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                 )     File No. EB-05-DL-181
                                )
Love's Travel Stops and Country  )     NAL/Acct. No. 200632500001
Stores, Inc.                     )
                                )     FRN # 0010520286
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 


           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

                                             Released: February 
09, 2006

By the District Director, Dallas Office, South Central Region, 
Enforcement Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 
(``NAL''), we find Love's Travel Stops and Country Stores, Inc. 
(``Loves'') apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of 
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willful and repeated 
violations of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended (``Act''),1 and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the 
Commission's Rules (``Rules'').2  Specifically, we find Loves 
apparently liable for offering for sale radio frequency devices 
without the required Commission equipment authorization. 

II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   Section 302 of the Act authorizes the Commission to 
make reasonable regulations, consistent with the public interest, 
governing the interference potential of equipment that emits 
radio frequency energy,3 and prohibits, inter alia, the offering 
for sale of radio frequency devices to the extent such activity 
does not comply with those regulations.  The purpose of this 
section is to ensure that radio transmitters and other electronic 
devices meet certain standards to control interference before 
they reach the market.

     3.   The Commission carries out its responsibilities under 
Section 302 in two ways.  First, the Commission establishes 
technical regulations for transmitters and other equipment to 
minimize their potential for causing interference to radio 
services.  Second, the Commission administers an equipment 
authorization program to ensure that equipment reaching the 
market complies with the technical requirements.4  The equipment 
authorization program requires that equipment be tested either by 
the manufacturer or at a private test laboratory to ensure that 
it complies with the technical requirements.  For a large number 
of devices, including Citizens Band (``CB'') radio transmitting 
equipment,5 equipment may not be marketed within the United 
States unless it has been tested and found to comply with 
Commission technical requirements, granted Commission 
Certification, and properly labeled.6  ``Marketing'' includes the 
sale or lease, offer for sale or lease (including advertising for 
sale or lease), importing, shipping, and/or distribution for the 
purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.7  

     4.   Unlike CB radio transmitting equipment, radio 
transmitting equipment that transmits solely on Amateur Radio 
Service (``ARS'') frequencies is not subject to equipment 
authorization requirements prior to manufacture or marketing.  
However, some radio transmitters that transmit in a portion of 
the 10-meter band of the ARS (28.000 to 29.700 MHz) are equipped 
with rotary, toggle, or pushbutton switches mounted externally on 
the unit, which allow operation in the CB bands after completion 
of minor and trivial internal modifications to the equipment.  To 
address these radios, the Commission adopted changes to the CB 
type acceptance requirements by defining a ``CB Transmitter'' as 
``a transmitter that operates or is intended to operate at a 
station authorized in the CB.''8  

     5.   Despite these changes to the definition of a CB 
transmitter, Commission enforcement agents continued to encounter 
non-certified CB transmitters marketed as ARS transmitters.  On 
May 13, 1996, the Commission's Office of Engineering and 
Technology (``OET'') released a Public Notice ``to clarify the 
Commission's Rules regarding equipment that is intended to 
operate in various radio services in the high frequency radio 
spectrum, including `10-Meter' Amateur Radio Service (ARS) 
equipment.''9  The Notice stated that transmitters intended for 
operation on non-amateur frequencies must be approved prior to 
manufacture, importation or marketing.  The Notice specifically 
included ARS transceivers designed ``such that they can easily be 
modified by the users to extend the operating frequency range 
into the frequency bands'' of the CB and other non-amateur radio 
services among those devices subject to equipment authorization 
procedures.  The Notice also stated that the Commission considers 
these transceivers as intended to be operated on frequencies 
where the use of type accepted equipment is required ``because of 
the simplicity of modifying them to extend their operating 
frequency range.''10  The Commission's Office of General Counsel 
(``OGC'') later released a letter on the importation and 
marketing of ARS transmitters, which clarified that such 
transmitters that ``have a built-in capability to operate on CB 
frequencies and can easily be altered to activate that 
capability, such as by moving or removing a jumper plug or 
cutting a single wire'' fall within the definition of ``CB 
transmitter'' under Section 95.603(c) of the Rules and therefore 
require certification prior to marketing or importation.11  

     6.   On October 15, 2001, and November 13, 2002, Enforcement 
Bureau field agents visited two Loves retail outlets in 
Weatherford and Anna, Texas.  At these locations, the stores 
displayed and offered for sale various models of non-certified CB 
transceivers marketed as ARS transmitters, including Galaxy 
models DX33HML and DX99V.  OET specifically tested Galaxy models 
DX33HML and DX99V in 2000 and found both models to be non-
certified CB transceivers.  As a result of these inspections, the 
Dallas Office of the Enforcement Bureau (``Dallas Office'') 
issued two Citations directly to Loves' corporate headquarters in 
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on November 26, 2001 and November 15, 
2002.  The 2001 Citation specifically cited Loves for offering 
for sale non-certified CB transmitters, Galaxy models DX33HML and 
DX99V, while the 2002 Citation cited the Galaxy model DX99V as 
the non-Certified CB transmitter offered for sale by Loves.  
These Citations advised Loves of observed violations of the 
Commission's equipment authorization and marketing rules, 
specifically, marketing non-certified CB transceivers in 
violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of 
the Rules.  The Citations warned Loves that future violations may 
subject Loves to substantial civil monetary forfeitures for each 
such violation or each day of a continuing violation,12 seizure 
of equipment through in rem forfeiture action, and criminal 
sanctions including fines and imprisonment.13  

     7.   In response to the 2001 and 2002 Citations, Loves' 
Director of Risk Management at Loves' corporate headquarters in 
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma stated that the specific locations listed 
in the Citations would stop selling the named devices.14  In 
addition to the response from Loves' corporate headquarters, the 
Dallas Office received a letter on December 4, 2002 from Loves' 
attorney, which stated ``[w]e dispute all of the legal and 
factual contentions set forth in the citation and ask you to 
treat this letter as a formal response to the citation.''15

     8.   On February 2, 2004 and January 28, 2005, the 
Commission received complaints that Loves was marketing non-
certified CB transceivers.  From March 2004 through January 2005, 
Enforcement Bureau field agents visited 10 Loves retail outlets 
at the following locations:  Norman, Oklahoma; Oklahoma City, 
Oklahoma; Calumet, Oklahoma; Ranger, Texas; Buckeye, Arizona; 
Casa Grande, Arizona; Gila Bend, Arizona; Quartzsite, Arizona; 
and Coachella, California.  At these locations, the stores 
displayed and offered for sale various models of non-certified CB 
transceivers marketed as ARS transmitters, including Galaxy 
models DX33HML and DX99V.  OET specifically tested Galaxy models 
DX33HML and DX99V in 2000 and 2004 and found both models to be 
non-certified CB transceivers during all tests.

     9.   On January 12, 2005, based on inspections conducted on 
January 5, 2005, the Los Angeles Office of the Enforcement Bureau 
(``Los Angeles Office'') issued five Citations directly to Loves' 
retail outlets in Buckeye, Arizona; Gila Bend, Arizona; 
Quartzsite, Arizona; Coachella, California; and Casa Grande, 
Arizona.  All five of the 2005 Citations specifically cited Loves 
for offering for sale non-certified CB transmitters, Galaxy 
models DX33HML and DX99V.  Each of these Citations advised Loves 
of observed violations of the Commission's equipment 
authorization and marketing rules, specifically, marketing non-
certified CB transceivers in violation of Section 302(b) of the 
Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules.  The Citations warned 
Loves that future violations may subject Loves to substantial 
civil monetary forfeitures for each such violation or each day of 
a continuing violation,16 seizure of equipment through in rem 
forfeiture action, and criminal sanctions including fines and 
imprisonment.17 

     10.  On February 3, 2005, the Los Angeles Office received a 
response to the five 2005 Citations from Love's Director of Risk 
Management dated January 26, 2005, which stated ``immediately 
upon my receipt of your letter, we immediately discontinued the 
sale of this merchandise at each of the respective locations.''18  
Additionally, the Los Angeles Office received a response from 
Loves' attorney also dated January 26, 2005, stating ``. . . all 
the radios in question are marketed as Amateur radios, a fact 
conceded in the citation.  As sold, the radios operate only on 
the Amateur bands.  As such, the radios are governed by Part 97 
of 47 C.F.R., not Part 95.  Part 97 does not require type 
acceptance of Amateur radios.''19  On February 28, 2005, the Los 
Angeles Office responded to Loves' attorney informing him that 
his assertions were incorrect and that selling non-certified 
Amateur radios that can be easily modified to operate on CB 
frequencies violates the Rules.20

     11.  On February 23 and 25, 2005, Enforcement Bureau field 
agents made two visits to Loves retail stores in Oklahoma where 
Loves offered for sale non-certified CB transceivers, Galaxy 
models DX33HML and DX99V.21  As noted above, OET had already 
tested these specific models and determined them all to be dual 
use Amateur Radio and CB transmitters.  Each of the models could 
be modified to allow transmit capabilities on CB frequencies.  

III.      DISCUSSION 

     12.  Section 302(b) of the Act provides that no 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(a)(1) of the Rules provides that: 

          (a) Except as provided elsewhere in this  section, 
          no person shall sell or  lease, or offer for  sale 
          or  lease  (including  advertising  for  sale   or 
          lease), or  import, ship,  or distribute  for  the 
          purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale 
          or lease, any radio  frequency device unless:  (1) 
          [i]n   the   case   of   a   device   subject   to 
          certification, such device has been authorized  by 
          the Commission  in accordance  with the  rules  in 
          this  chapter  and  is  properly  identified   and 
          labeled as required by  2.925 and other  relevant 
          sections in this chapter[.]

     13.  Section 95.603(c) of the Rules requires that ``[e]ach 
CB transmitter (a transmitter that operates or is intended to 
operate at a station authorized in the CB) must be 
certificated.''  Section 95.655(a) of the Rules states that 
``[n]o transmitter will be certificated for use in the CB service 
if it is equipped with a frequency capability not [authorized for 
CB in Part 95 of the Rules].''  This section also states that 
``([CB t]ransmitters with frequency capability for the Amateur 
Radio Services ... will not be certificated.)''  Additionally, 
Section 95.655(c) of the Rules prohibits any internal or external 
add-on device that functions to extend the transmitting frequency 
capability of a CB transmitter beyond its original capability. 

     14.  From March 2004 to January 2005, Commission agents 
observed Loves offer for sale at ten different retail outlets 
various models of non-certified CB transmitters, including Galaxy 
models DX33HML and DX99V, which had all been tested and 
determined by OET to be non-certified CB transmitters.  Although 
they were labeled as ``amateur radios,'' the specified models of 
Galaxy transmitters are CB transmitters, because each was 
designed to be easily modified by the end user to allow operation 
on CB frequencies.  Commission Field Offices issued a total of 
seven Citations to Loves' corporate headquarters and its retail 
outlets warning Loves that future violations would subject Loves 
to penalties including civil monetary forfeitures.  On February 
23 and 25, 2005, Loves offered for sale at two of its retail 
outlets non-certified CB transmitters, Galaxy models DX33HML and 
DX99V.  

     15.  Based on the evidence before us, we find that in three 
instances22 -- two on February 23, 2005, and one on February 25, 
2005 -- Loves offered for sale non-certified CB transmitters in 
apparent willful23 and repeated24 violation of Section 302(b) of 
the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules.25 

     16.  Section 503(b) of the Act,26 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 
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.''27 

     17.  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'')28 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,29 the base 
forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 
per violation.  Thus, the total base forfeiture amount for all of 
Loves' violations is $21,000. 

     18.  We are concerned, however, with the pattern of apparent 
violations here.  Our equipment authorization rules ensure that 
radio transmitters and other electronic equipment comply with 
Commission technical requirements.  The proliferation of non-
certified CB transmitters may result in interference to certified 
CB transmitters and other devices, thereby undermining the 
effectiveness of our technical rules.  Furthermore, we have 
previously stated that ARS equipment that can be easily modified 
to extend the operating frequency range into CB frequency bands 
are CB transmitters subject to equipment authorization 
procedures.30 

     19.  We are particularly troubled that Loves continued to 
violate these rules despite receiving numerous warnings from the 
Commission.  The Commission warned Loves by issuing Citations 
directly to Loves' corporate headquarters in 2001 and 2002, and 
the Commission issued five additional Citations to Loves' retail 
outlets in 2005 after Loves continued to market non-certified CB 
transmitters at ten of its retail outlets.  These Citations put 
Loves on actual notice that marketing of this equipment is 
unlawful and that continued violations could make Loves liable 
for severe sanctions.  Yet, subsequent to these seven Citations, 
Loves marketed the very same models of unlawful equipment at 
least three times which involved at least two of its retail 
outlets.  Loves' continuing violations of the equipment 
authorization requirements evince a pattern of intentional non-
compliance with and apparent disregard for these rules.  
Accordingly, we believe an upward adjustment of the base 
forfeiture amount is warranted.31  Applying the Forfeiture Policy 
Statement and statutory factors (e.g., nature, extent and gravity 
of the violation and the history of prior offenses)32 to the 
instant case, we conclude that it is appropriate to adjust upward 
the base forfeiture amount of $21,000 and propose a forfeiture of 
$25,000 for Loves' apparent violations.  Therefore, we find Loves 
apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $25,000. 

IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     20.  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, 
Love's Travel Stops and Country Store, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of 
this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-
five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly 
violating Section 302(b) of the Act, and Section 2.803(a)(1) of 
the Rules. 

     21.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of 
the Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NAL, 
Love's Travel Stops and Country Stores, Inc. SHALL PAY the full 
amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written 
statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed 
forfeiture. 

     22.  Payment of the forfeiture may 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 by check or 
money order may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, 
P.O. Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340.  Payment by overnight 
mail may be sent to Mellon Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 
1540670, Pittsburgh, PA 15251.  Payment by wire transfer may be 
made to ABA Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and 
account number 911-6106.  Requests for payment of the full amount 
of this Notice of Apparent Liability under an installment plan 
should be sent to: Associate Managing Director, Financial 
Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1A625, Washington, D.C. 
20554.33 

     23.  The response if any must be mailed to Federal 
Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, South Central 
Region, Dallas Office, 9330 LBJ Fwy, Suite 1170, Dallas, Texas 
75243 and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the 
caption. 

     24.  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. 

     25.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NAL shall be 
sent by regular First Class Mail and by Certified Mail Return 
Receipt Requested to: Love's Travel Stops and Country Stores, 
Inc., P.O. Box 26210, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73126.



                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              James D. Wells
                              District Director
                              Dallas Office
                              South Central Region
                              Enforcement Bureau 
                           ATTACHMENT


1.        February 23, 2005, Loves center #213, Tomkawa, 
  Oklahoma.  Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy models DX33HML 
  displayed and offered for sale.

2.        February 23, 2005, Loves center #213, Tomkawa, 
  Oklahoma.  Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy models DX99V 
  displayed and offered for sale.

3.        February 25, 2005, Loves center #202, Pauls Valley, 
  Oklahoma.  Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy models DX33HML 
  displayed and offered for sale. 





_________________________

1 47 U.S.C.  302a(b).
2 47 C.F.R.  2.803(a)(1).
3 47 U.S.C.  302a.
4 47 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart J.
5 CB radio operation is confined to forty specified channels from 
26.965 MHz to 27.405 MHz (carrier frequency).
6 See 47 C.F.R.  2.927(a).
7 47 C.F.R.  2.803(a).
8 47 C.F.R.  95.603(c) [FCC 88-256], amended changing ``type 
acceptance'' to ``certification'' [FCC 98-58].
9 Extended Coverage High Frequency Transceivers, Public Notice 
62882, 1996 WL 242469, available at 
<> (OET, rel. May 13, 1996) (``Notice'').
10 Id.
11 Letter from Christopher Wright, General Counsel, FCC to John 
Atwood, Chief Intellectual Property Rights, US Customs Service, 
14 FCC Rcd 7797 (OGC, 1999).
12 See 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(3).
13 See 47 U.S.C.  501, 503(b), 510.
14 See Letter from Carl Martincich, Director of Risk Management 
for Loves to Agent Brock, Federal Communications Commission 
Dallas Field Office (November 27, 2002).
15 See Letter from Michael C. Olson, counsel for Loves, to James 
Wells, District Director, Federal Communications Commission 
Dallas Field Office (December 2, 2002).
16 See 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(3).
17 See 47 U.S.C.  501, 503(b), 510.
18 See Letter from Carl Martincich, Director of Risk Management 
for Loves to Catherine Deaton, District Director, Federal 
Communications Commission Los Angeles Field Office (January 26, 
2005).
19 See Letter from Michael C. Olson, counsel for Loves, to 
Catherine Deaton, District Director, Federal Communications 
Commission Los Angeles Field Office (January 26, 2005).
20 See Letter from Catherine Deaton, District Director, Federal 
Communications Commission Los Angeles Field Office to Michael 
Olson, counsel for Loves (February 28, 2005).
21 See ATTACHMENT for a listing of the Loves stores visited and 
the models observed.
22 Although Loves offered for sale non-certified CB transmitters 
on days prior to February 23, 2005, the Commission is barred from 
enforcing those violations by the statute of limitations 
contained in Section 503(b)(6) of the Act.
23 Section 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 . . . .''  See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 
FCC Rcd 4387-88 (1991).
24 The 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.''  47 U.S.C.  
312(f)(2).
25 See Hightech CB Shop, Forfeiture Order, 20 FCC Rcd 12514 (Enf. 
Bur. 2005), Memorandum, Opinion and Order, DA 05-3125 (rel. Dec. 
2, 2005).
26 47 U.S.C.  503(b).
27 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).
28 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
29 47 C.F.R.  1.80.
30 See 47 C.F.R.  95.603(c).  See also Letter from Christopher 
Wright, General Counsel, FCC to John Atwood, Chief Intellectual 
Property Rights, US Customs Service, 14 FCC Rcd 7797 (1999). 
31 See, e.g., AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 21866 
(2002) (base forfeiture amount tripled); American Tower 
Corporation, 16 FCC Rcd 1282 (2001) (base forfeiture amount 
doubled).
32 See also 47 C.F.R.  1.80, Note to paragraph (b)(4):  Section 
II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures.
33 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.