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 )
)
Califormula, Inc. ) File No. EB-00-SD-
248
Chula Vista, California ) NAL Acct. No.
200132940001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: August 6, 2001 Released:
August 8, 2001
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order (``Order''),
we grant in part Califormula Inc.'s (``Califormula'')
petition for reconsideration of a Forfeiture Order that we
released on February 12, 20011 and dismiss as moot
Califormula's motion for stay of that Forfeiture Order. In
the Forfeiture Order, we assessed a $10,000 forfeiture
against Califormula for violating Section 301 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended.2 In July
of 2000, Califormula operated an unlicensed private
microwave radio station from Chula Vista, California. As we
explain below, we reduce Califormula's $10,000 forfeiture to
$6,000.
2. Califormula does not contest our finding that it
operated an unlicensed private microwave radio station.
Instead, it asks us to eliminate or reduce the forfeiture
because it claims that its agents did not diligently pursue
its modification application, its violation is minor, it
attempted in good faith to comply with the Act and the
Commission's Rules, and it has a history of overall
compliance before the Commission.
3. Califormula claims that its agents did not timely
file its modification application or keep it informed of the
Commission's processing of the same. Califormula indicates
that it assumed that the Commission granted its modification
application. The Commission has long held that licensees
are responsible for their agents' acts and omissions.3
Although Califormula delegated the filing of its
modification application to its agents, it may not shirk its
responsibility for their acts and omissions.
4. Califormula contends that its violation was minor.
We disagree. However, we recognize that Califormula's
operation at the wrong location was not as egregious as that
of a pirate operator (i.e., one who operates without any
license at all). However, we are concerned that
Califormula's violation occurred over a period of several
months and resulted in interference. Califormula has not
contested either of these facts. Consequently, we believe a
$2,000 reduction is appropriate.
5. Califormula next requests a reduction based on
good faith efforts to comply with the rules. Califormula
presents no evidence of any good faith attempt to comply
with the rules and does not challenge our conclusion that it
was not qualified for conditional authorization under
Section 101.31(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules.4
Accordingly, we find that no further reduction in the
forfeiture amount is warranted.
6. Califormula also asks us to consider its history
of overall compliance before the Commission in mitigation of
its violation. Our review of Commission records confirms
that Califormula has a history of overall compliance with
the Act and the Commission's Rules.5 Consequently, in this
case, we will reduce the forfeiture by another $2,000.
7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to
Section 405 of the Act6 and Section 1.106 of the
Commission's Rules,7 Califormula's petition for
reconsideration IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein
and IS DENIED in all other aspects.
8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Califormula's motion
for stay of the Forfeiture Order is dismissed as moot.8
9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the
manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 within 30
days of the release of this Forfeiture 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.10 Payment may be
made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to
the order of the ``Federal Communications Commission,'' to
Federal Communications Commission
P.O. Box 73482
Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.
RE: NAL Acct. No. 200132940001
The payment should note NAL Acct. No. 200132940001
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.
20554.11
10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order
shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to
David M. Silverman, Esq., counsel for Califormula, at Cole,
Raywid & Braverman, L.L.P., 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20006.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
1 Califormula, Inc., DA 01-342 (Enf. Bur., rel. Feb. 12,
2001).
2 47 U.S.C. § 301.
3 See Liability of Sundial Broadcasting Corp., 30 FCC 2d 949
(1971); NetCom Technologies, Inc., DA 01-1175 (Enf. Bur.,
rel. May 9, 2001).
4 See Califormula, Inc. at ¶¶ 4-6.
5 Our review also included a search for records related to
Noventa FM 90, Inc., the name Califormula previously used.
See id. at ¶ 3.
6 47 U.S.C. § 405.
7 47 C.F.R. § 1.106.
8 This relief was, in any event, unnecessary because we do
not refer forfeiture orders for collection while a petition
for reconsideration is pending.
9 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
10 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).
11 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.