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-03-DL-099
                                )
Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C.     )     NAL/Acct. No. 200532500001
                                )
Knoxville, Tennessee             )     FRN # 0006096010



           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted: November 18, 2004                Released:  November 
22, 2004

By the Commission:

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 
(``NAL''), we find Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. (``Pilot'') 
apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of one hundred 
twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) 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 Pilot 
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.  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  

     3.   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  

     4.   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  

     5.   From December 9, 2001 through May 6, 2003, the 
Commission received four complaints specifically naming Pilot 
Travel Centers as marketing non-certified CB transceivers.  From 
August 2001 through September 2002, Enforcement Bureau field 
agents visited eleven Pilot retail outlets at the following 
locations:  Sulphur Springs, Texas; Dallas, Texas; Weatherford, 
Texas; Brooks, Oregon; Casa Grande, Arizona; Quartzsite, 
Arizona; North Palm Springs, California; North Las Vegas, 
Nevada; Barstow, California; Boron, California; and Hesperia, 
California.  At these locations, the stores displayed and offered 
for sale various models of non-certified CB transceivers marketed 
as ARS transmitters.  Prior to the field visits, OET had tested 
all of these models and found each of them to be non-certified CB 
transceivers. 

     6.   As a result of agent inspections of Pilot retail stores 
from December 2, 1999 to September 6, 2002, Enforcement Bureau 
Field Offices issued nine Citations to Pilot.  The Bureau issued 
one Citation to Pilot's corporate headquarters in Knoxville, 
Tennessee, and eight Citations to different Pilot retail outlets 
in Brooks, Oregon; Casa Grande, California; Quartzsite, 
California; North Palm Springs, California; North Las Vegas, 
Nevada; Barstow, California; Boron, California; and Hesperia, 
California.  Each of these Citations advised Pilot 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 Pilot 
that future violations may subject Pilot to civil monetary 
forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 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.   On December 7, 2001, the Enforcement Bureau's Dallas 
Field Office (``Dallas Office'') received from Pilot a response 
dated December 6, 2001 to the Citation issued to Pilot's 
corporate headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee.  The response 
from Pilot's Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary 
stated that ``[a]ll of the radios in question are marketed as 
amateur radios and, as sold, operate on the 10-meter amateur 
band.  Part 97 of 47 C.F.R., not Part 95, governs these 
transceivers.  Part 97 does not require type acceptance of 
amateur radios.''  On January 28, 2002, the Dallas Office mailed 
a letter to Pilot's corporate headquarters addressing Pilot's 
response to the Citation.  The letter advised Pilot that the 
devices referred to in the Citation are intended for use on CB as 
well as ARS frequencies, because they have built-in design 
features which facilitate their operation on CB frequencies by 
the exercise of simple, end-user accessible, modifications to the 
devices.  The letter further advised that such devices are 
considered CB transmitters pursuant to Section 95.603(c) of the 
Rules, irrespective of any labeling purporting the devices to be 
``Amateur Radio Transceivers.''  The Dallas Office received no 
further response from Pilot.  In addition, Enforcement Bureau 
Field Offices received five other responses from Citations issued 
to Pilot, one response from Pilot's Vice President, General 
Counsel, and Secretary and four other responses from a Pilot 
Paralegal.  All five responses similarly disputed the 
Commission's statements in the Citations that Pilot illegally 
marketed non-certified CB transmitters.  Enforcement Bureau Field 
Offices issued follow-up responses to each of these letters 
advising Pilot that the devices in question are considered CB 
transmitters and that marketing of the non-certified devices was 
not lawful. 

     8.   Subsequent to issuance of the above-mentioned Citations 
and follow-up letters, from December 11, 2003 to July 3, 2004, 
Enforcement Bureau field agents made seven visits to Pilot retail 
stores nationwide where Pilot offered for sale non-certified 
models of Galaxy brand CB transceivers.14  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.  

     9.   On December 16, 17, and 18, 2003, Enforcement Bureau 
field agents purchased three Galaxy transceivers (models DX33HML, 
DX99V and DX66V, respectively) from three different Pilot retail 
stores and had them tested by the laboratory of OET.  On April 1, 
2004, the laboratory of OET issued an evaluation report for each 
of the three purchased transceivers and found that they were all 
non-certified CB transmitters.    

III.      DISCUSSION

     10.  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[.]

     11.  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. 

     12.  Prior to October 2002, Pilot offered for sale various 
non-certified CB transmitters at eleven of its retail outlets.  
Commission Field Offices issued a total of nine Citations to 
Pilot's corporate headquarters and its retail outlets warning 
Pilot that future violations would subject Pilot to penalties 
including civil monetary forfeitures.  Subsequently, in forty-
seven separate instances from October 8, 2002 to July 3, 2004, 
Pilot offered for sale various models of non-certified Galaxy 
brand CB transmitters, 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.  Additionally, in at least eleven of the forty-seven 
instances of marketing by Pilot, Pilot employees referred to the 
devices as ``CB's.'' 

     13.  Based on the evidence before us, we find that in 
thirteen instances -- six on December 11, 2003, one each on 
December 16, 17, and 18, 2003, three on March 25, 2004, and one 
on July 3, 2004 -- Pilot offered for sale non-certified CB 
transmitters in apparent willful15 and repeated16 violation of 
Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules.17 

     14.  Section 503(b) of the Act,18 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.''19 

     15.  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'')20 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,21 the base 
forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 
per violation.  Thus, the total base forfeiture amount for all of 
Pilot's violations is $91,000. 

     16.  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.22

     17.  We are particularly troubled that Pilot continues to 
violate these rules despite receiving nine Citations for 
marketing non-certified CB transmitters.  These Citations put 
Pilot on actual notice that marketing of this equipment is 
unlawful, yet Pilot intentionally continued to market the 
unlawful equipment.  Pilot's 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.23  Applying the Forfeiture Policy 
Statement and statutory factors (e.g., nature, extent and gravity 
of the violation and the history of prior offenses)24 to the 
instant case, we conclude that it is appropriate to propose a 
forfeiture of $125,000 for Pilot's apparent violations.  
Therefore, we find Pilot apparently liable for a forfeiture in 
the amount of $125,000. 

IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     18.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 
503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 
1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. is 
hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in 
the amount of one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars 
($125,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) 
of the Act, and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. 

     19.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of 
the Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NAL, 
Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. SHALL PAY the full amount of the 
proposed forfeiture amount or SHALL FILE a written statement 
seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 

     20.  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 Forfeiture Collection Section, 
Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 
73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.  Payment by overnight mail 
may be sent to Bank One/LB 73482, 525 West Monroe, 8th Floor 
Mailroom, Chicago, IL 60661.  Payment by wire transfer may be 
made to ABA Number 071000013, receiving bank Bank One, and 
account number 1165259.  Requests for payment of the full amount 
of this Notice of Apparent Liability under an installment plan 
should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables Operations 
Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.25 

     21.  The response if any must be mailed to Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN: South Central Region 
Headquarters and must include the NAL/Acct. No. 200532500001.

     22.  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. 

     23.  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: Pilot Travel Centers L.L.C., 5508 Lonas 
Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37909.



                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              Marlene H. Dortch
                              Secretary
                           ATTACHMENT


1.        December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas.  
  Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed 
  and offered for sale.

2.        December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas.  
  Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and 
  offered for sale.

3.        December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas.  
  Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy models DX99V displayed and 
  offered for sale.

4.        December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas.  
  Non-certified CB transceivers Galaxy model DX33HML displayed 
  and offered for sale.

5.        December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas.  
  Non-certified CB transceivers Galaxy model DX66V displayed and 
  offered for sale.

6.        December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas.  
  Non-certified CB transceivers Galaxy model DX99V displayed and 
  offered for sale.

7.        December 16, 2003, Pilot center #95, Wildwood, Florida.  
  Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed, 
  offered for sale, and sold. 

     8.   December 17, 2003, Pilot center #94, Punta, Florida.  
Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX99V displayed, 
offered for sale, and sold. 

     9.   December 18, 2003, Pilot center #328, Dallas, Texas.  
Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed, 
offered for sale, and sold. 

     10.  March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, 
Oklahoma.  Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML 
displayed and offered for sale.

     11.       March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, 
Oklahoma.  Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V 
displayed and offered for sale.

     12.  March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, 
Oklahoma.  Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX99V 
displayed and offered for sale. 

     13.  July 3, 2004, Pilot center #35, South Bend, Indiana.  
Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and 
offered for sale. 


_________________________

147 U.S.C.  302a(b).
247 C.F.R.  2.803(a)(1).
347 U.S.C.  302a.
447 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart J.
5CB radio operation is confined to forty specified channels from 
26.965 MHz to 27.405 MHz (carrier frequency).
6See 47 C.F.R.  2.927(a).
747 C.F.R.  2.803(a).
847 C.F.R.  95.603(c) [FCC 88-256], amended changing ``type 
acceptance'' to ``certification'' [FCC 98-58].
9Extended Coverage High Frequency Transceivers, Public Notice 
62882, 1996 WL 242469, available at 
<> (OET, rel. May 13, 1996) (``Notice'').
10Id.
11Letter from Christopher Wright, General Counsel, FCC to John 
Atwood, Chief Intellectual Property Rights, US Customs Service, 
14 FCC Rcd 7797 (OGC, 1999).
12See 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(3).
13See 47 U.S.C.  501, 503(b), 510.
14See ATTACHMENT for a listing of the Pilot stores visited and 
the models observed.
15Section 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).
16The 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).
17Although Pilot offered for  sale non-certified CB  transmitters 
on days prior to December 11, 2003, the Commission is barred from 
enforcing  those  violations  by   the  statute  of   limitations 
contained in Section 503(b)(6) of the Act.
1847 U.S.C.  503(b).
1947 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).
2012 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
2147 C.F.R.  1.80.
22See 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). 
23See, e.g., AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 21866 
(2002) (base forfeiture amount tripled); American Tower 
Corporation, 16 FCC Rcd 1282 (2002) (base forfeiture amount 
doubled).
24See also 47 C.F.R.   1.80, Note to paragraph (b)(4):   Section 
II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures.
25See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.