WPCj? 2HBVX@ Z3|C  (TT)y.C8*XC\  P6QP"5@^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 4/4MOM 228 LPT2 LPT2HPLAS4.WRSSC\  P6Q,,G"kP2 z3%3|X Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)C\  P6Q\TPTimes New RomanTimes New Roman Bold20EvpUk I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2\ kbvrta5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2  (  r a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2\ P   a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2^g+3^a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p a1DocumentgDocument Style StyleXqq   l ^) I. ׃  Doc InitInitialize Document Style  0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgTech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2La5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2%a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2Dr@rPleadingHeader for numbered pleading paperP@n   $] X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCdddddd15.209(a) of the rules, which generally prohibits power emissions in excess of 150 uV/m at a   measured distance of 3 meters. 47 C.F.R.  15.209(a). On May 6, 1996, the Tampa Field Office   yreceived a response to the NAL from Mr. Brewer. In that response, Mr. Brewer argued that the   LFCC engineers' measurement techniques lacked precision. He further questioned the "training   -and competency of the engineering personnel" who performed the tests. Mr. Brewer also argued   =that a direct conflict exists between Sections 15.209(a) and 15.239(b) of the Commission's rules in terms of specifying what are the authorized power levels.  X -  5.` ` On June 19, 1996, the Tampa Field Office issued a Forfeiture Order to Mr. Brewer   in the amount of $1,000. The Forfeiture Order addressed Mr. Brewer's arguments concerning the   alleged lack of precision in the FCC engineers' measurement techniques, and his challenge to the   @technical competence and training of the FCC engineers who made the field strength   measurements. The Order stated that the FCC engineers performed established investigative   techniques used by Commission staff, and Mr. Brewer's challenge to the engineers' training was   ?simply a late excuse for non-compliance with the Commission's rules. In this regard, the   jForfeiture Order noted that Mr. Brewer did not challenge the FCC engineer's competence when   \they inspected his station on January 12, 1996, and also noted that Mr. Brewer stated in his   January 29, 1996 letter to the Tampa office, his intention to comply with requirements of Part   15 of the rules. From the Forfeiture Order, Mr. Brewer now appeals to the Commission. In his   Kapplication for review, Mr. Brewer again challenges the FCC agents' measurement techniques and   training, and again raises the issue of a conflict between Sections 15.209(a) and 15.239(b) of the rules. In addition, Mr. Brewer raises several new issues which we will address below.  X|- 3III. DISCUSSION ă  XN-  6.` ` Mr. Brewer contends that the field agents failed to meet procedural requirements   isuch as presenting a warrant to enter his residence and inspect the radio station, as well as giving   -Miranda warnings to suspects prior to imposing a criminal penalty pursuant to Section 501 of the   =Act, 47 U.S.C.  501. We note that the Bureau's orders do not impose a criminal penalty under   Section 501 of the Act but rather assess a civil monetary penalty pursuant to Section 503 of the   Act, 47 U.S.C.  503. This civil penalty or administrative sanction is imposed for illegal   operation of a radio station without the FCC authorization required by Section 301 of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  301. Thus, Mr. Brewer's arguments regarding criminal prosecution are wrong.  X#-  %7.` ` We also reject Mr. Brewer's contention that the FCC failed to show that he   ="willfully" transmitted a radio signal because he was not at home at the time of the January 12,   1996 inspection. Section 503(b) authorizes the Commission to impose forfeitures on individuals   who violate the Commission's rules willfully or repeatedly. Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47   U.S.C.  312(f)(1), which also applies to the forfeiture provisions in Section 503(b) of the Act,"#',N(N(ZZ%"   provides that the 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  X-  intent to violate any provision of the Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission. See  X-  jSouthern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991). The Commission need not show   an intent to violate a rule before imposing a monetary penalty. It only needs to show that the   acts that resulted in the violation were not accidental or unintentional acts. The record in this   case clearly establishes that Mr. Brewer was in control of the station at the time of inspection, whether he was present or not.  X1-  8.` ` The evidence in the instant case supports a finding that Mr. Brewer willfully and   zrepeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act. As stated in the Commission's January 17, 1996,   /warning letter, Mr. Brewer's wife was at home at the time of the January 11, 1996 inspection   and, with her help, engineers were able to contact Mr. Brewer by telephone. Mr. Brewer in turn   made the station available for inspection, and instructed his wife how to turn off the station.   .Moreover, in his January 29, 1996, letter to the Commission, Mr. Brewer stated that the station   [had been operating for five years, and that he intended to comply in the future with the Part 15   technical requirements. On February 16, 1996, however, FCC engineers again determined that   LMr. Brewer was exceeding the applicable power limits. Based on these facts, we conclude that   Mr. Brewer's operation of the station was willful. The facts in this case, therefore, clearly satisfy the statutory requirements for issuing a fine under Section 503(b) of the Act.  X-  9.` ` Mr. Brewer questions whether the exception in Section 503(b)(5) allowing a NAL   /to be issued without a prior citation for persons "engaging in activities for which a license,   permit, certificate, or other authorization issued by the Commission" applies to "low power   broadcasting," and, by inference, the conduct in which he was engaged. It does. Section   \503(b)(5) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(5), provides that a warning must be given initially to   a party who is not a licensee unless the party is engaged in activities for which a license or some   jform of Commission authorization is required. Mr. Brewer was not operating a low power radio  X|-  broadcast station in compliance with Part 15 of the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R.    15.239(b). On February 16, 1996, the FCC engineers measured the transmissions emanating from   =Mr. Brewer's radio broadcast station at 5,500 uV/m, a power level far greater than the 250 uV/m   permitted without a license under Section 15.239(b) of the rules. Because Mr. Brewer needed   ya license from the Commission to transmit in accordance with the Act, the Commission was not   required to send Mr. Brewer a warning prior to assessing a forfeiture. In the instant case,   however, the Commission did warn Mr. Brewer about his operation before issuing the NAL, both verbally, on January 12, 1996, and in writing, on January 17, 1996.  X!-  10.` ` Finally, we address Mr. Brewer's contentions about the power limits in question,   ]and how they were measured. Power limits for types of transmitters are set forth in both   Sections 15.209(a) and 15.239(b) of the Commission's rules. Mr. Brewer contends that a conflict   mexists between these sections. No such a conflict exists. Section 15.209(a) applies to   yunintentional radiators, and Section 15.239(b) applies to intentional radiators, such as the radio   transmitter that Mr. Brewer was using. Although the NAL mistakenly cited the power limits for   <unintentional radiators, rather than that for intentional radiators, we conclude this was a harmless"#',N(N(ZZ%"   error. The NAL specified that on February 16, 1996, FCC engineers measured the transmissions   emanating from Mr. Brewer's radio station at 5,500 uV/m, a level which far exceeds the   permissible 250 uV/m level specified in Section 15.239(b). Regardless of the technical section   [cited in the NAL, the power limits of Mr. Brewer's transmitter were such that operation without   a license violated Section 301 of the Act. With respect to Mr. Brewer's arguments about the   jtechnical precision of the field strength measurements and the competency and training on the   -field engineers, we note that these issues were discussed fully previously and we will not disturb the Bureau's findings in this regard. We therefore affirm the forfeiture amount of $1,000.  X1-0 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES  X -l  X -  lU11.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED , pursuant to Section 503(b) of the   MCommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Section 1.80 and 1.115(g) of the Commission's  X -Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.80 and 1.115(g), the Application for Review is DENIED .  X -  12.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED , that Leslie D. Brewer must pay the forfeiture   kamount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) 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. Payment may also be made by  XK-  kcredit card with the appropriate documentation. K yO-  xԍ Contact Chief, Billings and Collections at (202) 4181995 for more information on payment by credit card.   Requests for installment plans should be mailed to: Chief, Billings and Collections, Mail Stop 1110A2, 1919 M   Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Payment of the forfeiture in installments may be considered as a separate matter in accordance with Section 1.1914 of the Commission's Rules. Please place NAL/Acct. 615TP0002 on the remittance and mail it to: ` `  Federal Communications Commission ` `  P. O. Box 73482 ` `  Chicago, IL 606737482   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).  Xe-  13.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Leslie D. Brewer.  X - ` `  hh, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,William F. Caton ` `  hh,Acting Secretary