Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 / Notices 26601

Communications Commission, 1919 M

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

13. 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: Mark A.

Rabenold, 960 Swanson Mill Road,

Tonasket, Washington 98855.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–12812 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[FCC 98–64]

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 98–48.

DATES: Prehearing on May 21, 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 Jerry Szoka

(‘‘Szoka’’). For the reasons that follow,

we order Szoka 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

the rules.

2. Background. On November 4, 1996,

James A. Bridgewater (‘‘Bridgewater’’),

the Detroit Field Office Director of the

Commission’s Compliance and

Information Bureau, received

information from Mark Krieger,

Chairman of the Society of Broadcast

Engineers, concerning an unauthorized

radio station operating as ‘‘The Grid,’’

on 96.9 MHz. On February 20, 1997,

Bridgewater sent a letter under his

signature by certified mail to ‘‘The

Grid.’’ In pertinent part, the letter stated:

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

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 ‘‘The Grid’’ that

a response was required within 15 days

of receipt of the letter. On March 31,

1997, the Commission received an

unsigned reply dated March 26, 1997,

from Szoka, in which he acknowledged

receipt of Bridgewater’s letter and stated

that he would take necessary actions to

meet FCC requirements. He also urged

the Commission to ignore the

unlicensed operation because the

station is top quality, provides a much

needed community service without

commercials, and is not interfering with

other stations.

3. On June 11, 1997, Bridgewater sent

Szoka a second warning letter regarding

the unlicensed operation on 96.9 MHz.

That letter also required a reply within

15 days of receipt. Commission records

reveal no response from Szoka.

4. Between June 18, 1997, and

September 9, 1997, the Commission

received four additional complaints

regarding the unlicensed broadcast

operation at 96.9 MHz. Each complaint

indicated that unauthorized

transmissions were continuing.

5. On September 11, 1997, FCC

Agents Patrick G. Patterson

(‘‘Patterson’’) and Paul S. Mako

(‘‘Mako’’) drove to Cleveland, Ohio, in

a Commission mobile direction finding

vehicle. At approximately 5:10 p.m.,

Patterson and Mako positively

identified the location of the transmitted

signal as emanating from 1281 West 9th

Street, Cleveland, Ohio. This address is

the location of ‘‘The Grid,’’ a

commercial night club. Patterson and

Mako observed that the transmitting

antenna was located at the top of the 4

1/2 story building on the north side and

approximately half way between the

front and back of the building. Patterson

and Mako also determined that the

coaxial cable connected to the antenna

entered the building housing the

establishment known as ‘‘The Grid.’’

The agents took a field strength

measurement of the signal identified as

‘‘The Grid.’’ The measurement was

made approximately 171 meters (561

feet) from the transmitting antenna and

recorded a value of 35.55 millivolts/

meter (33,550 microvolts/meter). This

measurement far exceeds the limit set

out in Section 15.239(b) of the rules, 47

CFR 15.239(b), which allows unlicensed

operation of a low power radio

transmitter in the FM broadcast band

provided the signal level is below 250

μV/m at a distance of 3 meters. The 96.9

FM signal was also monitored via the

direction finding vehicle’s normal AM/

FM radio by Patterson and Mako while

exiting the Cleveland area and heading

west on I–90. The signal could be heard

for approximately 18.6 miles. On

Friday, March 19, 1998, at 4:57 pm, FCC

Agent Patterson confirmed that the

station was still operating.

6. 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

Szoka has violated and may currently be

violating Section 301 of the Act.

Ordering Clauses

7. Accordingly, It Is Ordered that,

pursuant to Section 312(c) of the Act,
26602 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 / Notices

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).

Jerry Szoka 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:

a. To determine whether Jerry Szoka

has transmitted radio energy without

appropriate authorization in violation of

Section 301 of the Act.

b. To determine whether, based on the

evidence adduced pursuant to the

preceding issue, Jerry Szoka should be

ordered to cease and desist from

violating Section 301 of the Act.

8. It Is Further Ordered that, pursuant

to Section 312(d) of the Act, 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 a and b.

9. It Is Further Ordered that this Order

to Show Cause shall constitute a Bill of

Particulars with respect to all foregoing

issues.

10. It Is Further Ordered that, to avail

himself of the opportunity to be heard,

Jerry Szoka, pursuant to Sections 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.

11. It Is Further Ordered that, without

regard as to whether the hearing record

warrants an order that Jerry Szoka 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 Jerry Szoka for the alleged

violations of Section 301 of the Act.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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:

Jerry Szoka, The Grid, 1281 West 9th

Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44113.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–12814 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Public Information Collections

Approved by Office of Management

and Budget

May 6, 1998.

The Federal Communications

Commission (FCC) has received Office

of Management and Budget (OMB)

approval for the following public

information collections pursuant to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. An agency may not

conduct or sponsor and a person is not

required to respond to a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid control number. For

further information contact Shoko B.

Hair, Federal Communications

Commission, (202) 418–1379.

Federal Communications Commission.

OMB Control No.: 3060–0330.

Expiration Date: 04/30/2001.

Title: Part 62 - Applications to Hold

Interlocking Directorates.

Form No.: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Estimated Annual Burden:10

respondents; 2 hour per response (avg.);

20 total annual burden hours for all

collections.

Estimated Annual Reporting and

Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Description: Persons seeking to hold

interlocking positions with more than

one carrier subject to the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, where any carrier sought to be

interlocked has been found by the

Commission to have market power and

is defined as a dominant carrier or

where any carrier has not yet been

found to be non-dominant, except for

cellular licensees in different geographic

markets must file an application

pursuant to 47 CFR Part 62. The

collection of information is authorized

by 47 U.S.C. Section 212. Congress

mandated information collection under

47 U.S.C. Section 212 to be conducted

by the Federal Communications

Commission to monitor the effect of

interlocking directorates on the

telecommunications industry and to

ensure they will not have any

anticompetitive impact. Part 62 of the

Commission’s Rules and Regulations

implements the statute. The information

is used by Commission staff to deter

anticompetitive practices. Obligation to

respond: Mandatory.

OMB Control No.: 3060–0807.

Expiration Date: 04/30/2001.

Title: 47 CFR Section 51.803 and

Supplementation Procedures for

Petitions to Section 252(e)(5) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended.

Form No.: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Estimated Annual Burden: 52

respondents; 39.23 hour per response

(avg.); 2040 total annual burden hours

for all collections.

Estimated Annual Reporting and

Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Description: Any interested party

seeking preemption of a state

commission’s jurisdiction based on the

state commission’s failure to act shall

notify the Commission as follows: (1)

file with the Secretary of the

Commission a detailed petition,

supported by an affidavit, that states

with specificity the basis for any claim

that it has failed to act; and (2) serve the

state commission and other parties to

the proceeding on the same day that the

party serves the petition on the

Commission. Within 15 days of the

filing of the petition, the state

commission and parties to the

proceeding may file a response to the

petition. See 47 U.S.C. Section 252 and

CFR Section 51.803. In a Public Notice

(DA 97–2256), the Commission set out

procedures for filing petitions for

preemption pursuant to section

252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended. Section 252(e)(5)

provides that ‘‘[i]f a State commission

fails to act to carry out its responsibility

under this section in any proceeding or

other matter under this section, then the

Commission shall issue an order

preempting the State commission’s

jurisdiction of that proceeding or matter

within 90 days after being notified (or

taking notice) of such failure, and shall