Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+---------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | ) | File No.: EB-06-HL-087          |
|                                  |   |                                 |
| Grant V. Lam                     | ) | NAL/Acct. No.: 200632860002     |
|                                  |   |                                 |
| Licensee of Aircraft Radio       | ) | FRN: 0015340128                 |
| Station N4390Q                   |   |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
| Mililani, Hawaii                 |   |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
+----------------------------------+---+---------------------------------+

## FORFEITURE ORDER

**Adopted: March 28, 2007 Released: March 30, 2007**

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 two thousand dollars (\$2,000) to Grant V. Lam
    ("Lam"), licensee of aircraft radio station N4390Q, for repeatedly
    violating Section 87.193 of the Commission\'s Rules (\"Rules\").[^1]
    On August 22, 2006, the Enforcement Bureau's Honolulu Resident Agent
    Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
    ("*NAL*") in the amount of \$2,000 to Lam after determining that Lam
    apparently repeatedly allowed the activation of his emergency
    locator transmitter ("ELT") on distress and safety frequencies, when
    it was not required as a locating aid for survival purposes.[^2] In
    this *Order*, we consider Lam's arguments that the violation was not
    intentional and that Lam has since ensured that the operation of the
    ELT is in compliance with the Rules.

# II. BACKGROUND

2.  On April 16, 2006, a Honolulu agent responded to a complaint of
    interference to the distress and safety frequencies, 121.5 MHz and
    243 MHz, at the Honolulu International Airport. The Agent tracked
    the signal to an ELT on board aircraft station N4390Q, located on
    the south ramp of the Honolulu International Airport. Lam, the
    registered owner of the aircraft, was working on the aircraft at the
    time of the ELT activation. Lam deactivated the ELT at the request
    of the agent. The agent explained to Lam that Lam was responsible
    for preventing non-emergency activations of the ELT. A Notice of
    Violation ("*Notice*") was issued to Lam on April 26, 2006. In the
    *Notice*, Lam was cited for violation of Section 87.193 of the
    Rules,[^3] because of the activation of the ELT on board aircraft
    N4390Q, in the absence of any actual emergency situations. Lam
    replied to the *Notice* by letter dated May 3, 2006. The response
    from Lam acknowledged the violation, surmised that the activation
    resulted from nearby turbulence, and stated that Lam changed the ELT
    batteries.

3.  On July 18, 2006, FCC Honolulu agents received a complaint of
    interference to the distress and safety frequencies, 121.5 MHz and
    243 MHz, at the Honolulu International Airport. The agents employed
    an FCC direction finding vehicle to track the source of the signal
    to an ELT installed on aircraft station N4390Q, located in Hangar
    421-139, on the south ramp of the Honolulu International Airport.
    Lam's wife, Tham Lam, was in the hangar at the time of the
    inspection and deactivated the ELT at the request of the agents. She
    explained to the agents that the ELT activated earlier that day
    without apparent cause, so she was aware that there was a problem
    with the ELT. The agents warned Ms. Lam that the ELT appeared to be
    defective, and should be removed from service until it could be
    repaired, or replaced. The ELT reactivated as the agents were
    departing the hanger. The agents alerted Ms. Lam to the
    reactivation, and advised her that the unit batteries should be
    removed as soon as possible. Ms. Lam deactivated the ELT via the
    unit toggle switch, and indicated to the agents that she would
    remove the batteries to avoid further non-emergency activations.

4.  On August 22, 2006, the Honolulu Office issued a *NAL* in the amount
    of \$2,000 to Lam. In the *NAL*, the Honolulu Office found that Lam
    apparently repeatedly allowed the activation of his ELT on distress
    and safety frequencies, when it was not required as a locating aid
    for survival purposes. Lam filed a response to the *NAL* on
    September 8, 2006 ("*Response*"). In his *Response*, Lam argues that
    he did not intentionally violate the Rules, and that he took steps
    after the issuance of the *Notice*, and again after the issuance of
    the *NAL*, to ensure that the operation of the ELT was in compliance
    with the Rules.

# III. DISCUSSION

5.  The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in
    accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,[^4] Section 1.80 of the
    Rules,[^5] and *The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and
    Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture
    Guidelines*.[^6] 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.[^7]

6.  Pursuant to Section 87.18(b) of the Rules, "\[a\]n aircraft station
    is licensed by rule, and does not need an individual license issued
    by the FCC if the aircraft station is not required by statute,
    treaty or agreement to which the United States is signatory to carry
    a radio, and the aircraft station does not make international
    flights or communications. Even though an individual license is not
    required, an aircraft station licensed by rule must be operated in
    accordance with all applicable operating requirements, procedures
    and technical specifications . . . ."[^8] As the FAA Civil Aviation
    Registry lists Grant V. Lam as the owner of aircraft N4390Q, he is
    responsible for the aircraft ELT transmissions.

7.  A false ELT activation has the potential to severely impact the
    search and rescue network, resulting in responder resources being
    wasted and misdirected. According to the United States Coast Guard
    ("USCG") Joint Rescue Coordination Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, air
    searches for false ELT activations cost the USCG thousands of
    dollars per search hour. Additional costs are incurred by rescue
    coordination centers, support personnel, and ground search and
    rescue responders. False activations also can cause harmful
    interference to the Search and Rescue Satellite system and to
    airplanes and vessels in the vicinity of the signal. Additionally, a
    false activation may conceal or prevent timely response to a
    legitimate distress signal.

8.  Section 87.193 of the Rules states that ELTs "are intended to be
    actuated manually or automatically and operated automatically as
    part of an aircraft station as a locating aid for survival
    purposes." [^9] The ELT in Lam's aircraft, N4390Q, was activated on
    April 26, 2006, and July 18, 2006. The activation of the ELT was not
    for use as a locating aid for survival purposes on either day.
    Additionally, on both days, the activation caused interference to
    transmissions on distress and safety frequencies, 121.5 MHz and 243
    MHz.

9.  In his *Response*, Lam acknowledges that the ELT activated on the
    dates listed above, but argues that the activations were not
    intentional. In the *NAL,* the Honolulu Office determined that the
    violation was repeated, not willful or intentional. Therefore, we
    find no merit to this argument.

10. Lam also argues that after the first inadvertent activation, on
    April 16, 2006, he replaced the batteries to remedy the problem.
    After the second inadvertent activation, on July 18, 2006, he
    removed the unit from his plane and sent it back to the
    manufacturer. Consequently, he argues that he has taken immediate
    corrective measures after each inadvertent activation. While we
    appreciate Lam's efforts, we find that on each date, they took place
    after he was approached by a Honolulu agent about the activation.
    The Commission has consistently held that a licensee is expected to
    correct errors when they are brought to the licensee's attention and
    that such correction is not grounds for a downward adjustment in the
    forfeiture.[^10] Therefore, we find no merit to this argument. We
    also note that Lam has not claimed an inability to pay the proposed
    forfeiture amount, and has produced no financial documentation to
    support such a claim.[^11]

11. 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 Lam
    repeatedly violated Section 87.193 of the Rules. Considering the
    entire record and the factors listed above, we find that neither
    reduction nor cancellation of the \$2,000 forfeiture is warranted.

# IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

12. **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, Grant Lam
    **IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE** in the amount of \$2,000 for
    repeatedly violating Section 87.193 of the Rules.[^12]

13. 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.[^13] 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/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above. 
    Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
    Communications Commission, P.O. Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA
    15251-8340.  Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Mellon
    Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA
    15251.   Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA
    Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account
    number 911- 6106. Requests for full payment under an installment
    plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director -- Financial
    Operations, Room 1A625, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
    20554.[^14]

14. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that a copy of this *Order* shall be sent
    by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to
    Grant Lam, at his address of record.

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

Rebecca L. Dorch

Regional Director, Western Region

Enforcement Bureau

[^1]: 47 C.F.R. § 87.193.

[^2]: *Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,* NAL/Acct. No.
    200632860002 (Enf. Bur., Western Region, Honolulu Resident Agent
    Office, released August 22, 2006).

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 87.193.

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.

[^6]: 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), *recon. denied*, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

[^7]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).

[^8]: 47 C.F.R. § 87.18(b).

[^9]: 47 C.F.R. § 87.193.

[^10]: *AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.* 17 FCC Rcd 21866, 21871-76 (2002).

[^11]: In the *NAL,* the Honolulu Office stated that 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." *NAL* at para. 13.

[^12]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4),
    87.193.

[^13]: 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).

[^14]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.