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


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-04-SE-123       
     Gibson Tech Ed, Inc.   )                               
                                NAL/Acct. No. 200532100013  
     d/b/a/   )                               
                                FRN: 0007050479             
     Orem, Utah             )                               

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted: August 25, 2006 Released: August 29, 2006

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny a petition for
       reconsideration filed by Gibson Tech Ed Inc., d/b/a/
       ("Gibson"), of a Forfeiture Order imposing a forfeiture of fourteen
       thousand dollars ($14,000) for willful and repeated violation of
       Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"),
       and Section 2.803(a) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). The
       violations involved Gibson's marketing of two models (R-FM25B-WT) and
       (R-FM100B-WT) of unauthorized FM broadcast transmitters.


    2. On June 30, 2004, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") issued Gibson a
       Citation for marketing unauthorized FM broadcast transmission
       equipment manufactured by Veronica Ltd. ("Veronica"), in violation of
       Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules, and for
       failing to respond to a letter of inquiry ("LOI").

    3. In connection with the investigation of Gibson's sale of Veronica
       equipment, Bureau staff observed that Gibson was also marketing FM
       transmitters identified on Gibson's website as "Ramsey" equipment. The
       Bureau subsequently investigated Gibson's marketing of Ramsey FM
       transmitters and determined that Gibson was offering for sale, on its website, fully assembled FM broadcast transmitters
       designated as R-FM25B-WT and R-FM100B-WT. The FCC's equipment
       authorization database indicated that neither Gibson nor Ramsey had
       received a grant of equipment certification for either the R-FM25B-WT
       or the R-FM100B-WT. The Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability
       finding that Gibson apparently marketed two Ramsey models of
       uncertified FM broadcast transmitters in the United States, in willful
       and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section
       2.803(a)(2) of the Rules.

    4. On March 21, 2006, believing incorrectly that Gibson had not filed a
       response to the NAL, the Bureau issued the Forfeiture Order to Gibson
       upholding the NAL. In response, Gibson filed a petition for
       reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order. In its petition for
       reconsideration, Gibson argues that, for the reasons discussed in its
       previous filings, the forfeiture should not have included liability
       for sale of Veronica items, refers the Commission to Ramsey if
       Ramsey's equipment is not certified, and in any event, states that
       Gibson Tech Ed, Inc. did "not have the financial capability to pay any
       fines" and "will cease operations as of the end of this month [April,


    5. Gibson makes various arguments pertaining to the Commission's
       observations in the LOI that Gibson was in violation of Section 302(b)
       of the Act for marketing Veronica equipment. Gibson argues that the
       Commission used an "illegal secret shopper," and that Gibson had a
       form for purchasers to sign indicating they would be responsible for
       FCC registration. These arguments are moot, however, because Gibson
       has not been assessed a violation for its earlier marketing of
       Veronica equipment. Since Gibson stopped marketing the Veronica
       equipment upon the first notification by the Commission, it was not
       assessed a forfeiture for marketing the Veronica equipment. The two
       violations proposed in the NAL and assessed in the Forfeiture Order
       pertain to Gibson's marketing of Ramsey equipment on its web site.

    6. With respect to marketing Ramsey equipment, Gibson argues that it is
       selling US-manufactured Ramsey items that also are sold by hundreds of
       retail outlets nationwide. It states that it does "not understand any
       issues" with Ramsey equipment in view of Gibson's requirement that
       purchasers sign an agreement that they intend to export the
       transmitters. Gibson suggests the Commission contact Ramsey if we have
       concerns with its equipment. As discussed in the NAL, however,
       broadcast transmitters (with few exceptions not relevant here) must be
       certified in order to be marketed in the United States. The exception
       for sale of broadcast transmitters intended for export is available to
       the manufacturer of the transmitters, and the manufacturer must in
       fact export the devices. Gibson sells the devices within the United
       States, and thus is ineligible for the export exemption. Accordingly,
       the "export agreement" Gibson asks its customers to sign does not
       relieve Gibson of liability for marketing unlicensed transmitters. We
       conclude that Gibson was marketing unauthorized broadcast
       transmitters, as discussed in the NAL and Forfeiture Order, in
       violation of Section 302(b) of the Act.

    7. Gibson further states that it will cease operations at the end of
       April 2006 and lacks the financial resources to pay any fine. It adds
       that it does not have the financial capability to defend itself, and
       that it does not have legal counsel. A recent search of Gibson's website, however, shows that the web site is still
       functioning, and that the web site includes a link to Gibson Tech Ed,
       Inc., as well, which also has its own web site. Apparently, Gibson
       Tech Ed, Inc. is not out of business, and thus it remains liable for
       the assessed forfeiture. Moreover, there is no requirement that those
       who undertake business within the jurisdiction of the Commission must
       be represented by counsel before they are held responsible for
       complying with all the Commission's rules and regulations.
       Accordingly, it is irrelevant that Gibson is not represented by legal
       counsel. Finally, to the extent that Gibson claims inability to pay
       the forfeiture, it has failed to provide the required proof of its
       inability to pay in the form of "(1) federal tax returns for the most
       recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared according
       to generally accepted accounting; or (3) some other reliable and
       objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's
       current financial status." Insolvency is not grounds to reduce or
       cancel a forfeiture if the party claiming a reduction for inability to
       pay does not provide adequate financial documentation.

                              IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

    8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Act, and Section 1.106(j) of the Rules, the Petition for
       Reconsideration filed by Gibson Tech Ed, Inc. d/b/a/, IS

    9.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and
       Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Gibson Tech Ed,
       Inc., d/b/a, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the
       amount of $14,000 for willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b)
       of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules.

   10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
       Section 1.80 of the Rules 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. Payment may be made by credit card to
       the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995
       or by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of
       the 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
       full payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief,
       Revenue and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
       Washington, D.C. 20554.

   11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order
       shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt
       requested to Gibson Tech Ed, Inc. d/b/a, 1053 South 1675
       West, Orem, Utah 84058.


   Kris Anne Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau

   Gibson Tech Ed., Inc., Orem, Utah, Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd 2915 (Enf.
   Bur. 2006).

   47 U.S.C. S 302a(b).

   47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a).

   Citation issued on June 30, 2004, to Gibson Tech Ed, Inc., by Joseph P.
   Casey, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau.

   Letter from Joseph P. Casey, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, to Gibson Tech Ed, Inc. (May 14, 2004).

   "Ramsey" refers to Ramsey Electronics, Inc., located in Victor, NY.

   A certification is an equipment authorization issued by the Commission,
   based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant. See 47
   C.F.R. S 2.907(a).

   As discussed in the NAL, the Bureau conducted a separate investigation of
   Ramsey's sale of uncertified intentional FM radiators. Ramsey Electronics,
   Inc., 21 FCC Rcd 458 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., 2006).

   Gibson Tech Ed, Inc., 20 FCC Rcd 14438 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enforcement
   Div., 2005)("NAL").

   Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 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,' ... 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).

   Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that "[t]he term `repeated,' ...
   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. S

   Letter to Joseph P. Casey, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, from Tim
   Gibson, Gibson Tech Ed, Inc., dated April 6, 2006, received April 19, 2006
   ("Petition for Reconsideration").

   Letter to Mr. Brian Butler from Jim Royer, Gibson Tech Ed, Inc., dated
   June 22, 2004; Letter to Mr. Brian Butler from Jim Royer, Gibson Tech Ed,
   Inc., dated July 20, 2004; Letter to Joseph P. Casey, Chief, Spectrum
   Enforcement Division, from Tim Gibson, Gibson Tech Ed, Inc., dated
   September 22, 2005 ("Response to NAL").

   The forfeiture was for marketing two uncertified Ramsey transmitters, and
   did not pertain to Veronica equipment; see P 5, infra.

   Petition for Reconsideration, point 5.

   Response to NAL, supra.

   Id. at fourth unnumbered paragraph.

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5).

   Petition for Reconsideration, second unnumbered paragraph.

   47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a).

   See New Image Electronics, 17 FCC Rcd 3594, 3596 (Enf. Bur. 2002).

   To the extent that Gibson suggests the Commission acquiesced in this
   attempt to circumvent the Commission's rules, we note that the Commission
   is not required to develop corporate plans for Rule compliance by
   individual retail outlets. It is Gibson's responsibility to ensure its own
   compliance with the Rules. See Eure Family Limited Partnership, 17 FCC Rcd
   21861, 21863-64 PP 6-7 (2002); Roadrunner Electronics, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd
   6398, 6398 P 6 (Field Op. Bur. 1993).

   See also NAL at 3, P 8.

   Petition for Reconsideration, numbered points 2, 5 and 6.

   See Salzer v. FCC, 778 F 2d 869, 875 n. 27 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

   NAL at 5, P 19.

   North American Broadcasting Co., 19 FCC Rcd 2769, 2770-71 P 6 (Enf. Bur.

   47 C.F.R. S 1.106(f).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b).

   47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

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

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.

   (...continued from previous page)


   Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1697


   Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1697