******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) Bear Communications, Inc. ) NAL Acct. No. 415DV0046 Radio Station WPBM685 ) Costa Mesa, CA ) ORDER Adopted: February 6, 1997 Released: February 12, 1997 By the Chief, Compliance and Information Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Bear Communications, Inc. (Petitioner) filed a Petition for Reconsideration, seeking review of the monetary forfeiture of $500 issued under Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), 47 U.S.C. 503(b), for violation of Section 90.425(a) of the Commission's Rules (Rules), 47 C.F.R. 90.425(a). For the reasons noted below, we deny the petition and assess the forfeiture to be $500. II. BACKGROUND 2. On November 16, 1993, the Denver Field Office observed that the Petitioner was transmitting without using its licensed station identification, WPBM685. This is in violation of Section 90.425(a) of the Rules. At the time the violation occurred, the Petitioner had rented radios to clients in accordance with the terms of Petitioner's private carrier license WPBM685, with authorized frequency of 469.650 MHz. On December 2, 1993, the Denver Field Office issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to the Petitioner and on December 13, 1993, Petitioner responded to the Notice of Violation. In its response, the Petitioner argued that the end users are responsible for licensing and operation for radio equipment, and therefore, the Petitioner should not be penalized. 3. The Denver Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) for $500 on December 27, 1993, stating that the Petitioner, as the licensee, was solely responsible for the proper operation and identification of the rented radio equipment. Petitioner did not submit a written response to the NAL within the required thirty days. Thus, the Denver Field Office issued a Notice of Forfeiture on February 2, 1994. Petitioner then submitted, under cover letter dated February 25, 1994, a December 13, 1993 response to the Notice of Forfeiture. We have treated this correspondence as a Petition for Reconsideration. III. DISCUSSION 4. At the outset, we note that in assessing the initial forfeiture amount, the Denver office followed the forfeiture guidelines established in the Commission's Policy Statement, Standards for Assessing Forfeitures, (Policy Statement), 8 FCC Rcd 6215 (1993). On July 12, 1994, however, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the forfeiture guidelines. United States Telephone Assn. v. FCC, 28 F.3d 1232 (D.C.Cir. 1994). On reconsideration, the Bureau has reassessed the amount pursuant to the statutory guidelines set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(D). In particular, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that the Commission "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 other such matters as justice may require." 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(D). 5. In the Petition before us, Petitioner simply contends that it understands that the actual radio user is responsible for both licensing and operation of equipment, and for the monitoring and station identification. As was stated in the NAL, the Petitioner is the licensee for the private carrier license WPBM685 with an authorized frequency of 469.650 MHz, and as the licensee, it is solely responsible for proper station identification and operation of radio equipment at issue. 6. Petitioner raises no other substantive issues to be addressed. We have reconsidered the monetary forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(D). We find that the forfeiture amount of $500 as originally assessed is still warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  503(b), and Section 1.80 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80 and 1.106, the Petition for Reconsideration is DENIED. Petitioner may file an Application for Review of this decision within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Order pursuant to Section 1.115 of the rules. 47 C.F.R. 1.115. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Bear Communications, Inc. must pay the forfeiture amount of five hundred dollars ($500) within thirty (30) days of the date of release of this Order. Forfeitures shall be paid by check or money order drawn on a United States financial institution payable to the Federal Communications Commission. Please place NAL/Acct. 415DV0046 on the remittance and mail it to: Federal Communications Commission P. O. Box 73482 Chicago, IL 60673-7482 Forfeiture penalties not paid within 30 days may be referred to the U.S. Attorney for recovery in a civil suit. 47 U.S.C.  504(a). 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Bear Communications, Inc. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Beverly G. Baker Chief, Compliance and Information Bureau