Federal Communications Commission DA 09-147
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Inter Tech FM 
)
)
)
)
File No. EB-08-SE-052
NAL/Acct. No. 200932100041
FRN # 0018458026
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  January 29, 2009 Released:  February 2, 2009
By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we find Inter Tech FM 
(Inter Tech) apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for 
willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(Act),1 and Section 2.803(a) of the Commissions Rules (Rules).2  The noted apparent violation 
involves Inter Techs marketing of an unauthorized FM broadcast transmitter.  In addition, we propose a 
forfeiture in the amount of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) against Inter Tech for providing to the 
Commission, during the course of this investigation, material factual information that is incorrect without 
a reasonable basis for believing the material factual information was correct, in willful violation of 
Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules.3 We accordingly propose a total forfeiture of eighteen thousand dollars 
($18,000).
II. BACKGROUND
2. In response to complaints alleging that Inter Tech was marketing4 unauthorized FM 
broadcast transmitters in the United States, the Spectrum Enforcement Division of the Enforcement 
Bureau (Division) began an investigation.  As part of this investigation, Division Staff reviewed Inter 
Techs website5 on February 7, 2008, noting that Inter Tech was marketing a broad array of FM 
broadcast equipment.  Because it appeared that Inter Tech may have been using this website to market 
unauthorized broadcast equipment, the Division sent Inter Tech a letter of inquiry6 on March 28, 2008 to 
  
1 47 U.S.C.  302a(b).
2 47 C.F.R.  2.803(a). 
3 47 C.F.R.  1.17(a)(2). 
4 Marketing includes the sale or lease, offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), importing, 
shipping, and/or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.  47 C.F.R.  
2.803(e)(4).
5 www.intertechfm.com (accessed February 7, 2008).
6 See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, to Chris Rea, Inter Tech FM (March 28, 2008) (First LOI).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-147
2
further investigate whether Inter Tech was marketing unauthorized FM broadcast equipment.
3. In its April 23, 2008 response to the First LOI,7 Inter Tech stated that it manufactured 
and marketed fifteen different transmitter models.8 Of the fifteen transmitter models, Inter Tech stated 
that it currently markets fourteen of these models in the United States, and that it only recently 
discontinued marketing the remaining model, the Cybermax FM TX1 (also sold as the Cybermax FM 
TXV-1 and TXV-2, and Cyclone TX1, TXV-1 and TXV-2) (Cybermax FM TX1), in the United States 
in November of 2007.9 Inter Tech states that all of these models were marketed to full power FM 
stations operating in the broadcast services under Part 73 of the Rules, and verified in accordance with 
the requirements set forth in Section 73.1660(a)(1) of the Rules.10 As proof of verification, Inter Tech 
provided verification records for an exciter that Inter Tech claims is incorporated into each of the fifteen 
models.11
4. Because Inter Tech did not provide the requested verification paperwork for the 
transmitters, including the Cybermax FM TX1 transmitter, the Division issued follow-up LOIs on July 
10, 200812 and November 24, 2008.13 In its July 23, 2008 Response to the Second LOI,14 Inter Tech 
stated that it believed that by verifying the exciter, it had complied with Section 73.1660(a)(1) of the 
Rules.15 In the Divisions Third LOI, the Division sought an explanation for Inter Techs statement in its 
First LOI Response that it had discontinued marketing the Cybermax FM TX1 Transmitter in November 
of 2007, despite evidence that the Cybermax FM Transmitter TX1 was marketed on the website as late as 
February 7, 2008 under the name Cyclone TXV-2.16 Inter Tech claimed that it had accidentally uploaded 
a previous version of its website on that date, and that Inter Tech had removed the marketing material 
  
7 See Letter from Chris Rea, Inter Tech FM to Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission (April 23, 2008) (First Response).
8 Id. at 6.
9 Id. at 1 (stating that InterTech discontinued marketing the Cybermax FM TX1 or TXV-1 or TXV-2 in November 
2007).  See also id. at 4 (identifying the Cybermax TX1 or TXV-1 or TXV-2 under the names Cyclone TX1, 
Cyclone TXV-1, and Cyclone TXV-2).  We note that our findings in this NAL pertain only to the marketing of the 
Cybermax FM TX1 transmitter.  Our investigation into Inter Techs marketing of several other FM broadcast 
equipment models is ongoing, and therefore is not addressed in this NAL.
10 Id. at 4.  See also 47 C.F.R.  73.1660(a)(1).  Verification is a self-authorization procedure where the 
manufacturer or the importer, in the case of imported equipment, makes measurements or takes the necessary steps to 
insure that the equipment complies with the appropriate technical standards.  See 47 C.F.R.  2.902 and 2.909(b).
11 Id.  See also 47 C.F.R.  2.955 (describing those verification records required to be maintained by the 
manufacturer).
12 See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, to Chris Rea, Inter Tech FM (July 10, 2008) (Second LOI). 
13 See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, to Chris Rea, Inter Tech FM (November 24, 2008) (Third LOI).
14 See Letter from Chris Rea, Inter Tech FM to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, 
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (July 23, 2008) (Second Response).
15 Id. at 2.
16 See Third LOI at 2.  See also supra para. 2.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-147
3
associated with the Cyclone TXV-2 as soon as [the marketing material] was discovered.17
III. DISCUSSION
A. Marketing of Unauthorized Equipment
5. Section 302 of the Act authorizes the Commission to make reasonable regulations, 
consistent with the public interest, governing the interference potential of equipment that emits radio 
frequency energy, and prohibits, among other things, the offering for sale of radio frequency devices to 
the extent that such activity does not comply with these regulations.18  Specifically, Section 302(b) of the 
Act provides that [n]o person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home 
electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated 
pursuant to this Section.  Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules prohibits the sale or lease, offer of sale or 
lease, importation, or shipment of radio frequency devices,19 as well as the distribution of such devices 
for the purpose of selling such devices, unless the device complies with applicable administrative, 
technical, labeling and identification requirements of the Rules. 
6. Section 73.1660(a)(1) of the Rules20 requires verification of AM, FM, or TV transmitters 
used in the broadcast services, in accordance with the procedures described in Part 2 of the Rules.  Under 
Section 2.811 of the Rules,21 the requirements of Section 2.803(a) through (d) of the Rules are not 
applicable to transmitters operated in any of the Part 73 radio broadcast services, provided that the 
conditions set forth in Part 73 for the acceptability of such transmitter for using under licensing are met.  
Therefore, absent compliance with the verification requirement set forth in Section 73.1660 of the Rules, 
Part 73 transmitters are considered to be unauthorized and may not be marketed in the United States.
7. Inter Tech states that the Cybermax FM TX1 Transmitter has been verified in 
accordance with Section 73.1660(a)(1) of the Rules for use in the broadcast service.  Section 
73.1660(a)(1) of the Rules, however, requires verification of transmitters, not component parts thereof.  
As proof of verification, Inter Tech submitted partial verification records22 for the Max 15 DSP FM 
exciter, an exciter that Inter Tech claims is incorporated into the Cybermax FM TX1 Transmitter.  
Because transmitters are a combination of several functional components that interact with one another to 
produce unique emanating characteristics and power levels, verification of an exciter incorporated into a 
transmitter is insufficient to verify the final transmitter.  Therefore, we conclude that the Cybermax FM 
TX1 transmitter has not been verified.  Accordingly, we find that Inter Tech apparently marketed the 
  
17 See Third Response at 1.
18 47 U.S.C.  302a(a).
19 Section 2.801(a)(1) of the Rules defines a radio frequency device as any device which in its operation is capable 
of emitting radio frequency energy... .  Radio frequency devices subject to the Rules include, among other items, 
radio communication transmitting devices and any part or component thereof which in use emits radiofrequency 
energy.  47 C.F.R.   2.801(a)(1) and (d).
20 47 C.F.R.  73.1660(a)(1).
21 See 47 C.F.R.  2.811. 
22 47 C.F.R.  2.955 (listing records required to be maintained as proof of verification).  Under the verification 
procedures, the manufacturer of radio frequency devices, or the importer in the case of imported devices, must make 
measurements or take the necessary steps to obtain measurements to ensure that the subject devices comply with the 
Commission's technical standards.  See 47 C.F.R.  2.902(a).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-147
4
Cybermax FM TX1 Transmitter in the United States, in willful23 and repeated24 violation of Section 
302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules.25
B. Providing Incorrect Material Information to the Commission 
8. Section 1.17 of the Rules states that no person may provide, in any written statement of 
fact, material factual information that is incorrect or omit material information that is necessary to 
prevent any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect or misleading without a 
reasonable basis for believing that any such material factual statement is correct and not misleading.26  
Any person who has received a letter of inquiry from the Commission or its staff or is otherwise the 
subject of a Commission investigation is subject to the Rule.27 In expanding the scope of Section 1.17 of 
the Rules in 2003 to include written statements that are made without a reasonable basis for believing the 
statement is correct and not misleading, the Commission explained that this requirement was intended to 
more clearly articulate the obligations of persons dealing with the Commission, ensure that they exercise 
due diligence in preparing written submissions, and enhance the effectiveness of the Commissions 
enforcement efforts.28 Thus, even in the absence of an intent to deceive, a false statement provided 
without a reasonable basis for believing that the statement is correct and not misleading constitutes an 
actionable violation of Section 1.17 of the Rules.29
9. As the Commission has stated, parties must use due diligence in providing information 
that is correct and not misleading to the Commission, including taking appropriate affirmative steps to 
  
23 Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines willful as the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of [any] 
act, irrespective of any intent to violate the law.  47 U.S.C.  312(f)(1).  The legislative history of Section 
312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. 
Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 
503(b) context.  See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 
4388 (1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (Southern California).  
24 Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures assessed pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 
provides that [t]he term repeated, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such 
commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.  47 U.S.C.  312(f)(2).  See Callais Cablevision, 
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 (2001); Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd 
at 4388.
25 See Syntax-Brillian Corporation, Forfeiture Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 
6323, 6327 (2008) (emphasizing that equipment subject to verification but noncompliant with our technical and 
administrative Rules is considered to be unauthorized under 503(b)(5) of the Act and may not be marketed in the 
United States) (Syntax-Brillian Forfeiture Order).  See also Behringer USA, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 1820, 1825 (2006) (imposing liability for the marketing of non-verified equipment), 
forfeiture ordered, 22 FCC Rcd 10451 (2007) (forfeiture paid) (Behringer USA, Inc.).  
26 47 C.F.R.  1.17(a)(2).
27 47 C.F.R.  1.17(b)(4).
28 See Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Truthful Statements to the Commission, 
Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 4016, 4021 (2003), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 
5790, further recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 1250 (2004)(Amendment of Section 
1.17). 
29 See id. at 4017 (stating that the revision to Section 1.17 of the Rules is intended to prohibit incorrect statements 
of omissions that are the results of negligence, as well as an intent to deceive).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-147
5
determine the truthfulness of what is being submitted.  A failure to exercise such reasonable diligence 
would mean that the party did not have a reasonable basis for believing in the truthfulness of the 
information.30 In its First Response, Inter Tech stated that in November of 2007, it ceased marketing the 
Cybermax FM TXI (also marketed under the trade name Cyclone TXV-2).31 As of February 7, 2008, 
however, Inter Techs website listed this transmitter for sale under the name Cyclone TXV-2.32 Had 
Inter Tech exercised even minimal diligence prior to the submission of its First LOI Response, it would 
not have submitted incorrect and misleading material factual information in its LOI response.33 Although 
there is insufficient information to conclude that Inter Tech's provision of incorrect material factual 
information was intentional in violation of Section 1.17(a)(1) of the Rules,34 we find that Inter Tech 
apparently willfully violated Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules by providing material factual information 
that was incorrect without a reasonable basis for believing that the information was correct and not 
misleading.35
C. Proposed Forfeiture
10. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act, any person who is determined by the 
Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any Rule, 
regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture 
penalty.36 To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability 
and the person against whom such notice has been issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing, 
why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.37 The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it 
finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or Rule.38 As set forth 
below, we conclude under this standard that Inter Tech is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount 
  
30 Amendment of Section 1.17, 18 FCC Rcd at 4021.
31 See First Response at 1.
32 See para. 2 supra.  
33 See Invision Industries, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 13095, 13103-04 (2008) 
(finding that a television importers failure to exercise due diligence to ensure that the information provided in its 
LOI Response was correct and not misleading constituted a violation of Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules) (Invision); 
Syntax-Brillian Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6342 (finding that a television manufacturer apparently provided 
incorrect material information concerning its importation and interstate shipment of non-DTV-compliant televisions 
without a reasonable basis for believing that the information was correct and not misleading, in violation of Section 
1.17(a)(2) of the Rules); Citicasters License, L.P., et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent 
Liability, 22 FCC Rcd 19324, 19338 (2007) (forfeiture paid) (finding that a licensees false certification that it had 
not violated the Act or any Commission Rules during the preceding license term had no reasonable basis and was not 
made with the intent to deceive the Commission but nonetheless, violated Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules) 
(Citicasters).  See also Cardinal Broadband LLC, aka Sovereign Telecommunications, Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 12233, 12237 (Enf. Bur. 2008) (Cardinal Broadband LLC), response 
pending (finding that the failure to provide information requested in an LOI prior to receipt of the Divisions follow-
up LOI constituted a violation of Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules). 
34 47 C.F.R. 1.17(a)(1). 
35 See, e.g., Cardinal Broadband LLC, 23 FCC Rcd at 12237.
36 47 U.S.C.  503(b).  
37 47 U.S.C.  503(b); 47 C.F.R.  1.80(f).
38 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591 (2002) (forfeiture paid).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-147
6
of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for its apparent willful and repeated violations of Section 302(b) of 
the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules, and a forfeiture in the amount of eleven thousand dollars 
($11,000) for its willful violation of Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules, for a total proposed forfeiture of 
eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000).
11. At the time of Inter Techs apparent violations, under Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act,39
we were authorized to assess a forfeiture penalty against certain entities, such as Inter Tech, who are not 
common carriers, broadcast licensees, or cable operators, of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) for each 
violation, or for each day of a continuing violation, up to a total of ninety seven thousand five hundred 
dollars ($97,500) for any single act or failure to act.  In exercising such authority, we are required to 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 such other matters as 
justice may require.40
12. Section 503(b)(6) of the Act41 bars the Commission from proposing a forfeiture for 
violations that occurred more than a year prior to the issuance of an NAL. Section 503(b)(6) does not, 
however, bar the Commission from assessing whether Inter Techs conduct prior to that time period 
apparently violated the provisions of the Act and Rules and from considering such conduct in 
determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory 
period.42 Thus, while we may consider the fact that Inter Techs conduct has continued since 2006 or 
earlier, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Inter Techs apparent violations that have 
occurred within the past year.  
13. Under the Commissions Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of 
the Rules to incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement)43 and Section 1.80 of 
  
39 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(A).  The Commission has amended Section 1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(3), 
three times to increase the maximum forfeiture amounts, in accordance with the inflation adjustment requirements 
contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C.  2461.  See Amendment of Section 1.80 of 
the Commissions Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008) 
(adjusting the maximum statutory amounts for non- licensees from $11,000/$97,500 to $16,000/$112,500); 
Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts for non-licensees from 
$11,000/$87,500 to $11,000/$97,500); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules and Adjustment of 
Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts 
for non-licensees from $10,000/$75,000 to $11,000/$87,500).  The most recent inflation adjustment took effect 
September 2, 2008 and applies to violations that occur after that date.  See 73 Fed. Reg. 44663-5.  
40 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(E).  See also 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4), Note to paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment 
Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures.
41 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(6).
42 See 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D), 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4); see also Behringer USA, Inc., 21 FCC Rcd at 1825; 
Globcom, Inc. d/b/a Globcom Global Communications, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 
19893, 19903 (2003), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd 4710 (2006); Roadrunner Transportation, 
Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9669, 9671-72 (2000); Cate Communications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 60 RR 2d 1386, 1388 (1986); Eastern Broadcasting Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC 2d 37 
(1967), recon. denied, 11 FCC 2d 193 (1967); Bureau DElectronique Appliquee, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability 
for Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 3445, 3447-48 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2005), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture 
Order, 20 FCC Rcd 17893 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div.  2005).
43 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-147
7
the Rules,44 the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is seven thousand 
dollars ($7,000).  We conclude that Inter Tech marketed the unauthorized Cybermax FM TX1 
transmitter.  Accordingly, we find that a proposed forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars 
($7,000) is warranted for the willful and repeated marketing of an unauthorized transmitter in violation of 
Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules.45
14. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base 
forfeiture amount for misrepresentation or lack of candor is the statutory maximum,46 or, in this case as 
based on the date of the violation, eleven thousand dollars ($11,000).47 In determining the appropriate 
forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors 
enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, including 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 such other matters as justice may require.48
15. Considering all of the enumerated factors and the particular circumstances of this case, 
we find that Inter Tech in responding to our First LOI apparently willfully violated Section 1.17(a)(2) of 
the Rules by providing incorrect or misleading material factual information to Commission staff without 
a reasonable basis for believing the information was correct and not misleading.  The Commission has 
stated that it relies heavily on the truthfulness and accuracy of the information provided to us.  If 
information submitted to us is incorrect, we cannot properly carry out our statutory responsibilities.49  
Inter Techs failure to exercise due diligence to ensure that the information provided in its LOI Response 
was correct and not misleading hampered our ability to properly carry out our statutory responsibilities 
and consumed scarce Commission resources.  Although Inter Tech ultimately provided the correct 
information, it did so only after the Division sent Inter Tech a Third LOI that specifically directed Inter 
Tech to explain why, if Inter Tech ceased marketing the Cybermax TX1 transmitter in November of 
2007, Inter Techs website offered this transmitter for sale on February 7, 2008.50 Accordingly, we find 
  
44 47 C.F.R.  1.80.
45 See, e.g., San Jose Navigation,Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 2873, 2877 (2006) 
(proposing a $28,000 base forfeiture amount for the marketing of four unauthorized devices), forfeiture ordered, 
Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1040 (2007); CoachComm, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC 
Rcd 13278, 13282 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008) (proposing a $7,000 forfeiture amount for the marketing of 
one unauthorized device); Ramsey Electronics, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 458, 
462 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., 2006) (proposing a $28,000 base forfeiture amount for the marketing of four 
unauthorized devices), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8652 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div.2008).
46 See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17113; 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4), Note to Paragraph (b)(4): Section 
I. Base Amounts for Section 503 Forfeitures.  See also Syntax-Brillian Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6343; 
Citicasters, 22 FCC Rcd at 19339 (using the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentation/lack of candor as the base 
forfeiture for violations of Section 1.17 of the Rules).
47 See 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D) (setting forth the statutory maximum forfeiture for entities other than broadcasters 
and common carriers).  See also Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules and Adjustment of 
Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts for 
non- licensees from $11,000/$87,500 to $16,000/$112,500).  The most recent inflation adjustment took effect 
September 2, 2008 and applies to violations that occur after that date.  See 73 Fed. Reg. 44663-5.  Because this 
violation occurred on April 23, 2008, the statutory maximum prior to this adjustment applies.
48 See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100; 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4).
49 See Amendment of Section 1.17, 18 FCC Rcd 3293, 3297 (2002).
50 See Cardinal Broadband LLC, 23 FCC Rcd at 12237 (proposing a forfeiture of $25,000 when an interconnected 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-147
8
that a proposed forfeiture of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) is warranted for Inter Techs violation of 
Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act51
and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules,52 Inter Tech FM IS hereby NOTIFIED of its 
APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) 
for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules, and 
eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) for willfully violating Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules, for a total 
proposed forfeiture of fifteen thousand dollars ($18,000). 
17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty 
days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, Inter Tech FM 
SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking 
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
18. 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.  Inter Tech FM 
will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to Neal.McNeal@fcc.gov and 
Nissa.Laughner@fcc.gov.
19. The response, if any, must be mailed to the Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN: Enforcement 
Bureau  Spectrum Enforcement Division, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the 
caption.
20. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a 
(Continued from previous page)    
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service provider  provided correct information only after the Bureau sent a 
follow-up LOI directing it to provide substantially the same information requested in the First LOI); Invision, 23 
FCC Rcd at 13103-04 proposing a forfeiture of $4,000 for failure to exercise due diligence to ensure that the 
information provided in a letter of inquiry response was correct and not misleading where corrective information was 
provided in a timely manner without a specific request).  See also cf. Hauppauge Computer Works, Inc, Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 3684, 3686-87 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008) (proposing an 
$11,000 forfeiture for failure to provide a complete response to letter of inquiry) (forfeiture paid).
51 47 U.S.C.  503(b).
52 47 C.F.R.   0.111, 0.311 and 1.80.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-147
9
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; or 
(3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioners current 
financial status.  Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by 
reference to the financial documentation submitted.
21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to Chris Rea, Inter 
Tech FM, 8725 W. Sunset Road, Suite 200, Niles, Illinois 60714.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kathryn S. Berthot
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau