**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Edwin Valentin ) EB-00-DT-024

d/b/a Musical Radio ) NAL Acct. No. 815DT0002

Pontiac, Michigan )

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: March 6, 2000** **Released: March 9, 2000**

By the Commission:

1\. In this order, we affirm a \$5,000 forfeiture assessed against Edwin
Valentin by the former Compliance and Information Bureau for operating
an unlicensed FM radio station on frequency 106.3 MHz in Pontiac,
Michigan, in contravention of Section 301 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended ("Act"), 47 U.S.C. § 301, and Sections 15.209 and
15.239 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"), 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.209 and
15.239.[^1]

2\. In 1997, the Commission's Detroit Field Office investigated
complaints that an unlicensed FM radio station was broadcasting on 106.3
MHz in the Detroit, Michigan area, and eventually determined that Rev.
Edwin Valentin was operating the unlicensed radio station. On December
10, 1997, the Detroit Field Office issued a \$5,000 Notice of Apparent
Liability ("NAL") to Rev. Valentin for operating an FM radio station in
contravention of Section 301 of the Act and Sections 15.209 and 15.239
of the Rules. Although Rev. Valentin responded to the NAL, he did not
challenge the allegations that the Detroit Field Office raised against
him. He took issue, instead, with the Commission's refusal to license
micro broadcasters, even though he had not applied for a license, and
argued that the Commission's position on this issue serves as an
impermissible infringement and restriction of his First Amendment right
to broadcast.

3\. On March 11, 1998, the Bureau reviewed the NAL, considered Rev.
Valentin's response, and concluded that the record supported the NAL.
The Bureau then issued a \$5,000 Notice of Forfeiture ("NOF") to Rev.
Valentin. The Bureau rejected Rev. Valentin's challenge to the
constitutionality of the Commission's licensing scheme, concluding that
the licensing scheme is constitutional and finding that Rev. Valentin
had not, in any event, even applied for a license or any other form of
necessary authorization.[^2]

4\. In his Application for Review, Rev. Valentin raises the same two
arguments that he raised in his response to the NAL. We find that the
Bureau fully and correctly addressed Rev. Valentin's contentions in the
NOF. The Commission's licensing scheme is constitutional. *See, e.g.*,
*NBC v. United States*, 319 U.S. 190 (1943); *Free Speech v. Reno*, 1999
WL 982951 (2nd Cir. Oct. 29, 1999) (*per curiam*), *rehearing pending*;
*Stephen Paul Dunifer*, 11 FCC Rcd 718, 720-27 (1995). Rev. Valentin has
not filed for (let alone received) a Commission license. He
intentionally broke the law. Therefore, we deny Rev. Valentin's
Application for Review and affirm the Bureau's NOF.

5\. Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED** that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of
the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), and Sections 1.80 and
1.115(g) of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.80 and 1.115(g),
Rev. Valentin's Application for Review **IS** **DENIED**.

6\. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that a copy of this Order shall be sent by
certified mail, return receipt requested, to Rev. Valentin and counsel.

Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and
Debt Management Center, (202) 418-1995, or by mailing a check or similar
instrument payable to the order of the Federal Communications
Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. The payment
should be marked "NAL Acct. No. 815DT0002." Forfeiture penalties not
paid within 30 days may be referred to the Department of Justice for
recovery. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

[^1]: *Edwin Valentin d/b/a Musical Radio*, 13 FCC Rcd 5099 (Compl. &
    Inf. Bur. 1998).

[^2]: In his response to the NAL and in his Application for Review, Rev.
    Valentin states, in passing, that he requests a waiver of Section
    301 of the Act. Although Rev. Valentin is free to file an
    application along with a request for a waiver of the power limits
    for low power broadcasts contained in Part 15 of the Rules,
    *Hippolito Cuevas*, 13 FCC Rcd 25289 (Mass Med. Bur. 1998), a
    forfeiture proceeding is not the appropriate place to consider such
    a request. In any event, it is undisputed that Rev. Valentin had not
    received a waiver and a license at the time of the unlawful
    operation.