*Pages 1--3 from  Microsoft Word - 28773*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  2032
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554
 In  the  Matter  of  )  )  File  No.  EB-  02-  PA-  105
 Amethyst  International,  Inc.  )  Point  Pleasant  Beach,  New  Jersey  )  NAL/  Acct.  No.  200232400002
 )  )  FRN  0006-  8162-  01
 )
 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER
 Adopted:  June  20,  2003  Released:  June  24,  2003
 By  the  Chief,  Enforcement  Bureau:
 I.  INTRODUCTION
 1.  In  this  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  (  Order),  we  cancel  the  proposed  monetary  forfeiture  in  the  amount  of  ten  thousand  dollars  ($  10,000),  issued  to  Amethyst  International,  Inc.
 (  Amethyst)  for  its  apparent  willful  violation  of  Section  301  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (  Act).  1  However,  we  admonish  Amethyst  for  the  violation  which  caused  harmful  interference
 to  the  Coast  Guard.
 2.  On  June  5,  2002,  the  Commissions  Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania,  Field  Office  (  Philadelphia  Office)  issued  a  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  for  Forfeiture  (  NAL)  2  to  Amethyst  in  the
 amount  of  ten  thousand  dollars  ($  10,000).  Amethyst  filed  a  response  to  the  NAL  on  July  8,  2002.
 II.  BACKGROUND
 3.  On  February  25,  2002,  a  Commission  agent  from  the  Philadelphia  Office  received  a  call  from  the  United  States  Coast  Guard  advising  him  that  a  constant  signal  was  being  transmitted  on  VHF
 Marine  Channel  16  (156.  8  MHz).  The  signal,  which  had  been  on  the  air  for  approximately  two  hours,  was  causing  harmful  interference,  affecting  the  ability  of  Coast  Guard  Stations  Manasquan  and  Barnegat
 Light,  New  Jersey,  to  monitor  channel  16  for  transmissions  from  vessels  in  distress.
 4.  On  February  25,  2002  at  approximately  8:  45  p.  m.,  two  agents  from  the  Philadelphia  office  located  the  source  of  the  signal  transmitting  on  156.8  MHz  by  using  mobile  direction  finding
 techniques.  The  agents  determined  that  the  signal  was  emanating  from  the  Beach  Motel  at  202  Arnold
 1  47  U.  S.  C.    301.
 2  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  for  Forfeiture,  NAL/  Acct.  No.  200232400002  (Enf.  Bur.,  Philadelphia
 Office,  released  June  5,  2002).
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  2032
 2
 Avenue,  Point  Pleasant  Beach,  New  Jersey.  Inside  the  motel  lobby,  the  agents  discovered  a  Realistic  MTX-  100  marine  radio  and  noted  that  it  was  transmitting  on  Marine  Channel  16  (156.8  MHz).  The
 microphone  was  wedged  between  the  body  of  the  radio  and  the  counter,  causing  a  constant  signal.  At  approximately  9:  00  p.  m.,  Mr.  John  Fernicola,  the  owner  of  the  motel,  arrived.  Mr.  Fernicola
 disconnected  and  removed  the  radio.  Mr.  Fernicola  acknowledged  that  neither  he  nor  Amethyst  had  a  license  to  operate  a  coast  station  in  the  Maritime  Radio  Service.
 5.  On  February  26,  2002,  the  Philadelphia  Office  sent  Amethyst  a  warning  letter  which  explained  that  operation  of  the  unlicensed  marine  coast  station  on  frequency  156.8  MHz  at  the  Beach
 Motel  violated  Section  301  of  the  Act.  The  letter  also  outlined  the  potential  penalties  for  operating  the  unlicensed  station,  which  included  seizure  of  the  equipment,  fines,  and  imprisonment.  On  March  4,  2002,
 Amethyst  submitted  a  response  to  the  warning  letter.
 6.  On  June  5,  2002,  the  Philadelphia  Office  issued  a  NAL  to  Amethyst  for  its  unlicensed  operation  of  a  marine  coast  station  on  VHF  Marine  Channel  16  (156.8  MHz)  in  violation  of  Section  301
 of  the  Act.  On  July  8,  2002,  Amethyst  filed  a  response  to  the  NAL  in  which  it  requests  cancellation  or  reduction  of  the  proposed  forfeiture.
 III.  DISCUSSION
 7.  The  forfeiture  amount  in  this  case  was  proposed  in  accordance  with  Section  503(  b)  of  the  Act,  3  Section  1.80  of  the  Commissions  Rules  (  Rules),  4  and  The  Commissions  Forfeiture  Policy
 Statement  and  Amendment  of  Section  1.  80  of  the  Rules  to  Incorporate  the  Forfeiture  Guidelines,  12  FCC  Rcd  17087  (1997),  recon.  denied,  15  FCC  Rcd  303  (1999).  In  examining  Amethysts  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.  5
 8.  Section  301  of  the  Act  sets  forth  the  general  mandate  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.  Further,  Section  80.13  of  the  Rules  requires  that  any  land  station  operating  in  the  Maritime  Radio  Service  be  licensed.  6  On  February
 25,  2002,  Amethyst  operated  a  marine  coast  station  on  Marine  Channel  16  (156.  8  MHz)  which  adversely  affected  the  Coast  Guards  ability  to  monitor  for  transmissions  from  vessels  in  distress,  and  it  did  so
 without  a  license.
 9.  In  its  response,  Amethyst  states  that,  contrary  to  what  is  stated  in  the  NAL,  it  did  not  admit  responsibility  or  guilt  in  its  response  to  the  warning  letter  and  that  its  response  clearly  denies  any
 willful  intent  to  violate  the  rules.  In  fact,  Amethyst  posits  that  this  singular  incidence  of  interference  resulted  from  a  purely  accidental  and  inadvertent  activation  of  the  radio  transmitter,  that  Amethyst  did  not
 3  47  U.  S.  C.    503(  b).
 4  47  C.  F.  R.    1.80.
 5  47  U.  S.  C.    503(  b)(  2)(  D).
 6  47  C.  F.  R.    80.13.
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  2032
 3
 install  the  equipment  and  that  it  did  not  even  intend  its  presence  at  the  Beach  Motel.  Amethyst  also  asserts  that  it  has  never  authorized  the  use  of  the  equipment  by  any  employee  for  any  purpose,  that  the
 equipment  was  in  existence  as  found  when  Amethyst  assumed  operations  of  the  Beach  Motel,  that  it  believed  the  power  supply  to  the  radio  had  been  disconnected  and  that  any  operation  of  the  equipment
 was  impossible.  Amethyst  further  asserts  that  it  provides  each  front  desk  clerk  and  manager  with  a  published  set  of  rules  specifically  disallowing  the  use  of  cellular  phones,  personal  communications
 equipment,  radios  or  any  other  equipment  other  than  the  front  desk  switch  board  and  reservation  system.  Additionally,  Amethyst  points  out  that  there  is  no  allegation  that  this  was  anything  but  a  singular  event  or
 that  the  transmission  alleged  to  have  emanated  from  the  Beach  Motel  contained  any  audible  transmissions.  Furthermore,  Amethyst  asserts  that  it  immediately  removed  the  equipment,  that  it  has  no
 prior  history  of  violations  with  the  FCC,  and  that  the  forfeiture  amount  is  excessive.  Finally,  Amethyst  states  that  it  was  never  its  intention  to  maintain  a  transmitter  at  this  location  for  any  purpose  and  that
 Amethysts  previous  statement,  that  the  equipment  was  for  monitoring  purposes  only,  reflected  the  inferences  made  by  the  two  field  agents  about  why  the  previous  owner  probably  installed  the  equipment
 and  that  the  statement  did  not  represent  Amethysts  purpose  or  motive  in  leaving  the  equipment  as  found.
 10.  After  considering  the  totality  of  Amethysts  response  to  the  NAL,  specifically  the  good  faith  steps  taken  by  Amethyst  to  ensure  that  the  radio  was  not  used,  we  believe  that  cancellation  of  the
 forfeiture  is  appropriate.  Nevertheless,  we  find  that  it  is  also  appropriate  to  admonish  Amethyst  for  its  violation  of  Section  301  of  the  Act,  which  caused  harmful  interference  to  Coast  Guard  operations.
 IV.  ORDERING  CLAUSES
 11.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  THAT,  pursuant  to  Section  0.111,  0.311,  and  1.80(  f)(  4)  of  the  Rules,  7  the  forfeiture  in  the  amount  of  ten  thousand  dollars  ($  10,000)  proposed  in  the  June  5,  2002
 NAL  issued  to  Amethyst  International,  Inc.  IS  CANCELLED.
 12.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  Amethyst  IS  ADMONISHED  for  its  unlicensed  operation  of  a  marine  coast  station  on  VHF  Marine  Channel  16  (156.8  MHz)  from  the  Beach  Motel  in
 Point  Pleasant  Beach,  New  Jersey  on  February  25,  2002,  which  caused  harmful  interference  to  the  Coast  Guard.
 13.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  a  copy  of  this  Order  shall  be  sent  by  first  class  and  Certified  Mail  Return  Receipt  Requested  to  Amethyst  International,  Inc.,  202  Arnold  Avenue,  Point
 Pleasant  Beach,  New  Jersey  08742.
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION
 David  H.  Solomon  Chief,  Enforcement  Bureau
 7  47  C.  F.  R.    0.111,  0.  311,  1.80(  f)(  4).
3