Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************




                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                 )
                                 )
Joni K. Craig                    )      File Number: EB-04-SD-163 
                                 )
San Diego, California            )     NAL/Acct. No. 200632940002
                                 )
                                 )                 FRN 0014413157



             NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE



                                        Released:  December 19, 
                                        2005

By the District Director, San Diego District Office, Western 
Region, Enforcement Bureau:


I.   INTRODUCTION

      1.  In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 
 ("NAL"), we find that Joni K. Craig,  (``Craig'') apparently 
 willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the 
 Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),1 by operating 
 an unlicensed radio transmitter on 106.9 MHz in San Diego, 
 California. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the 
 Act,2 that Craig is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the 
 amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000).


II.  BACKGROUND

      2.  On July 26, 2005, agents from the Commission's San 
 Diego Office monitored 106.9 MHz in the San Diego area and used 
 mobile direction finding techniques to locate broadcast 
 transmissions on 106.9 MHz emanating from a converted garage 
 behind Craig's residence in the City Heights area of San Diego.  
 The agents took field strength measurements and determined that 
 the signals being broadcast exceeded the limits for operation 
 under Part 15 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'') and 
 therefore required a license.3  According to FCC records, 
 neither Craig, nor any other person or entity, holds an 
 authorization to broadcast on that frequency from that 
 location. 

      3.  San Diego agents had previously interviewed Craig about 
 the unlicensed radio station in her garage.  On October 4, 
 2004, the agents used mobile direction finding techniques to 
 locate broadcast transmissions on 106.9 MHz emanating from 
 Craig's residence.  The agents noted that the source of the 
 radio signal was an antenna atop a detached garage in the rear 
 of the residence. The agents took field strength measurements 
 and determined that the signals being broadcast exceeded the 
 limits for operation under Part 15 and therefore required a 
 license.4  When agents attempted to inspect the radio station 
 in her garage, Craig refused to allow the inspection.  She 
 claimed to have no knowledge of a radio station and that some 
 other people were working on a project in her garage.  The 
 agents departed after orally warning Craig not to operate an 
 unlicensed radio station.  On October 5, 2004, the San Diego 
 Office sent Craig a detailed Notice of Unlicensed Operation, 
 which gave Craig an opportunity to reply.5  No reply was 
 received.   

      4.  On November 10, 2004, San Diego agents monitored 106.9 
 MHz in the San Diego, California area and used mobile direction 
 finding techniques to locate broadcast transmissions on 106.9 
 MHz emanating from Craig's garage.  The agents took field 
 strength measurements and determined that the signals being 
 broadcast exceeded the limits for operation under Part 15 of 
 the Rules and therefore required a license.6  The agents then 
 approached the residence and identified themselves to Craig.  
 The agents again requested an inspection.  Craig agreed to the 
 inspection, unlocked the garage, and gave the agents access to 
 its contents, which included a radio transmitter, a computer 
 and an internet modem, all in operation.  The electricity for 
 the operation came off the main power line to the garage.  The 
 current then ran from the garage to Craig's residence, via 
 underground cables.  The radio station's power switch was 
 visible and easily accessible.  The agents requested that Craig 
 shut down the unlicensed radio station, but she again refused, 
 explaining that she could shut down the station but would not 
 as it belonged to someone else.  She told the agents that she 
 would have the people who owned the equipment shut down the 
 transmitter.  When she was asked who the owner of the radio 
 equipment was, she refused to answer.  The agents left the 
 premises after verbally warning Craig again not to continue to 
 operate an unlicensed radio station.  Despite the warnings, 
 subsequent monitoring by San Diego agents, on November 16, 
 2004, and November 19, 2004, revealed that the station 
 continued to operate from Craig's garage.7

      5.  After finding that the station was still active on July 
 26, 2005, San Diego agents, on August 2, 2005,8 hand-delivered 
 another Notice of Unlicensed Operation to Craig, which again 
 gave Craig an opportunity to reply.  The agents advised Craig 
 that if the unlicensed radio operation did not cease 
 immediately, she could receive a NAL and may be found liable 
 for forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars.  A copy 
 of the Notice sent via Certified Mail and regular mail was 
 posted later that day as well.9  No reply from Craig was 
 received.  

      6.  On August 3, 2005, San Diego agents monitored 106.9 MHz 
 in the San Diego, California area and found no station active.

      7.  On August 26, 2005, San Diego agents monitored 106.9 
 MHz in the San Diego, California area and used mobile direction 
 finding techniques to locate broadcast transmissions on 106.9 
 MHz emanating from Craig's garage.  The agents took field 
 strength measurements and determined that the signals being 
 broadcast exceeded the limits for operation under Part 15 of 
 the Rules and therefore required a license.10  No inspection of 
 the station was attempted. 


III.      DISCUSSION

      8.  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.11  The term 
 ``repeated'' means the commission or omission of such act more 
 than once or for more than one day.12 

      9.  Section 301 of the Act requires that no person shall 
 use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy of 
 communications or signals by radio within the United States 
 except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license.  
 Section 3(33) of the Act defines ``communications by radio'' as 
 ``the transmission by radio of writing, signs, signals, 
 pictures, and sounds of all kinds, including all 
 instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services (among 
 other thing the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of 
 communications) incidental to such transmission.''13   On 
 October 4, 2004, November 10, 2004, November 16, 2004, November 
 19, 2004, July 26, 2005, August 2, 2005 and August 26, 2005, 
 Craig provided services and facilities incidental to the 
 transmission of communications by radio occurring on 106.9 MHz 
 in San Diego, California.14  Specifically, Craig provided the 
 garage and real property on which the operation took place, and 
 provided the electric current used to power the radio station.  
 Consequently, she apparently participated in the operation of 
 the unlicensed station.15  Craig also acknowledged that she was 
 aware that the station was operating on her property, 
 apparently, with her permission.  While Craig admitted that she 
 could turn the station off, evidencing her control over the 
 station, she refused to do so.  Craig provided access to the 
 garage that housed the station, also demonstrating her control 
 over the station.  The Commission has said in the past that 
 ``'control' will be defined to include . . . any means of 
 actual working control over the operation of the [station] in 
 whatever manner exercised.''16

      10.                         Craig was warned repeatedly by 
 San Diego agents, both orally and in writing, over a period of 
 several months, that an unlicensed radio station was operating 
 from her property and that she would be held liable for its 
 operation.  Because Craig failed to stop the operation of the 
 station after she received repeated notices and warnings that 
 operation of the station was unauthorized, her violation is 
 willful.  Craig's violation occurred on more than one day, 
 therefore, it is repeated.  Based on the evidence before us, we 
 find Craig apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 
 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus 
 without a license on 106.9 MHz.

      11.      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 operating without an instrument of authorization is 
 $10,000.17  In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we 
 must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in 
 Section 503(b)(2)(D) 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.18  Applying the Forfeiture Policy 
 Statement, Section 1.80, and the statutory factors, we find 
 that Craig is apparently liable for a forfeiture of $10,000.  


IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

      12.      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, Joni K. Craig is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT 
 LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand 
 dollars ($10,000) for violation of Section 301 of the Act.19

      13.      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, Joni K. Craig SHALL PAY the full amount of the 
 proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking 
 reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

      14.      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/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above. Payment bycheck 
 or money order may be mailed to Federal Communications 
 Commission, P.O. Box358340,Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340. 
 Payment by overnight mail may be sent toMellon 
 Bank/LB358340,500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA 
 15251. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA 
 Number043000261, receiving bankMellon Bank, and account 
 number911-6106.

      15.      The response, if any, must be mailed to Federal 
 Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Western Region, 
 San Diego District Office, 4542 Ruffner St., Suite 370, San 
 Diego, CA 92111, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced 
 in the caption.  

      16.      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.  

      17.      Requests for payment of the full amount of this 
 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture under an 
 installment plan should be sent to:  Associate Managing 
 Director - Financial Operations, Room 1A625, 445 12th Street, 
 S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.20

      18.      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 Joni K. 
 Craig.




                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION





                              William R. Zears, Jr.
                              District Director
                              San Diego District Office 
                              Western Region
                              Enforcement Bureau


_________________________

147 U.S.C.  301.
247 U.S.C.  50
3Section 15.239 of the Rules provides that non-licensed 
broadcasting in the 88-108 MHz band is permitted only if the 
field strength of the transmission does not exceed 250 ?V/m at 
three meters. The measurements made on July 26, 2005, indicated 
that the signal was 1,916 times greater than the maximum 
permissible level for a non-licensed Part 15 transmitter.
4On October 4, 2004, the measurements indicated that the signal 
was 1,986 times greater than the maximum permissible level for 
non-licensed Part 15 transmitters. 
5The San Diego Office received a receipt from the U.S. Postal 
Service indicating that the Notice of Unlicensed Operation had 
been received. 
6The measurements made on November 10, 2004, indicated that the 
signal was 2,422 times greater than the maximum permissible level 
for a non-licensed Part 15 transmitter.
7The measurements made on November 16, 2004, indicated that the 
signal was 5,473 times greater than the maximum permissible level 
for a non-licensed Part 15 transmitter.  The measurements made on 
November 19, 2004, indicated that the signal was 5,357 times 
greater than the maximum permissible level for a non-licensed 
Part 15 transmitter.    
8Prior to the inspection on August 2, 2005, the agents took field 
strength measurements and determined that the signal being 
broadcast was 2,167 times greater than the maximum permissible 
level for a non-licensed Part 15 transmitter.
9The San Diego Office received a receipt from the U.S. Postal 
Service indicating that the Notice of Unlicensed Operation had 
been received. 
10The measurements made on August 26, 2005, indicated that the 
signal was 4,571 times greater than the maximum permissible level 
for a non-licensed Part 15 transmitter.
11Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  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).
12Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  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.'' 
1347 U.S.C.  153(33).
14Under Section 503(b)(6) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(6), we 
may only propose forfeitures to non-licensees for apparent 
violations that occurred within one year of the date of this NAL.  
However, Section 503(b) does not bar us from assessing whether 
Craig's conduct prior to that time period apparently violated the 
Act in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for those 
violations that occurred within the one-year statute of 
limitations.  Inphonic, Inc., 2005 WL 1750418 (FCC 05-145, 
released July 25, 2005) at  24.
15Section 3(35)  of  the  Act  defines  ``radio  station''  as  a 
``station equipped  to engage  in  radio communication  or  radio 
transmission of energy.''  47 U.S.C.  153(35).

16Revision of Rules and Policies for the Direct Broadcast 
Satellite Service, 11 FCC Rcd 9712, 9747 (1995). Petition for 
Review Denied by DIRECTV, Inc. v. FCC, 110 F.3d 816 (D.C. Cir. 
1997). 
1712 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 
47 C.F.R. 1.80.
1847 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).
1947 U.S.C.  503(b), 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 0.314, 1.80.
20See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.