Click here for Microsoft Word Version

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-
Chula Vista, California                 )    NAL Acct. No. 


     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 

     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. 
     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.


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau

1 Califormula, Inc., DA 01-342 (Enf. Bur., rel. Feb. 12, 

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.