Source: http://www.popularwireless.com/forum/ubbthreads.php
Timestamp: 2013-05-24 22:50:58
Document Index: 775912946

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 5', 'art 5', 'art 95', 'art 95', 'art 90', 'art 90', 'art 95']

PopularWireless Personal Wireless Bulletin Board: Viewing the portal page
Brought to you by the Radio Man at
PopularWireless.com Community
Wireless for the
family-minded communicator.
volunteers needed to monitor GMRS in the vicinity of all United States port
cities. Log ANY foreign ship traffic in the FSI forum at this website.
PopularWireless
and PRA Gear
at CafePress!
PopularWireless Personal Wireless Bulletin Board
Use COUPON Code "GMRS"
SALE: Reg.
wenter99
Joe Montierth
k9ekg
SmilnDon
Tony Szablowski
WPUF920
G. M. Alf
PopularWireless Magazine & BBS Forum
11/19/09 03:53 PM
Uniden fined for Inversion Scrambling
Yet another one gets nailed... too bad the pirates don't get fined!******************************************************** NOTICE********************************************************This document was converted from Microsoft Word.Content from the original version of the document such asheaders, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numberswill not show up in this text version.All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from theoriginal document will not show up in this text version.Features of the original document layout such ascolumns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and marginswill not be preserved in the text version.If you need the complete document, download theMicrosoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) File No. EB-09-SE-098 In the Matter of ) NAL/Acct. No. 201032100003 Uniden America Corporation ) FRN 0001657303 ) Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture Adopted: November 3, 2009 Released: November 5, 2009 By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find Uniden America Corporation ("Uniden") apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty-three thousand dollars ($23,000) for willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and Section 2.803(g) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). The noted apparent violations involve Uniden's marketing of non-compliant General Mobile Radio Service ("GMRS") transmitters. II. BACKGROUND 2. Section 95.183(a)(4) of the Rules prohibits GMRS operators from transmitting coded messages and messages with hidden meanings. The Enforcement Bureau's Spectrum Enforcement Division ("Division") received information indicating that Uniden was marketing GMRS transmitters equipped with voice scrambling technology. After its receipt of this information, the Division began an investigation. In pursuance of the investigation, the Division conducted internet research on April 8, May 5 and May 6, 2009, on Uniden's website, http://www.uniden.com. During the internet research, Division staff observed that Uniden was offering for sale the following GMRS transmitter models described as having a "Voice Scramble Security" feature: the Uniden GMR1048-2CK, GMR1448-2CK, GMR1558-2CK, GMR1588-2CK, GMR-1595-2CK, GMR2059-CK, GMR-2089-2CK and GMR2099-2CK. All of those transmitters operate both on frequencies assigned to the GMRS and on frequencies assigned to the Family Radio Service ("FRS"). The Division's examination of the user manuals for these models indicated that, for four models (GMR1448-2CK, GMR2059-CK, GMR-2089-2CK and GMR2099-2CK), voice scrambling operates only on FRS frequencies. However, for the other four models (GMR1048-2CK, GMR1558-2CK, GMR1588-2CK and GMR-1595-2CK), the user manuals did not indicate that voice scrambling is limited to FRS frequencies. 3. The Division directed a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to Uniden on June 25, 2009. Uniden responded on August 24, 2009. In its response, Uniden stated that its voice scrambling feature is commonly called voice inversion, which is "a process that interchanges high and low speech frequencies by removing the carrier frequency and [transmitting] only one sideband in a communications link. This renders the speech unintelligible unless received by a device capable of replacing the carrier frequency exactly." 4. Uniden's LOI response indicates that it began marketing the following transmitter models on or before November 1, 2005: GMR1048-2CK, GMR1558-2CK, GMR1588-2CK and GMR-1595-2CK (collectively designated by Uniden as "UAC Products"), which were manufactured at its factory in China. The GMR1048-2CK appears to be certified under the FCC ID AMUOT016; the GMR1558-2CK under the FCC ID AMWUT017; and the GMR1588-2CK and GMR-1595-2CK under the FCC ID AMUOT018. All of Uniden's UAC Products were equipped with a voice scrambling feature which was available on GMRS frequencies. Uniden's Personal Telephone Communications ("PTC") Division, which sells to major retailers and distributors, sold and distributed large quantities of UAC Products during 2006 and 2007. Uniden states that initially it believed its UAC Products were compliant with the Commission's Rules but it revisited the issue after one of the Telecommunications Certification Bodies ("TCBs") it used for testing its devices expressed concern in mid-2006 about the voice scrambling feature. On August 24, 2006, Uniden consulted Commission staff and received a "verbal clarification that voice inversion scrambling on GMRS channels" is not permitted by the Commission's Rules. Uniden states that Commission staff requested that it make an official inquiry through the FCC's Knowledge Database ("KDB") system. On October 1, 2006, Uniden states that it received a newsletter from another of the TCBs that it used for testing which included a clarification consistent with the staff opinion. On April 16, 2007, the Commission's staff published an interpretation of its rules advising that voice scrambling constitutes coded messaging and, therefore, is not allowed for GMRS devices. Uniden states that, by this date, it had discontinued the manufacture of the UAC Products and replaced them with models that did not have the voice inversion feature of the UAC products. Uniden acknowledges, however, that its PTC Division "continued to sell through [its] inventory of UAC Products until it was depleted in December 2007." Uniden also indicates that its Product Service and Support (PSS) Division, which sells exclusively to online customers, did not receive notice that the UAC Products were being discontinued and continued to sell small quantities of those devices during 2008 and 2009. 5. Uniden filed supplementary LOI responses on September 22 and October 7, 2009. Uniden argues in the latter response that that the following factors mitigate its violations: its efforts to comply with the Rules "in the face of strong competitive pressures"; its resulting loss of market share; the small quantities of UAC devices marketed during 2008 and 2009; Uniden's efforts to obtain a rule clarification; and its history of compliance. Uniden contends that $7,000 would be the appropriate base forfeiture amount in this case and that this amount should be reduced to $3,500. III. Discussion A. Uniden Apparently Marketed Noncompliant Devices 6. 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(g) provides in pertinent part: The provisions in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section do not apply to radio frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally operated under the current rules. Such devices shall not be operated, advertised, displayed, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed absent a license issued under part 5 of this chapter or a special temporary authorization issued by the Commission. Additionally, Section 95.183(a)(4) of the Rules provides in pertinent part that "[a] station operator must not communicate ... coded messages or messages with hidden meanings." 7. Uniden admits that it marketed three models of transmitters equipped with voice scrambling technology that functioned on GMRS frequencies and, therefore, were not compliant with Section 183(a)(4) of the Rules. We, accordingly, find that Uniden apparently marketed non-compliant radio frequency devices, in willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(g) of the Rules. B. Proposed Forfeiture 8. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the 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." 9. Section 503(b)(6) of the Act 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 Uniden's 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. 10. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Uniden apparently marketed three distinct models of GMRS transmitters that were equipped with the voice scrambling feature: the model certified under FCC ID AMWUT018 (designated by Uniden as models GMR1588-2CK and GMR1595-2CK); the model certified under FCC ID AMWUT017 (designated by Uniden as model GMR1558-2CK);and the model certified under FCC ID AMUOT016 (designated by Uniden as model GMR1048-2CK). Uniden argues that mitigating circumstances warrant limiting the base forfeiture amount to $7,000. The Commission has found, however, that the marketing of each separate unauthorized or non-compliant model constitutes a separate violation subject to the $7,000 base forfeiture amount. We find no basis for departing from this precedent in this case. We accordingly conclude that the base forfeiture amount of $7,000 is apparently warranted for each of Uniden's three models for a total proposed forfeiture of $21,000. 11. Based on the record before us, and having considered the statutory factors enumerated above, we believe that an upward adjustment of the $21,000 base forfeiture amount is warranted here. First, we believe that an upward adjustment is warranted in view of the substantial number of non-compliant devices Uniden imported, sold and distributed in the United States and the fact that the violations continued over a significant period. Although Uniden argues that that it marketed only a small number of UAC Products in 2008 and 2009, as noted above, we can also consider Uniden's earlier conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount. Uniden sold a very substantial number of UAC Products during 2006 and 2007, which warrants an upward adjustment. Further, we take into account Uniden's ability to pay a forfeiture in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount. As the Commission made clear in the Forfeiture Policy Statement, large or highly profitable entities, such as Uniden could expect forfeitures higher than those reflected in the base amounts. Finally, we find that Uniden's continued marketing of significant quantities of UAC Products through the end of 2007, well after Uniden received guidance from Commission staff that voice scrambling is prohibited in the GMRS, is egregious. Accordingly, applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement and statutory factors to the instant case, we conclude that Uniden's proposed forfeiture should be upwardly adjusted from the base amount by $10,000 to $31,000. 12. Based on the record before us, and having considered the statutory factors enumerated above, we also believe that downward adjustment is also warranted. First, Uniden argues that it has a record of overall compliance. We agree and find that a downward adjustment of $5,000 is warranted on this basis. Uniden also argues that its conduct is mitigated by its efforts to comply with the Rules "in the face of strong competitive pressures," its resulting loss of market share, and its efforts to obtain a rule clarification. We find that this corrective action before the Commission notified Uniden of its violations warrants a downward adjustment. However, we must also take into account Uniden's continued marketing, via its PTC Division, of significant quantities of UAC Products through the end of 2007, well after Uniden received guidance from Commission staff that voice scrambling is prohibited in the GMRS, and the continued marketing by its PSS Division of smaller quantities during 2008 and 2009. Taking these facts into account, we find that Uniden's corrective action warrants a downward adjustment of $3,000. Accordingly, applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement and statutory factors to the instant case, we conclude that Uniden's proposed forfeiture should be adjusted downward by a total of $8,000. 13. On the basis of the foregoing, we find that Uniden is apparently liable for a proposed forfeiture of $23,000. iV. ordering clauses 14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Uniden, IS NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-three thousand dollars ($23,000) for marketing non-compliant GMRS transmitters in willful and repeated violation of Section 302(a) of the Act and Section 2.803(g) of the Rules. 15. 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, Uniden SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 16. 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: [email protected] with any questions regarding payment procedures. Uniden will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to [email protected] 17. 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. 18. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a 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 petitioner's current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted. 19. 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 Uniden America Corporation, 4700 Amon Carter Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX 76155, and to its attorney, Gregg P. Skall, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, LLC, Seventh Floor, 1401 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(g). 47 C.F.R. S: 95.183(a)(4). Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Uniden America Corporation. (June 25, 2009). Letter from Gregg P. Skall, Counsel for Uniden America Corporation., to Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon, Esq., Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (August 24, 2009) ("LOI Response"). LOI Response at 4. Marketing, as defined in 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4), "includes sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment, or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease." LOI Response at 1-2, 5. Id. at 1-2. Id. at 5, Attachment 2. Uniden requested confidential treatment of the attachments to its LOI Response, including the exact number of GMRS devices sold and distributed in the United States. Id. at 1. Accordingly, this information is discussed in an Appendix, which we are treating as confidential at this time. The request for confidentiality remains pending. Id. at 2. Id. at 1-2. Id. at 3. Id. Id. See Office of Engineering and Technology KDB Publication number 791760 at http://www.fcc.gov/labhelp. Id. LOI Response at 3. Id. at 3, Attachment 2. Letter from Gregg P. Skall, Counsel for Uniden America Corporation, to Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon, Esq., Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (September 2s, 2009) ("Second LOI Response"). Letter from Gregg P. Skall, Counsel for Uniden America Corporation, to Marlene H. Dortch Secretary,, Federal Communications Commission (October 7, 2009) ("Third LOI Response"), at 2-3 Id. at 2-3 Id. at 3. Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1), which applies to violations for which forfeitures are assessed under Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term `willful', ... means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this Act ...." See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991). Section 312(f)(2) 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. S: 312(f)(2). See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana, Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 P: 10 (2001) ("Callais Cablevision") (issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability for, inter alia, a cable television operator's repeated signal leakage). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6). See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(D), 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(4); see also Behringer USA, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 1820, 1825 (2006), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd. 1051 (2007) (forfeiture paid); 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, 9671-71 (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. den.,11 FCC 2d 193 (1967); Bureau D'Electronique Appliquee, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 3445, 3447-48 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2005), forfeiture ordered, 20 FCC Rcd 17893 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2005) ("B.E.A."). The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80. Third LOI Response at 3. See, e.g., San Jose Navigation, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 2873 (2006), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1040 (2007) ("San Jose"); Behringer, 21 FCC Rcd at 1827; ACR Electronics, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 22293, 22302 (2004), forfeiture ordered, 21 FCC Rcd 3698 (2006); Samson Technologies, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 4221, 4225 (2004), consent decree ordered, 19 FCC Rcd 24509 (2004). See, e.g., San Jose, 21 FCC Rcd at 2876 (upwardly adjusting a proposed forfeiture based on the volume of non-compliant devices distributed, and the three-year span in which such devices were marketed); B.E.A., 20 FCC Rcd at 3448 (upwardly adjusting a proposed forfeiture based on the volume of unauthorized devices distributed, and the five-year span in which such devices were marketed). The reported revenues for the year ending March 31, 2008, of Uniden's parent, Uniden Corporation, a Japanese company, were YEN 6,300,000,000 (approximately $710,000,000). Stock Quote and Company Profile, Businessweek.com. Specifically, the Commission stated: [O]n the other end of the spectrum of potential violations, we recognize that for large or highly profitable communication entities, the base forfeiture amounts ... are generally low. In this regard, we are mindful that, as Congress has stated, for a forfeiture to be an effective deterrent against these entities, the forfeiture must be issued at a high level .... For this reason, we caution all entities and individuals that, independent from the uniform base forfeiture amounts ..., we intend to take into account the subsequent violator's ability to pay in determining the amount of a forfeiture to guarantee that forfeitures issued against large or highly profitable entities are not considered merely an affordable cost of doing business. Such large or highly profitable entities should expect in this regard that the forfeiture amount set out in a Notice of Apparent Liability against them may in many cases be above, or even well above, the relevant base amount. Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099-100. 47 C.F.R. S: 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80. (Continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2374 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2374
FCC Fines Midland for marketing Speech-Inversion S
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) File No. EB-08-SE-819 In the Matter of ) NAL/Acct. No. 200932100066 Midland Radio Corporation ) FRN 0005867551 ) Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture Adopted: June 23, 2009 Released: June 25, 2009 By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find Midland Radio Corporation. ("Midland") apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty-one thousand dollars ($21,000) for willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and Section 2.803(g) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). The noted apparent violations involve Midland's marketing of noncompliant General Mobile Radio Service ("GMRS") transmitters. II. BACKGROUND 2. Section 95.183(a)(4) of the Rules prohibits GMRS operators from transmitting coded messages and messages with hidden meanings. The Enforcement Bureau's Spectrum Enforcement Division ("Division") received information indicating that Midland was marketing GMRS transmitters that have a voice scrambling feature. After its receipt of this information, the Division began an investigation. In pursuance of the investigation, the Division conducted internet research on February 24, 2009, on the website http://www.midlandradio.com. During the internet research, Division personnel observed that Midland was offering for sale the following GMRS transmitter models described as having a "Voice Privacy Scramble" feature: GXT900VP4 and GXT950VP4. 3. The Division directed a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to Midland on March 3, 2009. Midland responded on April 2, 2009. In its response, Midland states that its scrambling feature "utilizes voice inversion, an encoding/decoding circuit technology that mixes the voice signal with a high frequency tone, resulting in upper and lower sidebands added to the voice signal and tone. One of the sidebands is removed when the transmission is sent. In a receiver equipped with the appropriate descrambling capability, the missing sideband is restored, recovering the full voice transmission." 4. Additionally, Midland's response indicates that Midland has imported and marketed a large quantity of the following GMRS transmitter models that have the scrambling feature: GXT900VP4, GXT950VP4, GXT800VP4, GXT808VP3, GXT850VP4B and GXT900VP4K. The GXT900VP4, GXT900VP4K and GXT950VP4 are apparently certified under the FCC ID MMAGXT950, while the GXT800VP4, GXT808VP3 and GXT850VP4B appear to be certified under the FCC ID MMAGXT850Z. Midland contends the use of its scrambling feature is not prohibited by Section 95.183(a)(4) of the Rules. III. Discussion A. Midland Apparently Marketed Noncompliant Devices 5. 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(g) provides in pertinent part: The provisions in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section do not apply to radio frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally operated under the current rules. Such devices shall not be operated, advertised, displayed, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed absent a license issued under part 5 of this chapter or a special temporary authorization issued by the Commission. Additionally, Section 95.183(a)(4) of the Rules provides in pertinent part that "[a] station operator must not communicate ... coded messages or messages with hidden meanings." 6. Midland admits that it imported and marketed a large quantity of GMRS transmitters that have a voice scrambling feature but contends that the use of the voice scrambling feature does not violate Section 95.183(a)(4) of the Rules. Specifically, Midland argues that, while its "voice privacy scramble" feature makes voice communications unintelligible to users of radios without this feature, all users of radios that have the scrambling feature can decipher scrambled communications. Additionally, Midland claims its voice scrambling feature does not fit the dictionary definition of a coded message. Midland further argues that it made a full disclosure of the scrambling feature when it applied for the certification FCC ID MMAGXT950, that the scrambling feature is available on a wide variety of GMRS devices marketed by its competitors and that it must offer a similar feature to remain competitive. Finally, Midland asserts that during 2006 it discussed the permissibility of GMRS voice scrambling with a member of the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau staff; that during this discussion it pointed out that a number of competing GMRS products had the voice scrambling feature; and that, because no enforcement action was taken and one of these products remained certified, it was "justified in assuming" that "the Commission had decided not to require the products to come off the market." 7. Midland's arguments are unconvincing. It was not justified in its assumption that the Commission decided not to require the removal from the market of GMRS devices with voice scrambling. In 2007, the Commission staff publicly interpreted its rules to advise that voice scrambling constitutes coded messaging and, therefore, is not allowed for GMRS devices. Additionally, in 2004 the former Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau granted Garmin International, Inc. ("Garmin") a waiver of Section 95.183(a)(4) of the Rules to permit the manufacture and marketing of GMRS devices capable of transmitting and receiving Global Position System (GPS) location information. In the absence of a waiver, the transmission of GPS location information over the radios marketed by Garmin would have been prohibited by Section 95.183(a)(4) of the Rules. Although Midland's voice scrambling technology differs from Garmin's technology, it has an analogous effect - the transmission of messages that are undecipherable to many GMRS users. In both circumstances, the undecipherable messages are coded messages within the meaning of Section 95.183(a)(4) of the Rules. 8. A device equipped with a prohibited capability must be classified as noncompliant notwithstanding any approval by a Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB). We find that the GMRS devices authorized by the equipment authorizations FCC ID MMAGXT950 and FCC ID MMAGXT850Z are noncompliant with the requirements of Section 95.183(a)(4) of the Rules. 9. Midland requests that, if the Commission decides that voice scrambling is prohibited in GMRS devices, this should be done "prospectively, with time allowed to update product design and to dispose of existing inventories." We will not rule prospectively. Section 95.183(a)(4) of the Rules has been previously construed to prohibit voice scrambling in the GMRS. 10. We, accordingly, find that Midland apparently marketed noncompliant radio frequency devices, in willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(g) of the Rules. B. Proposed Forfeiture 11. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the 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." 12. Section 503(b)(6) of the Act 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 Midland's 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. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Midland's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2007, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Midland's's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 13. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Midland apparently marketed two distinct models of GMRS transmitters that were equipped with the voice scrambling feature: the model certified under FCC ID MMAGXT950 (designated by Midland as models GXT900VP4, GXT900VP4K and GXT950VP4) and the model certified under FCC ID MMAGXT850Z (designated by Midland as models GXT800VP4, GXT808VP3 and GXT850VP4B). We find that the base forfeiture amount of $7,000 is apparently warranted for each of these two models for total of $14,000. Based on the record before us, and having considered the statutory factors enumerated above, we believe that an upward adjustment of the $14,000 base forfeiture amount is warranted here. First, we believe that an upward adjustment is warranted in view of the substantial number of non-compliant devices Midland imported, sold and distributed in the United States and the fact that the violations continued over a significant period. Further, we take into account Midland's ability to pay a forfeiture in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount. As the Commission made clear in the Forfeiture Policy Statement, large or highly profitable entities, such as Midland could expect forfeitures higher than those reflected in the base amounts. Accordingly, applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement and statutory factors to the instant case, we conclude that Midland is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture of $21,000. iV. ordering clauses 14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Midland, IS NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-one thousand dollars ($21,000) for marketing noncompliant GMRS transmitters, in willful and repeated violation of Section 302(a) of the Act and Section 2.803(g) of the Rules. 15. 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, Midland SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 16. 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: [email protected] with any questions regarding payment procedures. Midland will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to [email protected] 17. 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. 18. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a 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 petitioner's current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted. 19. 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 Midland Radio Corporation, 5900 Parretta Drive, Kansas City, MO 64120, and to its attorneys, Peter Tannenwald and Davina Sashkin, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLC, 1300 North 17th Street, 11th Floor, Arlington, VA22209. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(g). 47 C.F.R. S: 95.183(a)(4). Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Midland Radio Corporation. (March 3, 2009). Letter from Peter Tannenwald and Davina Sashkin, Counsel for Midland Radio Corporation., to Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon, Esq., Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (April 3, 2009) ("LOI Response"). "Response of Midland Radio Corporation to FCC Letter of Inquiry" (Attachment to LOI Response, hereinafter referred to as "First Attachment") at 1-2. Midland requested confidential treatment of portions of its LOI response, including the exact number of GMRS devices imported and the dates of importation. Accordingly, this information is discussed in an Appendix, which we are treating as confidential at this time. The request for confidentiality remains pending. Id. at 2. Marketing, as defined in 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4), "includes sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment, or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease." LOI Response at 2. Id. at 2. Id. at 2-4. Id. at 3. Office of Engineering and Technology KDB Publication number 791760 at http://www.fcc.gov/labhelp. Garmin International, Inc., Request for Waiver of Sections 95.29(f), 95.119(a)(1), 95.181(a), 95.13(a)(4) and 95.631(a) and (f) of the Commission's Rules to Authorize the Manufacture, Sale and Use of GPS Transmission Enhanced GMRS Units, Order, 20 FCC Rcd. 982 (WTB, Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division 2004) (waiver granted); waiver extended, Order, 21 FCC Rcd. 15072 (WTB, Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division 2006): waiver extended, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 18325 (WTB, Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division 2008). Since GPS location information cannot be deciphered by GMRS users who don't have the necessary equipment, it is considered to be a coded message. See 47 C.F.R. S: 2.939(a)(2), which authorizes the Commission to revoke an equipment authorization if it is determined that the equipment does not conform to the pertinent technical requirements. Id. at 4. Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1), which applies to violations for which forfeitures are assessed under Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term `willful', ... means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this Act ...." See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991). Section 312(f)(2) 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. S: 312(f)(2). See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana, Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 P: 10 (2001) ("Callais Cablevision") (issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability for, inter alia, a cable television operator's repeated signal leakage). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6). See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(D), 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(4); see also Behringer USA, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 1820, 1825 (2006), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd. 1051 (2007) (forfeiture paid); 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, 9671-71 (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. den.,11 FCC 2d 193 (1967); Bureau D'Electronique 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). The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80. See e.g., Samson Technologies, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 4221, 4225 (2004); Consent Decree, 19 FCC Rcd 24542 (2004). See, e.g., San Jose Navigation, Inc., 21 FCC Rcd 2873, 2876 (2006) (upwardly adjusting a proposed forfeiture based on the volume of non-compliant devices distributed, and the three-year span in which such devices were marketed), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1040 (2007); Bureau D'Electronique Appliquee, 20 FCC Rcd at 3448 (2005) (upwardly adjusting a proposed forfeiture based on the volume of unauthorized devices distributed, and the five-year span in which such devices were marketed), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 20 FCC Rcd 17893 (2005). Midland's estimated annual revenues are $9,900,000. Company profile, Manta.com. Specifically, the Commission stated: [O]n the other end of the spectrum of potential violations, we recognize that for large or highly profitable communication entities, the base forfeiture amounts ... are generally low. In this regard, we are mindful that, as Congress has stated, for a forfeiture to be an effective deterrent against these entities, the forfeiture must be issued at a high level .... For this reason, we caution all entities and individuals that, independent from the uniform base forfeiture amounts ..., we intend to take into account the subsequent violator's ability to pay in determining the amount of a forfeiture to guarantee that forfeitures issued against large or highly profitable entities are not considered merely an affordable cost of doing business. Such large or highly profitable entities should expect in this regard that the forfeiture amount set out in a Notice of Apparent Liability against them may in many cases be above, or even well above, the relevant base amount. Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099-100. 47 C.F.R. S: 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80. (Continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1390 2 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1390
06/14/09 09:24 PM
FCC T-HUNTS DOWN SHOPPING MALL RADIO SYSTEM JAMMER
by WPUF920
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-290813A1.html NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Released: May 14, 2009 By the District Director Los Angeles Office, Western Region, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Kevin W. Bondy ("Bondy"), licensee of GMRS station WQGX752, in Encino, California, apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 301 and 333 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Section 95.183(a)(5) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"), by engaging in unlicensed radio operation and intentional interference to licensed radio operations; and apparently willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act and Section 95.115 of the Rules by failing to allow an inspection of his radio equipment by Commission personnel. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), that Mr. Bondy is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty-four thousand dollars ($24,000). II. BACKGROUND 2. On February 25, 2009, the Los Angeles Office received a complaint from the security manager for The Oaks Shopping Center ("The Oaks"), located at 350 West Hillcrest Drive, Thousand Oaks, California. The Oaks is the licensee of land mobile radio station KOA995, with authority to operate on 461.375 MHz, 462.525 MHz, and 467.525 MHz. The Oaks is also the licensee of land mobile radio station KG9712, with authority to operate on 466.375 MHz. 3. On February 26, 2009, an agent from the Enforcement Bureau's Los Angeles Office contacted the security manager regarding the complaint. The security manager stated that someone was intentionally interfering with their maintenance operations on 462.525/467.525 MHz and their security operations on 461.375/466.375 MHz. The security manager also stated that this person was harassing stores in The Oaks. According to the security manager, the person in question had told The Oaks to stop using 461.375MHz, their security repeater input frequency. 4. On March 5, 2009, the Los Angeles agent, using a mobile direction finding ("MDF") vehicle, located the source of pulsating signals on 461.375/466.375 MHz, apparently intended to interfere with normal transmissions on those frequencies, to a repeater located within a secured radio communications facility on Oat Mountain in the Santa Susana Mountains. The agent observed that the radio equipment which was the source of the pulsating signals, included a beam antenna pointed in the direction of Thousand Oaks. 5. On March 6, 2009, the agent monitored 461.375/466.375 MHz in the vicinity of The Oaks and observed pulsating signals apparently designed to interfere with normal transmissions on those frequencies. Later that day, in consultation with personnel from The Oaks and the Ventura County Sherriff's Department, the Los Angeles agent attempted to locate the originating subject source of the transmissions while personnel from The Oaks spoke to the unknown operator on 464.7125 MHz and 462.8375 MHz. The Los Angeles agent instructed The Oaks personnel to keep the subject talking for as long as possible so that the agent could locate the origin of the transmissions. 6. While the Los Angeles agent attempted to locate the source of the transmissions on 464.7125 MHz and 462.8375 MHz, The Oaks personnel spoke to the subject. During this time, the subject told The Oaks personnel that they had "plenty of warning." The subject then effectively shut down all operations on The Oaks frequencies by transmitting NOAA weather radio over every channel. The subject then told Oaks personnel that he had been "jamming" the 461.375/466.375 frequencies by "pulsing" them to shut down the repeater. The subject also said that The Oaks now had no repeaters, that the Oaks had to stop using the 461.375/466.375 MHz repeater pair and that The Oaks had to apply to the FCC to cancel the 461.375/466.375 MHz repeater pair and request a new frequency pair because "we need the channel." The subject said that he gave The Oaks three weeks to vacate the frequencies but The Oaks did not, so "this is what we've come to." The subject then explained in detail to the Oaks personnel how to work with the FCC and frequency coordinators to apply for a new frequency for their license. 7. Later on March 6, 2009, at approximately 7:30 p.m., the Los Angeles agent, using a MDF vehicle, located the originating source of the transmissions on 464.7125 MHz and 462.8375 MHz to a vehicle located on the National Park Service parking structure across the street from The Oaks. The Ventura County Sheriff's Department then secured the area and identified the subject as Kevin Bondy. The Los Angeles agent identified himself to Bondy and explained that a refusal to allow an inspection could result in a fine. Then the agent asked Bondy if he could perform an inspection of all radios in his vehicle. Initially, Bondy refused to allow an inspection, then later agreed to allow an inspection, then refused again. Bondy's refusal was witnessed by Ventura County Sheriff's Department deputies. 8. On March 9, 2009, the Los Angeles agent revisited the radio communications facility on Oat Mountain and observed that the beam antenna had been removed and the interference to The Oaks radio systems had ceased. III. DISCUSSION 9. Section 503(b) of the Act provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply substantially with the terms and conditions of any license, or willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule, regulation or order issued by the Commission thereunder, shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The term "willful" as used in Section 503(b) has been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or omissions are committed knowingly. The term "repeated" means the commission or omission of such act more than once or for more than one day. 10. Section 301 of the Act states that "[n]o person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio ... except under and in accordance with this Act and with a license in that behalf granted under the provisions of this Act." Although Bondy is a General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) licensee under Part 95 of the Rules, he has no authorization to operate on 461.375 MHz, 466.375 MHz, 464.7125 MHz or 462.8375 MHz. On March 6, 2009, Bondy admitted during his transmissions that he was aware of which frequencies he was operating on, therefore, his violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Bondy apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act. 11. Section 333 of the Act states that "[n]o person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under the Act or operated by the United States government." Section 95.183(a)(5) of the Rules states that a GMRS station operator must not communicate intentional interference. On March 6, 2009, Bondy acknowledged in his transmissions that he was causing intentional interference to The Oaks' authorized operations on 461.375 MHz and 466.375 MHz, in a successful effort to render The Oaks' repeater unusable and to force The Oaks off their licensed channels. Bondy admitted to causing the intentional interference, therefore, the violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Bondy apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 333 of the Act and Section 95.183(a)(5) of the Rules. 12. Section 303(n) of the Act states "the Commission . . . shall have authority to inspect all radio installations . . . ." Section 95.115 of the Rules states that "[i]f an authorized FCC representative requests to inspect any station in a GMRS system, the licensee or station operator must make the station available." On March 6, 2009, an agent from the Commission's Los Angeles Office requested an inspection of Bondy's radio equipment. Bondy initially agreed to the inspection but then refused. Bondy was aware of the requirement to make his radio equipment available to the agent, as the agent explained the requirement to Bondy. Consequently, we find that Bondy apparently willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act and Section 95.183(a)(5) of the Rules. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unlicensed operation is $10,000; the base forfeiture for interference is $7,000; and the base forfeiture for failing to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 1.80, and the statutory factors to the instant case, we conclude that Bondy is apparently liable for a $24,000 forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, 0.314 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Kevin W. Bondy is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-four thousand dollars ($24,000) for violations of Sections 301, 303(n), and 333 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 95.115 and 95.183(a)(5) of the Rules. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Kevin W. Bondy SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 16. 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: [email protected] with any questions regarding payment procedures. Kevin W. Bondy will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to [email protected] 17. The response, if any, must be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Western Region, Los Angeles Office, 18000 Studebaker Rd., Suite 660, Cerritos, California, 90703 and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption. An electronic copy shall be sent to [email protected] 18. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a 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 ("GAAP"); or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted. 19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular mail, to Kevin W. Bondy at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nader Haghighat District Director Los Angeles Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S:S: 301, 333. 47 C.F.R. S: 95.183(a)(5). 47 U.S.C. S: 303(n). 47 C.F.R. S: 95.115. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b). We note that The Oats had no authorization to operate on 464.7125 MHz and 462.8375 MHz, however, they used those frequencies to communicate with the subject, and other personnel, because of the continual jamming of their authorized frequencies. The agent observed that the vehicle contained a console mount radio, a hand handle radio, and a mobile radio unit in the back seat. The agent was not able to inspect any of these devices because of Bondy's refusal. Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1), which applies to violations for which forfeitures are assessed under Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term 'willful', when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this Act...." See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991). Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(2), which also applies to violations for which forfeitures are assessed under Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term 'repeated', when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day."
03/18/09 02:40 PM
Forgot to add this one when it came out.... FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ENFORCEMENT BUREAU NORTHEAST REGION New York Office 201Varick Street, Suite 1151 New York, New York 10014 January 15, 2008 (Sent via Certified Return Receipt Requested and First Class U.S. Mail) Steven Riddle Bohemia, New York NOTICE OF UNLICENSED OPERATION Case Number: EB-07-NY-408 Document Number: W20083238021 The New York Office received a complaint of interference to FCC licensees authorized to operate on various frequencies assigned to public safety entities in Suffolk County of New York. The New York Office also received information that on or about August 26, 2007, you operated portable radio transmitting equipment on various frequencies in Bohemia, NY. The Commission's records show that no license was issued for operation on those frequencies at this location. Radio stations must be licensed by the FCC pursuant to 47 U.S.C. S: 301. You are hereby warned that operation of radio transmitting equipment without a valid radio station authorization constitutes a violation of 47 U.S.C. S: 301 and could subject the operator to severe penalties, including, but not limited to, substantial monetary fines, in rem arrest action against the offending radio equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment. (see 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503 and 510). UNLICENSED OPERATION OF THIS RADIO STATION MUST BE DISCONTINUED IMMEDIATELY. You have ten (10) days from the date of this notice to respond with any evidence that you have authority to operate granted by the FCC. Your response should be sent to the address in the letterhead and reference the listed case and document number. Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3), we are informing you that the Commission's staff will use all relevant material information before it to determine what, if any, enforcement action is required to ensure your compliance with FCC Rules. This will include any information that you disclose in your reply. You may contact this office if you have any questions. Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Attachments: Excerpts from the Communications Act of 1934, As Amended Enforcement Bureau, "Inspection Fact Sheet", July 2003http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279732A1.html
03/05/09 11:38 PM
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-287328A1.htmlThis forum has been pretty dead for a while now, so I though I'd post something new to freshen things up down here.
10/21/08 05:12 AM
Chesapeake - Plum Point, 467.600 102108, 0610
This morning I am hearing a foreign ship on 467.600 MHz. This frequency is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN authorized for use by foreign ships in US waters.
10/05/08 02:54 PM
San Francisco/Oakland - Port Comms Take Over Input
by intermod
I work in Oakland near the Port of Oakland. I recently scanned all the GMRS inputs after experincing strong and repeated input interference on our 600 and 625 repeater inputs for over nine months (we had been unable to locate the sources).Over 49 separate FSI incidents were identified on the GMRS inputs (except 700 and 725) over a three month period. And I was only monitoring 6-8 AM and 5-7 PM while commuting. Several other companies have setup shop (voice and telemetry) on the 12.5 kHz channels adjacent to 550 and 725 (outside the GMRS/FRS band; 462/467.5375, 462/467.7375). I believe these are guard-band channels and not allocated to any specific service. If you are a repeater owner in this area, or know one of the many absentee owners, please have them contact me at crossmod at comcast dot net. We hope to contact FCC field enforcement (as a group) to get some help. intermod
09/05/08 05:08 PM
Quiet on teh Chesapeake
I'm not sure what has happened but ships going to and fro on the Chesapeake have been very quiet on GMRS channels of late. What about the rest of the country folks? What are you hearing in port cities on GMRS inputs and outputs?Respond in the GMRS Intruder forum.
06/20/08 07:48 AM
Chesapeake - Plum Point, 467.575 062008 WRYX
This was sent to Riley Hollingsworth this morning 6/20/08 after a US registered vessel was heard using a Part 95/Part 90 hybrid repeater on the Chesapeake Bay. Yes, a US registered vessel:Riley, This morning the United States registered cargo ship Liberty, aka/FAUST in MMSI, went north to Baltimore past my home at Plum Point operating a ship-based repeater station using 467.575 MHz (GMRS) as an input and 457.575 MHz (Part 90) as an output frequency. It greatly disturbs me that a vessel registered in our country where the radio regulations we observe have traditionally been honored on the water is using a Part 95 repeater input frequency. In my view, there really is no valid excuse for a US registered vessel to be operating out of band. The captain of that ship and radio officer should both know better. That equipment should have controls to change frequencies when inside the United States territorial waters so that interference is not possible. There is a local 462.575/467.575 repeater in St. Mary�s county that can be interfered with by ships transiting the Bay.I know you are about to close and lock the door up there, but please feel free to pass this on to whomever can perhaps write a letter to the company that owns the Liberty. Whatever you think is appropriate. Address from the FCC record is below. I can also put this on a PRA complaint form if that would help. The ship�s information obtained from AIS at the time of the broadcast follows:Liberty WRYXIMO 8320779Destination: Baltimore38deg 37.393N76 deg 25.528W17.6ktsheading 011draught 8.78mbeam 32m port 11 mlength 199mcargo ship From the ITU mmsi record: Admin.Geo.Area : United States of America Ship Name : FAUST Call Sign : WRYX Selcal No.(s) : MMSI No. : 367338000 Inmarsat No.(s) : 761836820-23 NTLX No.(s) : Boats : EPIRBs : C1E1 Ship class : MM CA Corresp. : CP Terr. Serv. : Hours : HX RTG Band : SXYZ RTF Band : STUV AAIC : US03 AAIC SAT : AA info. : US01 TER 10/02/2001 Owner : INTERNATIONAL MARINE CARR Ex Ship Name : Ex Call Sign : EPIRB Id. Code : EPIRB Hex ID code : Vessel Id. No. : Gross Tonnage : Person Capacity : Radio Installation : EMERGENCY CONTACTLast Update : 22/03/2001 The FCC callsign record:INTEROCEAN AMERICAN SHIPPING221 LAUREL RD SUITE 300VOORHEES, NJ 08043-2349 ATTN CAPT HARRY ROGERS
05/06/08 06:35 AM
Plum Point-Tropo, 462.550 Rptr, .050608
This morning tropo is in. On the AIS map I can see ships at Norfolk, VA, and in the Atlantic ocean and the Delaware Bay.I'm listening to what sounds like an American training vessel of some type using a ship-board repeater with an output on 462.550 MHz. Young people are referred to as "cadet." There are references to Captain, Chief Mate etc.The antenna used at the moment is a vertical. No bearing. CTCSS detected is 136.5The more I listened to this morning the more I think it was actually FSI to a GMRS repeater input. The repeater had no control operator and was repeating input traffic.
3540 Members
12842 Topics
95758 Posts
Max Online: 68 @ 11/07/07 07:56 PM
Raidyonut, SteveH, LatoniaBarry, ashley1, jmowens
3540 Registered Users
PopularWireless Magazine Blog
Generated in 0.03 seconds in which 0.02 seconds were spent on a total of 5 queries. Zlib compression enabled.