Click here for Microsoft Word Version
******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word 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
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).

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



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


In the Matter of                   )
                              )    File No.:  EB-00-PO-038
Oregon Pacific Railroad Company         )
Milwaukie, OR                      )    NAL/Acct. No. X3292001
                              )    


                   MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

  Adopted:  February 7, 2001            Released:    February  9, 

2001

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Memorandum  Opinion and  Order (``Order''),  we 
deny the Oregon Pacific  Railroad Company's (``Oregon  Pacific'') 
petition for reconsideration1  and affirm  the Forfeiture  Order2 
issued against Oregon Pacific for willful and repeated  violation 
of Section  301 of  the Communications  Act of  1934, as  amended 
(``the Act'').3  The  noted violations  involve Oregon  Pacific's 
operation  of  a   two-way  radio   station  without   Commission 
authorization.

     2.   On June 13, 2000, the Portland, Oregon, Resident  Agent 
Office  (``Portland  Office'')  issued   a  Notice  of   Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of ten  thousand 
dollars ($10,000)  to Oregon  Pacific.4  Oregon  Pacific did  not 
respond to the NAL.  On October 10, 2000, the Enforcement  Bureau 
(``Bureau'')  released   a   Forfeiture   Order   affirming   the 
forfeiture. Based on  the information  before us,  we affirm  the 
assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     3.   On April 3  and 4, 2000,  the Portland Office  received 
complaints from the Veterans Administration Police (``VA'') about 
interference to its communications on frequency 164.1 MHz.    The 
VA reported that the interference occurred whenever a signal  was 
on frequency  161.19 MHz.   On April  3, 2000,  an agent  at  the 
Portland Office  determined  that  Oregon Pacific  had  filed  an 
application to operate a station on 161.19 MHz.5

     4.   On April  4,  2000,  agents from  the  Portland  Office 
inspected Oregon Pacific's radio installation and determined that 
it was transmitting  a spurious emission  on the frequency  164.1 
MHz  which   was   causing   the   interference   to   the   VA's 
communications.  On  April  5, 2000,  an  agent at  the  Portland 
Office informed Oregon Pacific by telephone that the interference 
was continuing  and Oregon  Pacific agreed  to shut  its  station 
down. 

     5.   On  April  6,  2000,  the  Portland  Office  issued  an 
Official Notice  of Violation  (``NOV'')  to Oregon  Pacific  for 
transmitting  spurious   emissions,  in   violation  of   Section 
90.21(c)(3)  of  the  Commission's  Rules,  and  for  failure  to 
identify the station in accordance with Section 90.159(c) of  the 
Rules.  In its response to the NOV, Oregon Pacific reported  that 
it had eliminated the  cause of the  spurious emissions and  that 
the interference had ceased.

     6.   On April  28, 2000,  an agent  at the  Portland  Office 
learned that,  because  of  the  automatic  dismissal  of  Oregon 
Pacific's application (for  failure to  resubmit the  application 
following  its   return  for   additional  information),   Oregon 
Pacific's authority to operate  a  radio station had  terminated.  
On May  1,  2000,  the  Portland  Office  issued  and  mailed  an 
Unlicensed Warning  Letter  to  Oregon Pacific  for  operating  a 
station without authorization, in violation of Section 301 of the 
Act.

     7.   On May  31,  2000,  agents  from  the  Portland  Office 
observed  transmissions   on   161.19  MHz   and   electronically 
pinpointed Oregon  Pacific's  radio  installation  in  Milwaukie, 
Oregon, as the source of those transmissions.  Immediately  after 
their  monitoring  observations,  the  agents  inspected   Oregon 
Pacific's radio installation.  During  the inspection the  agents 
spoke to Dick Samuels,  the owner and  general manager of  Oregon 
Pacific.  At the conclusion of the inspection, an agent issued an 
Unlicensed Warning  Letter.   After  returning  to  the  Portland 
Office on  May 31,  2000, and  again on  June 1,  2000, an  agent 
monitored communications on 161.19  MHz and recognized the  voice 
of the operator to be that of Dick Samuels.

     8.   Following Oregon Pacific's  failure to  respond to  the 
NAL, the Bureau released a Forfeiture Order on October 10,  2000, 
in the amount of $10,000.  In its petition for reconsideration of 
the Forfeiture Order, Oregon Pacific stated that it submitted  an 
application for license renewal and believed it was authorized to 
operate its  station during  the  pendency of  that  application.  
Oregon Pacific contended  that ``Since the  delay in issuing  the 
license  is  a   result  of  the   FCC's  inability  to   process 
[applications] in a timely manner [Oregon Pacific] should not  be 
held responsible  for any  fines.'' In  addition, Oregon  Pacific 
argued that  its  operation  on  May  31,  2000,  should  not  be 
considered a violation of the Act because ``On May 31, 2000,  Mr. 
Lafontaine again visited our station and we agreed to discontinue 
using the station until the licensing situation was resolved once 
the two trains which [were]  on the road completed their  runs.''  
Oregon Pacific also asserted that its operation on June 1,  2000, 
was not in violation  of Section 301 of  the Act because on  that 
date (and thereafter), Oregon Pacific was temporarily  authorized 
to use a station licensed to the Union Pacific Railroad  (``Union 
Pacific'').

                        III.  DISCUSSION

     9.   Oregon Pacific's unlicensed operation cannot be  blamed 
on ``the FCC's  inability to process  [applications] in a  timely 
manner.''  Oregon  Pacific's unlicensed  operation resulted  from 
its own failure to resubmit its application within 60 days  after 
the return of  that application for  additional information6  and 
from its subsequent failure to cease operation when its operating 
authority terminated and FCC staff repeatedly warned it regarding 
unlawful operation.

     10.   Oregon  Pacific  is  responsible  for  the  unlicensed 
operation observed on  May 31,  2000.  Agent  Lafontaine did  not 
give Oregon Pacific permission  to operate a  station on May  31, 
2000, until ``the trains 
. .  .  on the  road  completed their  runs.''   Although  Oregon 
Pacific may have obtained permission to use a station licensed to 
Union Pacific, the transmissions observed  on June 1, 2000,  were 
on 161.19 MHz -- not on the frequency assigned to Union Pacific -
- and were, thus, unauthorized.

     11.  We can find no basis for remission or mitigation of the 
forfeiture  and,  therefore,   affirm   the  $10,000   forfeiture 
assessed by the Forfeiture Order.

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     12.  Payment of the forfeiture  shall be made in the  manner 
provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules7 within 30 
days of the release of this Order.  If the forfeiture is not paid 
within the  period specified,  the case  may be  referred to  the 
Department of Justice for  collection pursuant to Section  504(a) 
of the Act.8  Payment may be  made by mailing a check or  similar 
instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal  Communications 
Commission,'' to the Federal Communications Commission, P.O.  Box 
73482, Chicago,  Illinois 60673-7482.   The payment  should  note 
``NAL/Acct. No. X3292001'' referenced  above.  Requests for  full 
payment under  an  installment plan  should  be sent  to:  Chief, 
Credit  and  Debt  Management  Center,  445  12th  Street,  S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20554.9

     13.  IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED that a  copy of this  Forfeiture 
Order  shall  be  sent  by  Certified  Mail  --  Return   Receipt 
Requested, to Oregon  Pacific Railroad Company,  P.O. Box  22548, 
Portland, Oregon 97269.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         

                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau

_________________________

     1 Oregon Pacific filed a statement in response to the 
Forfeiture Order.  Because there is no provision for responses to 
Forfeiture Orders, we are treating Oregon Pacific's filing as a 
petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order.

     2 Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 12699 (Enf. Bur. 2000).

     3 47 U.S.C.  301.

     4 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL Acct. No. 
X3292001 (Enf.  Bur., Portland  Resident Agent  Office,  released 
June 13, 2000).

     5 Section  90.159 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R.  90.159, 
conditionally authorizes Part 90  applicants who meet certain 
conditions to operate stations while their applications are 
pending.

     6 Oregon Pacific asserts that its agent, the Association of 
American Railroads, handled the filing of its application.  
Oregon Pacific is fully responsible for the actions or inaction 
of its agent.

     7 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

     8 47 U.S.C.  504(a).

     9 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.