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 No.: EB-06-LA-283
Mobile Relay Associates
) NAL/Acct. No.: 200732900006
Licensee of Station WPPF233
) FRN: 0001532027
La Crescenta, CA
)
)
FORFEITURE ORDER
Adopted: September 25, 2007 Released: September 27, 2007
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 three thousand, two hundred dollars ($3,200) to Mobile
Relay Associates ("MRA"), licensee of Private Land Mobile Radio
Services station WPPF233, in La Crescenta, California, for willful and
repeated violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Commission's Rules
("Rules"). On March 1, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau's Los Angeles
Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in
the amount of $4,000 to MRA after determining that MRA was operating
WPF233 with an effective radiated power ("ERP") above the limit stated
on the license, thereby, failing to use and operate the station only
in accordance with the rules. In this Order, we consider MRA's
arguments that its overpower operation was inadvertent, that it took
action to bring the station into compliance immediately after the Los
Angeles Office's inspection, and that it has a history of compliance
with the Commission's Rules.
II. BACKGROUND
2. On October 3, 2006, the Enforcement Bureau's Los Angeles Office
received a complaint of interference from a licensee operating on the
frequency 150.875 MHz in the Los Angeles, California, area. The
complainant stated that a signal on 150.8825 MHz was the source of the
interference.
3. The Commission's Universal Licensing System database lists MRA as the
only entity authorized to operate on 150.8825 MHz in Los Angeles
County. The license, under call sign WPPF233, authorized a base
station on Mt. Lukens, La Crescenta, California, to operate with an
ERP of 9 watts.
4. On October 11, 2006, a Los Angeles agent monitored the signal on
150.8825 MHz from the Los Angeles Office and measured the signal level
on the frequency as -57 dBm.
5. On October 16, 2006, the agent again monitored the signal on 150.8825
MHz from the Los Angeles Office and measured the signal level as -57
dBm. Later on that day, the Los Angeles agent, using a mobile
direction finding vehicle, located the source of the signal on
150.8825 MHz emanating from Mt. Lukens. The agent then contacted MRA.
The agent informed an MRA representative that an interference
complaint had been received, and that WPPF233's station on Mt. Lukens
on 150.8825 MHz was allegedly the source of the interference. The
agent informed the MRA representative that the station license limited
the ERP to 9 watts.
6. On October 17, 2006, Los Angeles agents again monitored the signal on
150.8825 MHz from the Los Angeles Office and measured the signal level
as -57 dBm. The agents then met an MRA representative on Mt. Lukens
and inspected WPPF233's station on 150.8825 MHz. The agents again
measured the signal and calculated WPPF233's ERP to be 184 watts.
During the inspection, the MRA representative reduced the ERP to 15
watts, and informed the agents that the transmitter's power could not
be lowered any further. The MRA representative informed the agents
that in the near future, an attenuator would be installed to reduce
the ERP to 9 watts. Over-the-air measurements on the 150.8825 MHz
taken by Los Angeles agents at the Los Angeles Office corroborated the
drop in ERP after the inspection on October 17, 2006, with the
150.8825 MHz signal measured at -67 dBm.
7. On October 25, 2006, an MRA representative called the Los Angeles
Office and stated that the attenuator had been installed, and that the
station was operating with 9 watts ERP. Over-the-air measurements on
150.8825 MHz taken by Los Angeles agents at the Los Angeles Office
corroborated the further drop in ERP on October 25, 2006, resulting in
a signal level of- 70 dBm on 150.8825 MHz.
8. On March 1, 2007, the Los Angeles Office issued a NAL in the amount of
$4,000 to MRA. In the NAL, the Los Angeles Office found that MRA
apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the
Rules by operating WPPF233 with an effective radiated power ("ERP")
above the limit stated on the license, thereby, failing to use and
operate the station only in accordance with the rules. MRA filed a
response to the NAL on April 2, 2007 ("Response"). In its Response,
MRA argues that its overpower operation was inadvertent, that it took
action to bring the station into compliance immediately after the Los
Angeles Office's inspection, and that it has a history of compliance
with the Commission's Rules.
III. DISCUSSION
9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance
with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The
Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80
of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining
MRA'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.
10. Section 1.903(a) of the Rules states "[s]tations in the Wireless Radio
Services must be used and operated only in accordance with the rules
applicable to their particular service as set forth in this title and
with a valid authorization granted by the Commission under the
provisions of this part..." The WPPF233 license limits the ERP on
150.8825 MHz to 9 watts. On October 11, 2006, October 16, 2006, and
October 17, 2006, Los Angeles agents measured the WPPF233 signal level
as -57 dBm. During the inspection of WPPF233 on October 17, 2006, the
agents calculated that this signal level was equivalent to the station
operating with 184 watts, a power much greater than the limit listed
on the WPPF233 license. After the inspection, MRA continued to operate
WPPF233 at 15 watts (pending the installation of an attenuator).
11. In its Response, MRA does not dispute the measurements made by the Los
Angeles agents, nor does MRA dispute the Los Angeles Office's finding
that the overpower operation of WPPF233 continued for several days.
MRA states that when it was constructing station WPPF233, it
inadvertently selected the wrong equipment from its inventory and had
"MRA realized at that time what particular equipment was being
installed for station WPPF233, MRA would have selected different
equipment that operates at 9 watts ERP." Further, MRA argues that it
fully cooperated with the Los Angeles agents regarding the inspection
of the station and took immediate action to lower the station's
transmitter power without being asked to do so, once it was made aware
that the station was operating on the wrong ERP. We find that neither
MRA's inadvertent selection of equipment nor its cooperation with the
Los Angeles Office mitigate its liability in this case. Licensees are
required to comply with the terms of their licenses, and are expected
to correct errors when they are brought to the licensee's attention.
12. MRA also argues that when it reduced its ERP to 15 watts, it
eliminated the co-channel interference, and "had that not been the
case and had MRA known that the FCC considered the delay to be of any
concern whatsoever MRA would have taken the station dark on October
17, 2007, and returned that same day with the attenuator." We find no
merit to this argument. It is well established that absence of public
harm is not considered a mitigating factor of a rule violation.
Consequently, the fact that WPPF233 ceased to cause interference after
it reduced its ERP to 15 watts is irrelevant, as MRA continued to
operate the station above the 9 watt ERP authorized on the WPPF233
license. The NAL issued by the Los Angeles Office found that MRA
apparently violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules because MRA operated
at an ERP above the limit stated on its license. MRA was not found
apparently liable for causing interference. Once MRA was alerted that
it was operating WPPF233 at an unauthorized ERP, because of an
investigation and inspection by the Los Angeles agents, MRA was
expected to correct its violation. MRA's authorization for WPPF233
limited operation of that station to nine watts ERP, yet MRA installed
and operated equipment incapable of operating at less than 15 watts,
and then failed to immediately correct this violation once informed of
the violation by the Los Angeles agents. Therefore, because it failed
to do so, we find that its violation of Section 1.903(a) was willful.
13. MRA also argues that the proposed forfeiture amount should be reduced
because it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. We
have reviewed our records and we agree. Consequently, we reduce the
forfeiture amount from $4,000 to $3,200.
14. We have examined the 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 MRA willfully
and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Considering the
entire record and the factors listed above, we find that reduction of
the proposed forfeiture to $3,200 is warranted.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
15. 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, Mobile Relay
Associates IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of
$3,200 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the
Rules.
16. 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. 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.
17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First
Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Mobile Relay
Associates, at its address of record.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Rebecca L. Dorch
Regional Director, Western Region
Enforcement Bureau
47 C.F.R. S: 1.903(a).
47 C.F.R. S: 1.907 defines ERP as the product of the power supplied to the
antenna multiplied by the gain of the antenna referenced to an isotropic
antenna.
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200732900006
(Enf. Bur., Western Region, Los Angeles Office, released March 1, 2007).
The MRA representative informed the agents that the gain of the station's
antenna was 5 dB, and the cable loss was 1 dB. These numbers, along with
the transmitter power output reading observed by the agent's wattmeter,
were used in the calculation of the ERP.
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b).
47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.
12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).
47 C.F.R. S: 1.903(a).
The Commission has consistently held that a licensee is expected to
correct errors when they are brought to the licensee's attention and that
such correction is not grounds for a downward adjustment in the
forfeiture. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. 17 FCC Rcd 21866, 21871-76
(2002).
Lockheed Martin Corporation, 22 FCC Rcd 4116, 4118 (EB 2007).
MRA also argues that it actually corrected the violation on October 18,
2006, and would have informed the Los Angeles Office of this fact if MRA
had been instructed to do so. While we accept MRA's statement that it
corrected the violation on October 18, 2006, we find that MRA's violation
was repeated because Los Angeles agents measured the WPPF233 ERP at levels
greater than its authorization on several days prior to October 17, 2006.
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4), 1.903(a).
47 U.S.C. S: 504(a).
See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4027
1
2
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4027