26598 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 / Notices

2This figure reflects the maximum appropriate

forfeiture amount in light of the specific facts at

issue. See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(C); 47 CFR

§§ 1.80(b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5); see also In re the

Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and

Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to

Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd

17087 (1997)(petitions for reconsideration pending).

13. It is further ordered that, to avail

himself of the opportunity to be heard,

Keith Perry, pursuant to Section 1.91(c)

of the rules, in person or by attorney,

Shall File in triplicate with the

Commission within twenty (20) days of

the mailing of this Order, a written

appearance stating that he will appear at

the hearing and present evidence on the

matters specified in this Order.

14. It is further ordered that, without

regard as to whether the hearing record

warrants an order that Keith Perry cease

and desist from violating the Act or the

rules, it shall be determined, pursuant

to Section 503(b) of the Act, whether an

Order For Forfeiture in an amount not

to exceed $11,000 2 shall be issued

against Keith Perry for the alleged

violations of Section 301 of the Act.

15. It is further ordered that in

connection with the possible forfeiture

liability noted above, this document

constitutes a notice of opportunity for

hearing pursuant to Section 503(b) of

the Act and Section 1.80 of the rules.

16. It is further ordered that a copy of

each document filed in this proceeding

subsequent to the date of adoption of

this Order Shall Be Served on the

counsel of record appearing on behalf of

the Chief, Compliance and Information

Bureau. Parties may inquire as to the

identity of such counsel by calling the

Compliance and Information Bureau at

(202) 418–1100, TTY (202) 418–2544.

Such service Shall Be Addressed to the

named counsel of record, Compliance

and Information Bureau, Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

17. It Is Further Ordered that the

Office of Public Affairs, Reference

Operations Division of the Commission

send a copy of this Order by Certified

Mail—Return Receipt Requested to:

Keith Perry, 607 Osage Drive,

Leander, Texas 78641.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–12813 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[FCC 98–60]

Order To Show Cause and Notice of

Opportunity for Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission will hold a hearing to

determine whether to issue a Cease and

Desist Order, and whether a forfeiture

will be imposed for the unlicensed

operation of a radio station in violation

of the Communications Act in docket

case CI 98–44.

DATES: Prehearing on May 19, 1998, 9:00

am; Hearing on June 23, 1998, 10:00 am.

ADDRESSES: All pleadings and papers

must be mailed to Office of the

Secretary, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room

222, Washington, D.C. 20554; Hearings

held at Office of the Commission.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman Goldstein and James Shook,

Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418–1430, email ngoldste@fcc.gov and

jshook@fcc.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Released: April 6, 1998.

1. The Commission has under

consideration information concerning

the transmission of radio signals

without a license by Joseph Frank Ptak

(‘‘Ptak’’). For the reasons that follow, we

order Ptak to show cause, pursuant to

Section 312(c) of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’), 47

U.S.C. 312(c), why we should not issue

a cease and desist order which prohibits

further unauthorized transmissions on

his part. Also, pursuant to Section

1.80(g) of the Commission’s Rules (the

‘‘rules’’), 47 CFR 1.80(g), this order

constitutes a notice of opportunity for

hearing to determine whether, in

addition to or as an alternative to the

issuance of a cease and desist order, a

forfeiture should be imposed for

violations of the Act and rules.

2. Background. On April 9, 1997,

Loyd P. Perry (‘‘Perry’’), one of the

Houston, Texas, resident agents of the

Commission’s Compliance and

Information Bureau (‘‘CIB’’), received

information from the San Marcos

(Texas) Police Department concerning

an unauthorized radio station operating

on 105.9 MHz. Perry and CIB Dallas

Director James D. Wells (‘‘Wells’’)

proceeded to the San Marcos area in

mobile automatic direction finder

(‘‘MADF’’) unit FC–660. About 10 miles

south of San Marcos, Perry and Wells

detected a radio signal on 105.9 MHz,

which increased in strength as they

approached San Marcos. Further

monitoring led Perry and Wells to

conclude that the signal originated from

a vertical dipole antenna mounted on a

tower situated on the grounds of a

residence located at 505 Patricia Drive,

San Marcos. Further, considering the

height above ground of the antenna and

the distance from the antenna to the

location where they first detected the

signal, Perry and Wells concluded that

the signal strength exceeded 250 μV/m

at 3 meters, the limit for unlicensed

operation as set forth in Section

15.239(b) of the rules, 47 CFR 15.239(b).

3. At approximately 3:18 p.m., Perry

and Wells heard a signal identified as

‘‘KIND’’ on 105.9 MHz. At

approximately 3:29 p.m., Perry and

Wells, accompanied by San Marcos

Police Officer Royce Smith, entered

upon the property at 505 Patricia Drive

and asked to speak with the owner. Ptak

identified himself as such. Perry then

requested permission to inspect the

radio transmission equipment to which

Ptak granted his request.

4. In a bedroom of the residence,

Perry and Wells observed a transmitter

with a cable exiting a window. The

cable, in turn, was connected to a

vertical dipole antenna mounted on a 25

to 30 foot tower adjacent to the rear of

the residence. An unconnected

wattmeter was located next to the

transmitter. Ptak then acknowledged the

following: (1) There is no license for the

facilities; (2) the transmitter output was

30 watts; (3) operation had begun on

March 26, 1997, and had continued 24

hours per day since March 26; and (4)

the station was operated by the Hayes

County Guardian newspaper and staffed

with volunteers. Perry, thereupon,

orally advised Ptak that operation of the

radio station violated federal law, and

he ordered Ptak to cease operations.

Ptak refused. Thereafter, at 4:00 p.m. on

April 9, Perry and Wells again identified

the source of a signal on 105.9 MHz as

the facilities observed at 505 Patricia

Drive.

5. On April 17, 1997, Perry sent a

letter under his signature by certified

mail to Ptak. In pertinent part, the letter

stated:

Operation of radio transmitting equipment,

other than certain low powered devices

operated in accordance with Part 15 of the

Rules, may be operated only upon issuance

by this Commission of a station license.

Unlicensed operation is a violation of Section

301 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 301, and may

subject the operator to substantial monetary

fines, in rem forfeiture action, and criminal

sanctions including imprisonment. See 47

U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510. Because
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 / Notices 26599

1This figure reflects the maximum appropriate

forfeiture amount in light of the specific facts at

issue. See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(C); 47 CFR 1.80(b)(3),

(b)(4), (b)(5); see also In re the Commission’s

Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of

Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the

Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087

(1997)(petitions for reconsideration pending).

unlicensed operation creates a danger of

interference to important radio

communications services and may subject

the operator to severe penalties, we

emphasize the importance of complying

strictly with the legal requirements

mentioned above. Operation of radio

transmitting equipment without proper

authority granted by the Commission should

cease immediately. (emphasis in the

original).

The letter also informed Ptak that he

need not reply but, if desired, he could

submit relevant information to Perry.

Commission records reveal no response

from Ptak.

6. By a letter dated May 12, 1997 and

transmitted via facsimile on May 13,

1997, a further complaint from the San

Marcos Police Department concerning

Ptak’s unlicensed operation was

received by Perry. Among other things,

the complaint reflected that

unauthorized transmissions by Ptak

were continuing. Perry’s investigations

indicated that the unauthorized

transmissions by Ptak were still

ongoing. On March 20, 1998, using

direction finding techniques, Perry

confirmed that Ptak was continuing to

operate.

7. Discussion. Section 301 of the Act,

47 U.S.C. 301, provides in pertinent

part:

It is the purpose of this Act, among other

things, to maintain the control of the United

States over all the channels of radio

transmission. * * * No person shall use or

operate any apparatus for the transmission of

energy or communications or signals by radio

(a) from one place in any State * * * to

another place in the same State * * * except

under and in accordance with this Act and

with a license in that behalf granted under

the provisions of this Act.

Anyone transmitting radio

transmissions in the United States must

have authority from the Commission to

do so. See U.S. v. Medina, 718 F. Supp.

928 (S.D. Fla. 1989); U.S. v. Weiner, 701

F.Supp. 15 (D.Mass. 1988), aff’d, 887

F.2d 259 (1st Cir. 1989); Stephen Paul

Dunifer, 11 FCC Rcd 718, 720–21, ¶¶ 7–

9 (1995) (regarding Commission’s

licensing requirement); and Order to

Show Cause and Notice of Apparent

Liability, 50 FR 20603, published May

17, 1985 (Alan H. Weiner). As the facts

recited above reflect, it appears that Ptak

has violated and may currently be

violating Section 301 of the Act.

Ordering Clauses

8. Accordingly, It Is Ordered that,

pursuant to Section 312(c) of the Act,

Joseph Frank Ptak Is Directed To Show

Cause why he should not be ordered to

Cease And Desist from violating Section

301 of the Act, at a hearing to be held

at a time and location specified in a

subsequent Order, upon the following

issues:

1. To determine whether Joseph Frank

Ptak has transmitted radio energy

without appropriate authorization in

violation of Section 301 of the Act.

2. To determine whether, based on the

evidence adduced pursuant to the

preceding issue, Joseph Frank Ptak

should be ordered to cease and desist

from violating Section 301 of the Act.

9. It is further ordered that, pursuant

to Section 312(d) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, both the burden of proceeding

with the introduction of evidence and

the burden of proof shall be upon the

Compliance and Information Bureau

with respect to issues 1 and 2.

10. It is further ordered that this Order

to Show Cause shall constitute a Bill of

Particulars with respect to all foregoing

issues.

11. It is further ordered that, to avail

himself of the opportunity to be heard,

Joseph Frank Ptak, pursuant to Section

1.91(c) of the rules, in person or by

attorney, Shall File in triplicate with the

Commission within twenty (20) days of

the mailing of this Order, a written

appearance stating that he will appear at

the hearing and present evidence on the

matters specified in this Order.

12. It is further ordered that, without

regard as to whether the hearing record

warrants an order that Joseph Frank

Ptak cease and desist from violating the

Act or the rules, it shall be determined,

pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,

whether an Order For Forfeiture in an

amount not to exceed $11,000 1 shall be

issued against Joseph Frank Ptak for the

alleged violations of Section 301 of the

Act.

13. It is further ordered that in

connection with the possible forfeiture

liability noted above, this document

constitutes a notice of opportunity for

hearing pursuant to Section 503(b) of

the Act and Section 1.80 of the rules.

14. It is further ordered that a copy of

each document filed in this proceeding

subsequent to the date of adoption of

this Order shall be served on the

counsel of record appearing on behalf of

the Chief, Compliance and Information

Bureau. Parties may inquire as to the

identity of such counsel by calling the

Compliance and Information Bureau at

(202) 418–1100, TTY (202) 418–2544.

Such service Shall be addressed to the

named counsel of record, Compliance

and Information Bureau, Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

15. It is further ordered that the Office

of Public Affairs, Reference Operations

Division of the Commission send a copy

of this Order by Certified Mail—Return

Receipt Requested to: Joseph Frank

Ptak, 505 Patricia Drive, San Marcos,

Texas 78666.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–12815 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[FCC 98–63]

Order To Show Cause and Notice of

Opportunity for Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission will hold a hearing to

determine whether to issue a Cease and

Desist Order, and whether a forfeiture

will be imposed for the unlicensed

operation of a radio station in violation

of the Communications Act in docket

case CI 98–47.

DATES: Prehearing on May 19, 1998, 9:00

am; Hearing on June 23, 1998, 10:00 am.

ADDRESSES: All pleadings and papers

must be mailed to Office of the

Secretary, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room

222, Washington, D.C. 20554; Hearings

held at Offices of the Commission.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman Goldstein and James Shook,

Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418–1430, email ngoldste@fcc.gov and

jshook@fcc.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Released: April 6, 1998

1. The Commission has under

consideration information concerning

the transmission of radio signals

without a license by Mark A. Rabenold

(‘‘Rabenold’’). For the reasons that

follow, we order Rabenold to show

cause, pursuant to Section 312(c) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended (the ‘‘Act’’), 47 U.S.C. 312(c),

why we should not issue a cease and

desist order which prohibits further

unauthorized transmissions on his part.

Also, pursuant to Section 1.80(g) of the

Commission’s Rules (the ‘‘rules’’), 47

CFR 1.80(g), this order constitutes a

notice of opportunity for hearing to