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 µV/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 µV/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.