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                   )
                                                             )
Stanley Mark Mayo                  )      File Number EB-02-LA-310
                                  )
Unlicensed Radio Station on 660    )     NAL/Acct. No.200432900003
kHz                                )
Unlicensed Radio Station on 91.3   )                FRN 0009412131
MHz                                )
Victorville, California

         NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

                                   Released:  March 31, 2004

By the  District Director,  Los Angeles  Office, Enforcement 
Bureau:


                         I.  INTRODUCTION

         1.    In  this  Notice  of Apparent  Liability  for 
    Forfeiture  (``NAL''),   we  find   Stanley  Mark   Mayo 
    (``Mayo'') apparently willfully  and repeatedly violated 
    Section  301  of  the Communications  Act  of  1934,  as 
    amended (``Act'')1 by  operating a radio station  on the 
    frequencies 660 kHz  and 91.3 MHz  without authorization 
    from    the     Federal    Communications     Commission 
    (``Commission'').   We  conclude,  pursuant  to  Section 
    503(b) of  the Communications  Act of  1934, as  amended 
    (``Act''),2 that Stanley Mark Mayo  is apparently liable 
    for  a  forfeiture  in the  amount  of  twenty  thousand 
    dollars ($20,000).


                         II.  BACKGROUND

         2.    On  October  7,  2002, the  Commission's  Los 
    Angeles Office  received information that  an unlicensed 
    AM station,  using call letters  KRSX, was  operating on 
    660 kHz  in Victorville,  California.  A  search of  the 
    Commission's  licensee  database   revealed  no  license 
    issued for the  operation of an AM  broadcast station on 
    660 kHz  in  Victorville, California,  and no  broadcast 
    authorization issued under call sign KRSX.

         3.    On   October  24,   2002,  agents   from  the 
    Commission's   Los    Angeles   Office    conducted   an 
    investigation and  detected radio  transmissions on  the 
    frequency 660 kHz in Victorville.  Using radio direction 
    finding  techniques,  the  agents  determined  that  the 
    transmissions  were  emanating  from  16743B  D  Street, 
    Victorville.   The  front  door  was   marked  with  the 
    following wording:  Route 66 Radio KRSX - AM 660.


         4.    Still  on   October  24,  2002,   the  agents 
    inspected the radio  station broadcasting on 660  kHz at 
    16743B D Street.   The agents spoke to  Mayo, who stated 
    that  he owned  the  radio,  and  that the  station  was 
    operating  under Part  15.3   The  agents inspected  the 
    radio station and  determined that it was  not operating 
    in  accordance  with  the  FCC   Rules  under  Part  15, 
    therefore,  a  license  was  required   to  operate  the 
    station.4   Specifically,   the   transmitter  was   not 
    certificated5 for use under Part 15 and the total length 
    of the station's transmission line  and antenna exceeded 
    3  meters.6   The   agents  issued  Mayo  a   Notice  of 
    Unlicensed Radio Operation warning letter.

         5.   The following  day, on October 25,  2002, Mayo 
    called the Commission's Los Angeles  Office and spoke to 
    the  District  Director.   Mayo  acknowledged  that  the 
    station was not operating with a Part 15 transmitter and 
    requested a waiver  to continue operating with  the Part 
    73 transmitter.  The waiver was not granted.

         6.    On  November 1,  2002,  the Commission's  Los 
    Angeles Office mailed  via certified and regular  mail a 
    Notice  of Unlicensed  Radio  Operation  letter to  Mayo 
    regarding  the  station's  operation  on  660  kHz.   No 
    response to this Notice was received.

         7.       On  May   20,   2003,   agents  from   the 
    Commission's   Los    Angeles   Office    conducted   an 
    investigation and  identified transmissions  on 660  kHz 
    emanating  from 16743B  D  Street  in Victorville.   The 
    agents took a  field strength measurement of  the signal 
    on 660 kHz and determined that the signal was 2500 times 
    greater than  the maximum permissible  level for  a non-
    licensed  Part   15  transmitter.7    A  radio   station 
    inspection determined that the transmitter  was the same 
    as  that   observed   during  the   October  24,   2002, 
    inspection.   The  agents   issued  Mayo  a   Notice  of 
    Unlicensed Radio Operation warning letter.

         8.    On   August  15,   2003,   agents  from   the 
    Commission's   Los    Angeles   Office    conducted   an 
    investigation and  identified transmissions  on 660  kHz 
    emanating  from  16743B  D  Street.   Additionally,  the 
    agents identified  a signal on  91.3 MHz  emanating from 
    16743B D Street  in Victorville.  The agents  took field 
    strength measurements  of  the signal  on  91.3 MHz  and 
    determined that the  signal was 7900 times  greater than 
    the maximum permissible level for a non-licensed Part 15 
    station.8   The Commission's  records  revealed that  no 
    license  had been  issued  for  the  operation of  a  FM 
    broadcast station at this location on 91.3 MHz.

         9.    Still   on  August   15,  2003,   the  agents 
    inspected the radio stations broadcasting on 660 kHz and 
    91.3 MHz at 16743B D Street in Victorville.  The 660 kHz 
    transmitter was  the same  as that  observed during  the 
    previous inspections.  The 91.3 MHz  transmitter was not 
    authorized for  use under  Part 15.   The agents  issued 
    Mayo two Notices  of Unlicensed Radio  Operation warning 
    letters; one for operation on 660  kHz and the other for 
    operation on 91.3 MHz.

         10.   Still on  August 15, 2003, the  agents took a 
    field strength measurement of the signal  on 660 kHz and 
    determined that the  signal was 3200 times  greater than 
    the maximum permissible level for a non-licensed Part 15 
    transmitter. 

         11.   On   March   22,   2004,  agents   from   the 
    Commission's   Los    Angeles   Office    conducted   an 
    investigation and  identified transmissions on  both 660 
    kHz  and  91.3  MHz  emanating  from  16743B  D  Street, 
    Victorville,  California.   The  agents   took  a  field 
    strength  measurement  of  the signal  on  660  kHz  and 
    determined that the  signal was 3200 times  greater than 
    the maximum permissible level for a non-licensed Part 15 
    transmitter.    The    agents   took    field   strength 
    measurements of  the signal on  91.3 MHz  and determined 
    that the signal was 7900 times  greater than the maximum 
    permissible level for a non-licensed Part 15 station.


                      III.  DISCUSSION

         12.   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 any rule, regulation 
    or order issued by the Commission  there under, shall be 
    liable for a forfeiture penalty.9   The term ``willful'' 
    as used in  Section 503(b) has been  interpreted to mean 
    simply  that  the   acts  or  omissions   are  committed 
    knowingly and the term ``repeated'' means the commission 
    or omission of the  act more than once or  for more than 
    one day.10

         13.   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.  On October 
    24, 2002, May 20,  2003, August 15, 2003,  and March 22, 
    2004,  Mayo  operated radio  transmitting  equipment  at 
    16743B D Street,  Victorville, on the frequency  660 kHz 
    without  the  required   Commission  authorization.   On 
    August 15, 2003 and March 22,  2004, Mayo operated radio 
    transmitting equipment at 16743B  D Street, Victorville, 
    on  the   frequency  91.3   MHz  without   the  required 
    Commission authorization.

         14.   Based on the evidence before us, we find Mayo 
    willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act 
    by  operating  radio transmission  apparatus  without  a 
    license on 660 kHz and 91.3 MHz.

         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),11  and Section 1.80(b)(4) 
    of the Commission's Rules,12 the  base forfeiture amount 
    for operation without an instrument of authorization for 
    the  service  is $10,000.   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  Act13  which  include  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  other  such 
    matters as justice may require.   Considering the entire 
    record and applying the factors  listed above, a $20,000 
    forfeiture is warranted.


                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

         16.   Accordingly, IT IS  ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 
    Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 
    1.80 of the Rules, Stanley Mark  Mayo is hereby NOTIFIED 
    of  this APPARENT  LIABILITY  FOR  A FORFEITURE  in  the 
    amount of twenty thousand dollars  ($20,000) for willful 
    and repeated  violation of  Section 301  of the  Act for 
    operating  radio  transmitting   equipment  without  the 
    required Commission authorization.14

         17.   IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  THAT,  pursuant  to 
    Section 1.80  of the  Rules, within  thirty days  of the 
    release date of this NAL, Mayo SHALL PAY the full amount 
    of  the proposed  forfeiture  or  SHALL FILE  a  written 
    statement  seeking  reduction  or  cancellation  of  the 
    proposed forfeiture.

         18.   Payment  of the  forfeiture  may  be made  by 
    mailing a  check or similar  instrument, payable  to the 
    order of the  Federal Communications Commission,  to the 
    Forfeiture Collection  Section, Finance  Branch, Federal 
    Communications  Commission,  P.O.  Box  73482,  Chicago, 
    Illinois  60673-7482.   The  payment   should  note  the 
    NAL/Acct. No.  and FRN  referenced above.   Requests for 
    payment  of  the  full  amount  of  this  NAL  under  an 
    installment plan should  be sent to: Chief,  Revenue and 
    Receivables  Operations Group,  445  12th Street,  S.W., 
    Washington, D.C. 20554.15

         19.   The  response,  if  any, must  be  mailed  to 
    Federal  Communications   Commission,   Office  of   the 
    Secretary,  445 12th  Street  SW,  Washington DC  20554, 
    Attn: Enforcement Bureau - Spectrum Enforcement Division 
    and MUST INCLUDE THE NAL/Acct. No. referenced above.  

         20.   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.

         21.   Under the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act 
    of 2002,  Pub L. No.  107-198, 116  Stat. 729  (June 28, 
    2002), the FCC is engaged in a two-year tracking process 
    regarding the size of entities  involved in forfeitures.  
    If you qualify as  a small entity and if you  wish to be 
    treated as a small entity  for tracking purposes, please 
    so certify to  us within thirty  (30) days of  this NAL, 
    either in  your response  to the  NAL or  in a  separate 
    filing to be sent to  the Spectrum Enforcement Division.  
    Your   certification  should   indicate   whether   you, 
    including your parent entity and  its subsidiaries, meet 
    one of the definitions set forth in the list provided by 
    the   FCC's    Office    of   Communications    Business 
    Opportunities (OCBO) set  forth in Attachment A  of this 
    Notice of Apparent Liability.  This  information will be 
    used  for  tracking purposes  only.   Your  response  or 
    failure to respond to this question  will have no effect 
    on your rights and responsibilities  pursuant to Section 
    503(b) of the Communications Act.  If you have questions 
    regarding any of the information contained in Attachment 
    A, please contact OCBO at (202) 418-0990.

         22.    IT  IS FURTHER ORDERED  THAT a copy  of this 
    NAL shall  be sent  by regular  mail and  Certified Mail 
    Return Receipt Requested to Stanley  Mark Mayo, 16743B D 
    St., Victorville, CA 92392.   

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         Catherine Deaton
                         District   Director,  Los   Angeles 
Office
                         Enforcement Bureau


Enclosure:  FCC List of Small Entities, October 2002
_________________________

1 47 U.S.C.  301.



2  47 U.S.C. 503(b).



3 Part 15 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 15, sets out 
regulations under which a transmitter may be operated 
without an individual license.



4 Section 15.1(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  
15.1(b), specifies that the operation of an intentional 
radiator that is not in accordance with the regulations in 
this part must be licensed pursuant to the provisions of 
section 301 of the Act.



5 Certification is a type of equipment authorization issued 
by the Commission, based on representations and test data 
submitted by the applicant.  Section 15.201(b) of the 
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  15.201(b), requires 
transmitters, operating under the provisions of Part 15, to 
be certificated by the Commission.  The transmitter must 
bear a label, located in a conspicuous location on the 
device, containing the statement specified in Section 
15.19(a)(3) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  
15.19(a)(3).  The station's transmitter did not have the 
required labeling specified in Section 15.19(a)(3).  On the 
contrary, labeling on the transmitter indicated its 
authorization was for Part 73 of the Commission's Rules, 47 
C.F.R. 73.  Reserved for the Radio Broadcast Services, an 
individual license is required for radio stations operating 
under Part 73.



6 Section 15.219(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  
15.219(b), specifies that the total length of the 
transmission line, antenna and ground lead (if used) shall 
not exceed 3 meters.  The station's transmission line and 
antenna was over 9 meters.

7

 Emissions from a Part 15 transmitter, operating between 
490-1705 kHz, are limited in accordance with a formula 
provided in Section 15.209(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 
C.F.R.  15.209(a).  Applying the formula, emissions on 660 
kHz are limited to 36 V/m at thirty meters.  The measured 
field strength of the station's signal exceeded the 
permissible level by 2500 times.

8

 Section 15.239(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  
15.239(b), provides that non-licensed broadcasting in the 
88-108 MHz band is permitted only if the field strength of 
the transmissions does not exceed 250 V/m at three meters.



9  47 U.S.C.  503(b).



10  Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  312(f)(1), 
which applies to 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). Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  312(f)(2), 
which also applies to Section 503(b), provides: ``[t]he term 
``repeated'', when use 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.



11 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and 
Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the 
Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. 
denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).



12 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4).



13 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).



14 47 U.S.C.  301, 503(b); 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80



15 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.