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                 )
                                 )        File Number EB-03-LA-286
Jack Gerritsen                   )
                                 )      NAL/Acct. No. 200532900002
Bell, California                 )                  FRN 0005240072
                                 )



                        FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted: November 30, 2005                              Released: 
December 2, 2005 

By the Regional Director, Western Region, Enforcement Bureau:

I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.        In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty-one thousand dollars 
($21,000) to Jack Gerritsen (``Gerritsen''), for willful and 
repeated violation of Section 333 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended ("Act").1  On December 2, 2004, the Enforcement 
Bureau's Los Angeles Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability 
for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $21,000 to Gerritsen 
after determining that Gerritsen apparently willfully, 
repeatedly, and maliciously interfered with the radio 
communications of authorized users in the Amateur Radio Service.  
In this Order, we consider Gerritsen's various arguments 
concerning his authority to operate, his ability to cause 
interference, and his inability to pay the forfeiture.   

II.  BACKGROUND

     2.        On November 14, 2001, the Commission's Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau (``WTB'') set aside, on its own motion, 
amateur radio station license KG6IRO, which was granted to 
Gerritsen on November 7, 2001.2  Gerritsen was notified that the 
action was taken because of complaints about the operation of 
Gerritsen's station and because of questions regarding his 
qualification to be a licensee in light of his 1999 arrest and 
2000 conviction for radio interference to police communications.3 
Gerritsen was warned that ``you have no authority to operate 
radio transmitting equipment, and such operation would be a 
violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301, subjecting you to monetary 
penalties and imprisonment.''4  On January 30, 2002, WTB notified 
Gerritsen that his amateur application had been dismissed.5  
Therefore, Gerritsen does not hold a valid amateur license and 
has no authority to operate.

     3.     Beginning in July 28, 2003, the Commission's Los 
Angeles Office began receiving complaints of deliberate 
interference to radio communications over local Amateur, Business 
and Public Safety radio repeater systems.6  The complaints 
alleged that the person making the transmissions identified 
himself as ``KG6IRO.''  The Los Angeles Office conducted an 
investigation which identified Gerritsen as the source of the on-
going unlicensed operation.  Based upon this evidence, a Notice 
of Apparent Liability for $10,000 was issued to Gerritsen on June 
15, 2004, for willful and repeated unlicensed operation of a 
radio station in the Amateur Radio Service in violation of 
Section 301 of the Act (``Section 301 NAL'').7  

     4.   On June 15, 2004, agents from the Los Angeles Office 
observed a signal on 146.405 MHz monopolizing the authorized 
147.435/146.405 MHz repeater.  Using mobile direction finding 
techniques, the agents located the source of the signal to 
Gerritsen's residence at 6217 ½ Palm Avenue in Bell, California.  
For almost an hour, Gerritsen maintained a steady transmission on 
the input frequency of 146.405 MHz which kept all other operators 
from using the repeater.

     5.    On June 24, 2004, the Los Angeles Office received a 
complaint from an amateur operator which recounted a broadcast 
made that day, on the repeater's output frequency, 147.435 MHz, 
by a man identifying himself as Jack Gerritsen, announcing a 
``hostile takeover'' of the frequency.  On July 16, 2004, the Los 
Angeles Office received a complaint alleging that Gerritsen was 
interfering with fire watch communications on the authorized 
147.105/146.505 MHz repeater.  In response, Los Angeles agents 
went to Gerritsen's residence to investigate the complaint.  
Gerritsen admitted operating on the 147.105/146.505 MHz repeater 
to the agents.  The agents warned Gerritsen that he did not have 
authority to transmit on any amateur band and told him to vacate 
all amateur frequencies. 

     6.   On July 24, 2004, using mobile direction finding 
techniques, an agent from the Los Angeles Office positively 
identified radio transmissions emanating from Gerritsen's 
residence as the source of radio signals being transmitted on 
another authorized amateur repeater, the 145.240/144.640 
repeater.  These communications consisted of a 20 minute 
prerecorded message by Gerritsen threatening to ``jam'' any 
operator that would ``jam'' him along with a recording of the 
tone used by the phone company to indicate a phone is off the 
hook.  Throughout the recording, Gerritsen identified himself by 
the call sign ``KG6IRO.''  During Gerritsen's transmissions, no 
other amateur operator was able to use the 145.240/144.640 
repeater.  On July 26, 2004, the Los Angeles Office received a 
complaint from yet another amateur operator stating that 
Gerritsen had played a recording for 48 minutes without 
interruption over the authorized ``Keller Peak'' repeater on 
146.985/146.385 MHz.

     7.   On September 13, 2004, the Los Angeles Office received 
a complaint from an Amateur Relay Radio League (``ARRL'') 
Official Observer, alleging that Gerritsen deliberately and 
maliciously interfered with the Young Hams Net using the 
authorized Catalina Island Amateur Repeater Association 
(``CARA'') repeater on 147.090/147.690 MHz on September 8, 2004.8  
The complaint alleged that the prerecorded messages transmitted 
by Gerritsen were so intense and vile they were reported to have 
reduced one of the younger participants to tears.

     8.   On September 15, 2004, using mobile direction finding 
techniques, an agent from the Los Angeles Office positively 
identified radio transmissions emanating from Gerritsen's 
residence as the source of radio signals monopolizing the input 
frequency of 147.690 MHz for the CARA repeater on 147.090/147.690 
MHz.  The agent heard Gerritsen transmit prerecorded messages, 
and also sounds, static, and tones, as the members of the Young 
Hams Net attempted to communicate.  During Gerritsen's 
transmissions, which lasted for almost ten minutes, no other 
amateur operator was able to use the repeater.    

     9.   On December 2, 2004, the Commission's Los Angeles 
Office issued a NAL in the amount of $21,000 to Gerritsen.9  In 
the NAL issued by the Los Angeles Office, the Office found that 
Gerritsen apparently willfully, repeatedly, and maliciously 
caused interference to authorized users in the Amateur Radio 
Service on June 15, 2004, July 24, 2004 and September 15, 2004.10  
Gerritsen filed a response to the NAL on December 17, 2004 
(``Response'').  In his Response, Gerritsen ``denies those 
activities alleged against [him] that if true would be illegal.'' 
Gerritsen argues that his amateur license has not been suspended, 
terminated, revoked, modified or set aside; that no record of his 
license set aside exists; that he did not engage in interference; 
that the actual motive behind the NAL is to silence his messages 
in violation of the U.S. Constitution; and that he does not have 
sufficient income to pay the forfeiture amount proposed in the 
NAL.11 

III.  DISCUSSION

     10.       The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was 
assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,12 Section 
1.80 of the Rules,13 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy 
Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to 
Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.14  In examining 
Gerritsen's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the 
Commission take into account 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.15

     11.       Section 333 of the Act states that no person shall 
willfully or maliciously interfere with, or cause interference 
to, any radio communications of any station licensed or 
authorized by or under this Act or operated by the United States 
Government. The legislative history for Section 333 identifies 
willful and malicious interference as ``intentional jamming, 
deliberate transmission on top of the transmissions of authorized 
users already using specific frequencies in order to obstruct 
their communications, repeated interruptions, and the use and 
transmission of whistles, tapes, records, or other types of 
noisemaking devices to interfere with the communications or radio 
signals of other stations.''16  One hallmark of willful and 
malicious interference in the amateur radio service is the 
refusal by an operator to allow any other operator to talk.17   
This can occur when an operator increases power so as to 
``capture'' a repeater, to the exclusion of any other 
operators.18  It can also occur when an operator transmits on an 
amateur frequency slightly different than another amateur 
frequency but at equal strength.  This results in an audible 
tone, or whistle, with a frequency equal to the difference in the 
frequencies of the two competing signals. This tone is often 
referred to as ``heterodyne'' interference.19

     12.  We first address Gerritsen's argument that his amateur 
license was not set aside and that no record of the set aside 
exists.  In fact, Gerritsen received an official notice from the 
Commission informing him that his license was set aside and that 
his application was returned to pending status.20  He also 
received an official notice from the Commission when his pending 
application was dismissed.21  The Commission received notice that 
Gerritsen received each piece of correspondence.22  Consequently, 
we find this argument to be without merit.23

     13.  Next we address Gerritsen's arguments concerning the 
three instances of interference that he caused on June 15, 2004, 
July 24, 2004 and September 15, 2004.   On June 15, 2004, Los 
Angeles agents, using direction finding techniques, located the 
source of a signal on 146.405 MHz, monopolizing the 146.405 MHz 
input frequency to the 146.435/146.405 repeater, to Gerritsen's 
residence.  While Gerritsen argues that his location is too 
distant and too insignificant in power to prevent other operators 
from using the repeater, he acknowledges that he ``may have keyed 
[his] transmitter continuously in a `duplex' mode of operation 
that allows [him] to hear `feed back' when [his] signal goes thru 
(sic) the repeater, so [he] can then pick up the microphone and 
utter a few words before being jammed by another operator . . . 
.''  In other words, Gerritsen acknowledges his efforts to 
monopolize the 146.435/146.405 repeater.

     14.  On July 24, 2004, Los Angeles agents, using direction 
finding techniques, located the source of a signal on the 
145.240/144.640 repeater to Gerritsen's residence. Because 
Gerritsen effectively captured the 145.240/144.640 repeater 
during that time, and because of his intentional jamming, no 
authorized amateur operator was able to use the repeater.  
Gerritsen makes no statement, and offers no evidence, to refute 
this allegation.24 

     15.   On September 15, 2004, using mobile direction finding 
techniques, an agent from the Los Angeles Office determined that 
radio transmissions emanating from Gerritsen's residence captured 
the CARA repeater and transmitted on top of the Young Hams Net 
that was attempting to use the repeater at that time.  In 
addition, Gerritsen apparently caused interference to occur, 
using the CARA repeater, and prohibited any communications to 
occur on the repeater at that time.  Gerritsen argues that even 
if such interference took place, it is not evidence that other 
amateurs were unable to use the repeater because his signal was 
not the strongest signal reaching the CARA antenna.   However, in 
describing the CARA repeater, Gerritsen also states that  ``the 
fact that my signal overrides or covers a signal out of a 
repeater, should be no cause for your NAL, as my signal often is 
a response to the fact that a repeater is turned on and becomes 
available for use . . . .'' Gerritsen also states that he has 
increased by tenfold the power of the transmitter that he uses so 
that other operators can no longer override his signal. 

     16.  In each of the three instances cited in the NAL, Los 
Angeles agents used direction finding equipment to locate the 
source of the interfering signal to Gerritsen's residence.  In 
each instance, a Los Angeles agent monitored the signal being 
transmitted and heard the interference caused by Gerritsen.  
Gerritsen produced no evidence to refute the agents' findings.25  
He also described in detail his ability to cause the interference 
on the days cited in the NAL.  Consequently, we find Gerritsen's 
arguments that he did not cause the interference described on the 
three days cited in the NAL  to be without merit.26  

     17.  We now consider Gerritsen's claim that the content of 
his communications and  transmissions are protected by the First 
Amendment of  the U.S. Constitution.27  The content of 
Gerritsen's transmissions are not at issue here, and, therefore, 
the forfeiture does not impair Gerritsen's First Amendment 
rights.  As described above, willful and malicious interference 
includes intentional jamming, deliberate transmission on top of 
the transmissions of authorized users already using specific 
frequencies in order to obstruct their communications, repeated 
interruptions, and the use and transmission of whistles, tapes, 
records, or other types of noisemaking devices.  Gerritsen's acts 
of transmitting obstructed the communications of licensed amateur 
operators by capturing the repeaters and monopolizing them, and 
by overriding and transmitting on top of the transmissions of the 
licensed operators.  Gerritsen's actions violated Section 333 
because his transmissions, regardless of their content, caused 
interference to licensed amateur operators.28  Therefore, we find 
this argument to be without merit as well.

     18.  Finally, we address Gerritsen's claim that he is unable 
to pay the proposed forfeiture. Specifically, Gerritsen states 
that he did not file any tax returns for the most recent three 
year period because his income was insufficient to require a tax 
return.  We note that in the NAL, the Los Angeles Office 
instructed Gerritsen, if he sought cancellation or reduction of 
the forfeiture, to supply:

     (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.29

Gerritsen submitted no documentation that reflects his current 
financial status.  Therefore, he has provided us with no basis to 
support cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture based on his 
inability to pay.30  

     19.       We have examined Gerritsen's Response to the NAL 
pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in conjunction with 
the Forfeiture Policy Statement.  As a result of our review, we 
conclude that Gerritsen willfully and repeatedly violated Section 
333 of the Act.  Considering the entire record and the factors 
listed above, we find that neither reduction or cancellation of 
the proposed $21,000 forfeiture is warranted

IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     20.       ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to 
Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the 
Commission's Rules, Jack Gerritsen IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY 
FORFEITURE in the amount of $21,000 for willfully and repeatedly 
violating Section 333 of the Act.31

     21.       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.32  Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or 
similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal 
Communications Commission.  The payment must include the 
NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above.  Payment by check or 
money order may be mailed to 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: Associate Managing Director - 
Financial Operations, Room 1A625, 445 12th Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20554.33

     22.       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order 
shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return 
Receipt Requested to Jack Gerritsen at his address of record. 



                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION





                              Rebecca L. Dorch
                              Regional Director, Western Region
                              Enforcement Bureau







_________________________

147 U.S.C. § 333.

2The action was taken pursuant to Section 1.113(a) of the Rules 
which states that ``within 30 days after public notice has been 
given of any action taken pursuant to delegated authority, the 
person, panel, or board taking the action may modify or set it 
aside on its own motion.''  47 C.F.R. § 1.113(a). 

3See November 21, 2001, letter from W. Riley Hollingsworth, 
Special Counsel, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, to Mr. Jack Gerritsen (``Enforcement Bureau 
Letter'').  On December 28, 1999, Gerritsen was arrested by the 
California Highway Patrol and charged with violating sections of 
the California Penal Code that prohibit intercepting, obstructing 
and/or interfering with police radio communications.   Gerritsen 
was convicted of interfering with police radio communications on 
June 6, 2000. Gerritsen's subsequent probation included that he 
not possess any radio transmitting devices and not interfere with 
police or FCC activity.   See Municipal Court of Long Beach 
Judicial District, County of Los Angeles, State of California, 
Case No. 0SE01792: People vs. Jack Gerritsen, June 6, 2000.  On 
January 29, 2002, Officers from the Bell Police Department and 
the California Highway Patrol arrested Gerritsen for violation of 
his probation. See Bell Police Department-Supplemental/Arrest 
Report 01-6723, dated January 29, 2002.  On May 7, 2002, 
Gerritsen was found to have violated his probation and sentenced.  
See The Municipal Court of Long Beach Judicial District County of 
Los Angeles, State of California, Case No. 0SE01792: People vs. 
Jack Gerritsen, May 7, 2002, Affirmed in part, reversed in part, 
BR 042769, Los Angeles County Superior Court, September 22, 2004.      

4Enforcement Bureau Letter.

5See Notice Of Dismissal, dated January 30, 2002 (``Dismissal 
Notice''). 

6See e.g., September 19, 2003, Amateur Radio Relay League 
(``ARRL'') Complaint; November 6, 2003 Bell Gardens Police 
Department Sgt. Jerry Winfrey's complaint.

747 U.S.C. § 301. A Forfeiture Order concerning the same 
violation was issued for $10,000 on October 5, 2004.  Jack 
Gerritsen, 19 FCC Rcd 19,520 (EB 2004), petition for 
reconsideration denied 20 FCC Rcd 4273 (EB 2005).

8The Young Hams Net is directed by a 15 year old high school 
student and comprised of young people between the ages of seven 
and twenty. 

9Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 
200532900002 (Enf. Bur., Western Region, Los Angeles Office, 
released December 2, 2004).  The Los Angeles Office found, based 
on the criteria in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, and the 
upward adjustment criteria in the Forfeiture Policy Statement, 
that an upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount of $7,000 
was warranted because Gerritsen's willful, repeated, and 
malicious interference with the radio communications of licensed 
amateur stations was egregious.  The Los Angeles Office found 
that Gerritsen knowingly operated, without a license, radio 
transmission equipment while announcing his intentions to 
interfere with licensed amateur operators, and that he willfully 
and maliciously interfered with the transmissions of licensed 
amateurs on a repeated basis, disregarding the Commission's 
requirement that amateur stations be licensed and operated 
according to good amateur practice.  

10While the NAL details complaints alleging Gerritsen caused 
interference on multiple occasions, the Los Angeles Office found 
that Gerritsen caused interference on June 15, 2004, July 24, 
2004 and September 15, 2004.   

11Gerritsen also argues that his criminal case, Municipal Court 
of Long Beach Judicial District, County of Los Angeles, State of 
California, Case No. 0SE01792: People vs. Jack Gerritsen, was 
reversed by the Los Angeles County Superior Court.  In fact, only 
the order of the trial court on November 22, 2002, which revoked 
Gerritsen's probation and lifted the stay on his previously 
imposed jail sentence was reversed.  Gerritsen's underlying 
conviction was not reversed.  See n. 3, supra.

1247 U.S.C. § 503(b).

1347 C.F.R. § 1.80.

1412 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

1547 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

16H.R. Rep. No. 101-316, at 13 (1989).  Section 97.101(a) of the 
Commission's Rules (``Rules'') states that ``each amateur station 
must be operated in accordance with good engineering and good 
amateur practice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 97.101(a).   Section 97.101(d) of 
the Rules states that ``[n]o amateur operator shall willfully or 
maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio 
communication or signal.'' 47 C.F.R. § 97.101(d).

17U.S. v. Richard, (1998 WL 830654 (E.D. La.)).  See also John B. 
Genovese, 10 FCC Rcd 7594 (CIB 1995).  

18The ``capture effect" occurs when the repeater, or any FM 
receiver, responds to only the strongest signal received on a 
frequency and rejects any weaker competing signals.  See 
Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands, 19 FCC Rcd 10018, 
10036 (2004).

199 kHz Channel Spacing for AM Broadcasting, 88 FCC 2d 290, ¶ 69, 
(1981). 

20See Enforcement Bureau Letter, supra.

21See Dismissal Notice, supra.

22Gerritsen signed the ``Return Receipt Requested'' postal card 
when he received the Enforcement Bureau Letter.  He also sent a 
reply to WTB when he received the Dismissal Notice.

23Gerritsen also demands that certain complaints and documents 
described in the NAL be made available to him.  We note that such 
requests are governed by the Commission's procedures concerning 
Freedom of Information Act (``FOIA'') requests.  These procedures 
are found in Sections 0.441 - 0.470 of the Rules.  47 C.F.R. §§ 
0.441 - 0.470.  

24Gerritsen does argue that his transmissions on this date are 
protected by the U.S. Constitution.  We address that argument in 
¶ 17, below. 

25In response to a Notice of Apparent Liability, the ``respondent 
will be afforded a reasonable period of time (usually 30 days 
from the date of the notice) to show, in writing, why a 
forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or 
to pay the forfeiture. Any showing as to why the forfeiture 
should not be imposed or should be reduced shall include a 
detailed factual statement and such documentation and affidavits 
as may be pertinent.''  Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Rules.  47 
C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(3). 

26Gerritsen also raises arguments concerning other alleged 
instances of interference that are described in the NAL, beyond 
those that occurred on June 15, 2004, July 24, 2004 and September 
15, 2004.  Because the Los Angeles Office found that Gerritsen 
apparently caused interference only on June 15, 2004, July 24, 
2004 and September 15, 2004, we do not reach Gerritsen's 
arguments concerning the other instances described in the NAL.      

27We note that some types of communications by amateur operators 
using amateur frequencies are prohibited by the Commission's 
Rules.   Section 97.113(a) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 97.113, 
prohibits amateur stations from transmitting:
  (1) Communications specifically prohibited elsewhere in this 
Part;
  (2) Communications for hire or for material compensation, 
direct or indirect, paid or promised, except as otherwise 
provided in these rules;
  (3) Communications in which the station licensee or control 
operator has a pecuniary interest, including communications on 
behalf of an employer. Amateur operators may, however, notify 
other amateur operators of the availability for sale or trade 
of apparatus normally used in an amateur station, provided that 
such activity is not conducted on a regular basis;
  (4) Music using a phone emission except as specifically 
provided elsewhere in this Section; communications intended to 
facilitate a criminal act; messages in codes or ciphers 
intended to obscure the meaning thereof, except as otherwise 
provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or 
false or deceptive messages, signals or identification;
  (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably 
be furnished alternatively through other radio services.

  47 C.F.R. § 97.113(a).
   
28We also note that Gerritsen, in each instance, caused 
interference to licensed amateur operators while he held no valid 
amateur license.  His unlicensed operation on amateur frequencies 
is not protected by the U.S. Constitution as it is well 
established that the right to free speech does not include the 
right to use radio facilities without a license and that the 
licensing system established by Congress in the Communications 
Act was a proper exercise of Congress' power over commerce.   
National Broadcasting Company v. U.S., 319 U.S. 190, 227 (1943).

29NAL at ¶ 21.  

30See Webnet Communications, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd 6870, 6878 ¶ 16 
(2003).

3147 U.S.C. §§ 333, 503(b), 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 
1.80(f)(4).

3247 U.S.C. § 504(a).

33See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.