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
26600 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 / Notices

1 This 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).

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 August 21, 1997,

Michael P. Rothe (‘‘Rothe’’) and Donald

C. Roberson (‘‘Roberson’’), employees of

the Commission’s Compliance and

Information Bureau (‘‘CIB’’) stationed in

the Seattle Field Office observed an

unauthorized FM broadcast station

operating on 105.1 MHz in the Oroville,

Washington, area. Using directional

finding techniques, they determined

that the signals came from an antenna

at the back of the building at 1214 Main

Street, Oroville. Rothe and Roberson

measured the strength of the signal from

two locations. At a distance of 103

meters from the antenna, the signal

strength was measured at 6.5 mV/m,

while, from a slightly different angle

and at a distance of 99.3 meters, the

signal strength was measured at 5.8 mV/

m. Rothe and Roberson calculated that

these values are the equivalent of

223,900 ‘‘V/m at 3 meters and 180,400

‘‘V/m at 3 meters, respectively, both of

which exceed the limit for unlicensed

operation in the FM band of 250 ‘‘V/m

at 3 meters prescribed by Section 15.239

of the rules, 47 C.F.R. § 15.239. Further

investigation by Rothe and Roberson

appeared to indicate that the operator

was Rabenold.

3. That same day, Rothe and Roberson

located Rabenold. Rabenold informed

them that he would let them inspect the

station if they filled out a questionnaire

he had prepared. After Rothe and

Roberson refused to complete the

questionnaire, Rabenold stated he

would not let them inspect the station.

Rothe and Roberson then handed

Rabenold a letter, which advised

Rabenold that no license had been

issued by the Commission to him for

broadcast operations on 105.1 MHz. The

letter also stated that:

[O]peration of radio transmitting

equipment without a valid radio station

authorization and/or refusal to allow

inspection of your radio station constitutes

violation of the Federal laws cited above and

could subject the owner, operator or anyone

aiding and abetting this illegal operation to

an administrative penalty of monetary

forfeiture under Section 503(b) of the Act, 47

U.S.C. 503(b) * * * UNLICENSED

OPERATION OF THIS RADIO STATION

MUST BE DISCONTINUED IMMEDIATELY.

(emphasis in original).

The letter also solicited Rabenold’s

comments on the matter and advised

him that he could request an interview

with the Commission to discuss the

matter.

By certified letter dated September 25,

1997, Dennis J. Anderson (‘‘Anderson’’),

District Director of the Seattle Field

Office, informed Rabenold that

Commission agents had determined that

he was operating illegally on 105.1 MHz

in that the field strength of the signal

transmitted by Rabenold exceeded the

maximum authorized for operation

without a license by Section 15.239(b)

of the rules. 47 CFR 15.239(b).

Anderson’s letter advised Rabenold

immediately to cease operating the

unlicensed FM radio broadcast station

and that operation of a radio transmitter

without proper authorization could

subject Rabenold to a forfeiture as well

as criminal penalties. Anderson’s letter

requested a reply describing the steps

that had been taken to ensure that illegal

broadcasts did not recur. Commission

records indicate that Rabenold appears

to have signed the return receipt but

that he did not submit a response. On

March 12, 1998, Roberson confirmed

that Rabenold’s unauthorized

transmissions are continuing.

5. 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

Rabenold has violated and may

currently be violating Section 301 of the

Act.

Ordering Clauses

6. Accordingly, it is ordered that,

pursuant to Section 312(c) of the Act,

Mark A. Rabenold 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 Mark A.

Rabenold 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, Mark A. Rabenold

should be ordered to cease and desist

from violating Section 301 of the Act.

7. 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 1 and 2.

8. It is further ordered that this Order

to Show Cause shall constitute a Bill of

Particulars with respect to all foregoing

issues.

9. It is further ordered that, to avail

himself of the opportunity to be heard,

Mark A. Rabenold, 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.

10. It is further ordered that, without

regard as to whether the hearing record

warrants an order that Mark A.

Rabenold 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 Mark

A. Rabenold for the alleged violations of

Section 301 of the Act.

11. 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.

12. 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
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,