allocated to the CB service and he must not modify his CB radio to
    operate on any other frequency other than allocated to the service.
    The August Warning Letter also warned Mr. Campos that pursuant to
    Section 95.409 of the Rules (CB Rule 9),[^3] he must not make, or
    have made, any internal modification to a FCC certificated CB
    transmitter. Further, Mr. Campos was warned that if the
    transmissions continue, he would be investigated during ongoing FCC
    enforcement efforts and if such an investigation indicates that he
    had violated the Communications Act or any FCC Rules, he could be
    subject to severe penalties, including, but not limited to,
    substantial monetary forfeitures.

4.  On August 31, 2006, Mr. Campos replied to the letter acknowledging
    that he was a CB operator and detailing the CB equipment that he
    used.

5.  On September 29, 2006, in response to continued complaints, the San
    Francisco Office issued a Warning Letter to Martha S. Campos
    ("September Warning Letter"). The September Warning Letter informed
    Mrs. Campos that, pursuant to Section 95.407 of the Rules (CB Rule
    7), [^4] she must operate her CB station only on the 40 channels
    allocated to the CB service and she must not modify her CB radio to
    operate on any other frequency other than allocated to the service.
    The September Warning Letter also warned Ms. Campos that pursuant to
    Section 95.409 of the Rules (CB Rule 9), [^5] she must not make, or
    have made, any internal modification to a FCC certificated CB
    transmitter. Further, Ms. Campos was warned that if the
    transmissions continue, she would be investigated during ongoing FCC
    enforcement efforts and if such an investigation indicates that he
    had violated the Communications Act or any FCC Rules, she could be
    subject to severe penalties, including, but not limited to,
    substantial monetary forfeitures.

6.  On October 27, 2006, Martha and Miguel Campos came to the San
    Francisco Office to discuss the warning letters they had received. A
    San Francisco agent clarified some of the CB Rules to them and again
    warned them about the consequences of not following the CB Rules.

7.  During the period of November 2, 2006, to February 2, 2007, the San
    Francisco Office continued to receive complaints alleging
    interference by the Campos.

8.  On March 16, 2007, San Francisco agents, using mobile direction
    finding techniques, located the source of the alleged interfering
    signal on 27.675 MHz to the Campos' residence in San Jose,
    California. The San Francisco agents monitored the transmission of
    one-way communications on 27.675 MHz. The agents also conducted an
    inspection of the Campos' CB station and found two CB transmitters
    that were set up and connected to outdoor antennas at Campos's
    residence. By conducting on/off tests, the agents confirmed that one
    of the transmitters had been modified to operate on frequency 27.675
    MHz, a frequency that is not authorized for use by CB stations. The
    agents further determined that the transmitter set up in the Campos'
    residence was capable of operating in excess of the four-watt power
    limitations.

9.  From April 10, 2007, to September 10, 2007, the San Francisco Office
    continued to receive complaints alleging interference by the Campos.

10. On October 31, 2007, the San Francisco Office issued a *NAL* in the
    amount of \$10,000 to the Campos.[^6] In the *NAL*, the San
    Francisco Office found that the Campos apparently willfully violated
    Section 301 of the Act,[^7] by operating a modified CB radio station
    on a frequency not authorized for CB use. Campos filed a response
    ("*Response"*) to the *NAL* on January 16, 2008. In their
    *Response*, the Campos argue that they were not aware of the
    severity of the violations, and that they do not have the ability to
    pay the forfeiture.

# III. DISCUSSION

11. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in
    accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,[^8] Section 1.80 of the
    Rules,[^9] and *The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and
    Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture
    Guidelines*.[^10] In examining the *Response*, Section 503(b) of the
    Act requires that the Commission 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]

12. Section 301 of the Act requires that no person shall use or operate
    any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or
    signals by radio within the United States except under and in
    accordance with the Act and with a license.[^12] Individual licenses
    are not required to operate CB radio stations. Section 95.404 of the
    Rules provides a blanket authorization to all CB users, provided
    that their stations are operated in accordance with the Rules.[^13]
    Section 95.425(c) of the Rules states that "you must not operate a
    CB transmitter which has been modified by anyone in any way,
    including modification to operate on unauthorized frequencies . . .
    ."[^14] Section 95.409(b) of the Rules states that "\[y\]ou must not
    make, or have made, any internal modification to a certificated CB
    transmitter. . . . Any internal modification to a certificated CB
    transmitter cancels the certification, and use of such a transmitter
    voids your authority to operate the station."[^15] Section 95.407(a)
    of the Rules limits CB operators to operation on 40 specific
    channels.[^16] Frequency 27.675 MHz is not listed among those
    channels.

13. On August 24, 2006, September 29, 2006, and October 10, 2006, the
    Campos' were warned by the San Francisco Office that subsequent
    violation of the Commission's Rules could result in monetary
    forfeitures. On March 16, 2007, an investigation by San Francisco
    agents revealed that the Campos had modified their CB transmitter to
    operate on 27.675 MHz, a frequency not authorized for CB use, and
    observed the Campos operating on 27.675 MHz.

14. In their *Response*, the Campos do not deny the use of the CB
    transmitter as detailed in the *NAL*. Instead, they argue that did
    not comprehend the severity of the situation, because they were not
    able to read English, however, Miguel Campos was able to "understand
    English in spoken form." We are not persuaded by this argument.
    After the Campos received two warning letters from the San Francisco
    Office concerning their violations, they came to the San Francisco
    Office on October 27, 2006, for an interview, during which a San
    Francisco agent went through the violations in spoken English with
    the Campos.[^17] The San Francisco agent also answered questions
    from Miguel Campos during that interview. It was only after that
    interview, when the Campos continued to operate their CB transmitter
    in violation of the Rules, that the San Francisco Office issued the
    *NAL* against the Campos.

15. The Campos also argue that they do not have the ability to pay the
    proposed forfeiture amount. To support this claim, the Campos
    supplied tax returns for the three years prior to the *NAL.* In
    analyzing a financial hardship claim, the Commission generally has
    looked to gross revenues as a reasonable and appropriate yardstick
    in determining whether a licensee is able to pay the assessed
    forfeiture.[^18] We have reviewed the data supplied by the Campos
    and we conclude that reduction of the forfeiture from \$10,000 to
    \$800 is warranted.[^19]

16. We have examined the *Response* to the *NAL* pursuant to the
    statutory factors above, and in conjunction with the *Forfeiture
    Policy Statement*. As a result of our review, we conclude that the
    Campos willfully violated Section 301 of the Act. Considering the
    entire record and the factors listed above, we find that reduction
    of the proposed forfeiture to \$800 is warranted. In light of the
    repeated complaints received by the San Francisco Office prior to
    the *NAL*, and the substantial reduction of the proposed forfeiture
    based on a demonstrated inability to pay, we caution the Campos that
    any new violations would mitigate against forfeiture reduction in
    the future.

# IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

17. **ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED** that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections
    0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Martha S. and
    Miguel G. Campos, **ARE LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE** in the
    amount of \$800 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act.[^20]

18. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for
    in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this
    *Order*. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified,
    the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection
    pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.[^21] Payment of the
    forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to
    the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must
    include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced above.
    Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
    Communications Commission, 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, and account number 27000001.
    For payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must
    be submitted.  When 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).
    Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be sent
    to:  Chief Financial Officer \-- Financial Operations, 445 12th
    Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C.  20554.   Please contact
    the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email:
    <ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov> with any questions regarding payment
    procedures.

19. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that a copy of this *Order* shall be sent
    by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to
    Martha S. and Miguel G. Campos, at their address of record.

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

Rebecca L. Dorch

Regional Director, Western Region

Enforcement Bureau

[^1]: 47 U.S.C. § 301.

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 95.407.

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 95.409.

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 95.407.

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 95.409.

[^6]: *Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,* NAL/Acct. No.
    200832980001 (Enf. Bur., Western Region, San Francisco Office,
    released October 31, 2007).

[^7]: 47 U.S.C. § 301.

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^9]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.

[^10]: 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), *recon. denied*, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

[^11]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).

[^12]: 47 U.S.C. § 301.

[^13]: 47 C.F.R. § 95.404.

[^14]: 47 C.F.R. § 95.425(c).

[^15]: 47 C.F.R. § 95.409(b).

[^16]: 47 C.F.R. § 95.407(a). The authorized frequencies for CB
    operation range from 26.965 MHz (CB Channel 1) to 27.405 MHz (CB
    Channel 40).

[^17]: San Francisco Office records show that the Campos' son spoke with
    San Francisco agents on August 31, 2006, and September 8, 2006, so
    that he could translate the violations contained in the August
    Warning Letter to Mr. Campos.

[^18]: *See PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc.*, 7 FCC Rcd 2088
    (1992).

[^19]: *See PJB Communications*, 7 FCC Rcd at 2089 (forfeiture not
    deemed excessive where it represented approximately 2.02 percent of
    the violator's gross revenues).

[^20]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 503(b), 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

[^21]: 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).