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-SE-124       
                                                                
     Ramko Distributors, Inc.   )   NAL/Acct. No. 200732100023  
                                                                
     Toledo, Ohio               )   FRN: 0016293854             
                                                                
                                )                               


                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted: March 30, 2007   Released: March 30, 2007

   By the Commission:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       Ramko Distributors, Inc. ("Ramko") apparently liable for marketing 17
       models of non-certified radio transceivers, in apparent willful and
       repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of
       1934, as amended ("Act"),  and Section 2.803 of the Commission's Rules
       ("Rules"). The subject devices are neither Commission authorized, nor
       eligible for such authorization. Based on the facts and circumstances
       before us, we conclude that Ramko is apparently liable for a
       forfeiture in the amount of one hundred fifty thousand dollars
       ($150,000).

   II. background

    2. Section 302 of the Act authorizes the Commission to make reasonable
       regulations, consistent with the public interest, governing the
       interference potential of equipment that emits radio frequency energy,
       and prohibits, among other things, the offering for sale of radio
       frequency devices to the extent that such activity does not comply
       with these regulations. The purpose of this section is to ensure that
       radio transmitters and other electronic devices meet certain standards
       to control interference before they reach the market. Specifically,
       Section 302(b) of the Act provides that "[n]o person shall
       manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home
       electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply
       with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section." Section
       2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's implementing regulations provides
       that:

   Except as provided elsewhere in this section, no person shall sell or
   lease, or offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or
   lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of selling or
   leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency device unless
   ... [i]n the case of a device that is subject to certification, such
   device has been authorized by the Commission in accordance with the rules
   in this chapter and is properly identified and labeled as required by S
   2.925 and other relevant sections in this chapter.

   In addition, Section 2.803(g) of the Rules provides that:

   [R]adio frequency devices that could not be operated or legally authorized
   under the current rules ... shall not be operated, advertised, displayed,
   offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed ....

    3. Certain devices, including Citizens Band ("CB") radio transmitting
       equipment, may not be marketed within the United States unless they
       have been tested and found to comply with Commission technical
       requirements, granted Commission certification and properly labeled.
       "Marketing" includes the sale or lease, offer for sale or lease
       (including advertising for sale or lease), importing, shipping, and/or
       distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for
       sale or lease.

    4. Section 95.603(c) of the Rules provides that "[e]ach CB transmitter (a
       transmitter that operates or is intended to operate at a station
       authorized in the CB [service]) must be certificated." Section
       95.655(a) of the Rules states that "[n]o transmitter will be
       certificated for use in the CB service if it is equipped with a
       frequency capability not [authorized for CB in Part 95 of the Rules]."
       This section also states that "[CB t]ransmitters with frequency
       capability for the Amateur Radio Services ... will not be
       certificated." Additionally, Section 95.655(c) of the Rules prohibits
       any internal or external add-on device that functions to extend the
       transmitting frequency capability of a CB transmitter beyond its
       original capability.

    5. Unlike CB radio transmitting equipment, radio transmitting equipment
       that transmits solely on Amateur Radio Service ("ARS") frequencies is
       not subject to equipment authorization requirements prior to
       manufacture or marketing. However, some radio transmitters that
       transmit in a portion of the 10-meter band of the ARS, which is just
       above the CB frequency segment, are equipped with rotary, toggle, or
       pushbutton switches mounted externally on the unit, which allow
       operation on the CB frequencies after completion of minor and trivial
       internal modifications to the equipment. To address these radios, the
       Commission adopted changes to the CB type acceptance requirements by
       defining a "CB Transmitter" as "a transmitter that operates or is
       intended to operate at a station authorized in the CB."

    6. Despite these changes to the definition of a CB transmitter,
       Commission enforcement agents continued to encounter non-certified CB
       transmitters marketed as ARS transmitters. On May 13, 1996, the
       Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology ("OET") released a
       Notice "to clarify the Commission's Rules regarding equipment that is
       intended to operate in various radio services in the high frequency
       radio spectrum, including "'10-Meter' ARS equipment." The Notice
       stated that transmitters intended for operation on non-amateur
       frequencies must be approved prior to manufacture, importation or
       marketing. The Notice specifically included among those devices
       subject to equipment authorization procedures, ARS transceivers
       designed "such that they can easily be modified by the users to extend
       the operating frequency range into the frequency bands" of the CB and
       other non-amateur radio services. The Notice also stated that the
       Commission considers these transceivers as devices intended to be
       operated on frequencies where the use of type accepted equipment is
       required "because of the simplicity of modifying them to extend their
       operating frequency range." The Commission's Office of General Counsel
       ("OGC") later released a letter on the importation and marketing of
       ARS transmitters, which clarified that such transmitters that "have a
       built-in capability to operate on CB frequencies and can easily be
       altered to activate that capability, such as by moving or removing a
       jumper plug or cutting a single wire" fall within the definition of
       "CB transmitter" under Section 95.603(c) of the Rules and therefore
       require certification prior to marketing or importation.

    7. On November 26, 2001, the Enforcement Bureau's ("Bureau") Dallas,
       Texas Field Office ("Dallas Office") issued a Citation to Ramko for
       illegally marketing 41 models of non-certified "10-meter" CB radio
       transceivers. The Dallas Office noted that the Commission had
       evaluated devices similar to the radio frequency devices at issue and
       concluded that the devices marketed by Ramko were not only amateur
       radios but could easily be altered for use as CB devices. The Dallas
       Office further noted that the Commission has concluded that such
       devices fall within the definition of a CB transmitter and therefore
       cannot legally be imported or marketed in the United States. The
       Citation warned Ramko of the possible consequences of continued
       marketing of these devices in violation of the rules, including
       monetary forfeitures and criminal sanctions. On November 30, 2001,
       Ramko submitted a follow-up letter to the Citation, disputing "all of
       the [Citation's] legal and factual contentions," and adding "[w]e
       expect that your office will withdraw the ... citation within 30 days
       from the date of this letter." By letter dated January 28, 2002, the
       Dallas Office again explained that the subject devices were CB
       transmitters pursuant to Section 95.603(c) of the Rules and warned
       Ramko to stop marketing the equipment immediately. The Dallas Office
       again cautioned Ramko that continued marketing could result in
       enforcement action such as monetary fines, seizure of the equipment
       and criminal sanctions. In a second follow-up letter to the Citation
       submitted in February 2002, Ramko again disputed the Citation's
       conclusions and asked the Dallas Office to withdraw the Citation. In
       April 2002, Ramko filed a third letter which asserted that in the
       absence of a response to its February letter, it assumed that the
       Dallas Office agreed with its position and would withdraw the
       Citation.

    8. In 2006, the Bureau's Spectrum Enforcement Division ("Division")
       received a July 2005 Ramko flyer ("2005 flyer") which advertised
       substantially the same equipment that was the subject of the 2001
       Citation.  Specifically, 15  of the devices advertised for sale in the
       2005 flyer  were listed in the 2001 Citation.  Because it appeared
       that Ramko may have continued to market CB transmitting devices as
       amateur radio equipment  after receiving the 2001 Citation, on April
       17, 2006, the Division issued a letter of inquiry ("First LOI") to
       Ramko concerning certain devices that it was marketing as amateur
       radio equipment.

    9. On May 22, 2006, Ramko filed a late response to the First LOI. In its
       response, Ramko stated that it neither manufactured nor imported the
       subject devices. Ramko failed to provide responses to the First LOI's
       questions concerning the length of time it marketed each device, the
       total number of units of each device sold, and the identity of its
       retailers and distributors, arguing that it (1) has a two-year
       document retention policy and that "most documents dated before 2004
       have probably already been destroyed"; (2) cannot conduct a
       computerized search for the number of units sold before April 1, 2006,
       when new computer software was installed and that matching customers
       to products before then would be limited to the existing paper
       invoices; and (3) is unable match customers with products under the
       current computer system. Ramko conceded, however, that it sent out
       catalogs or price lists which were "substantially similar" to the
       contents of its web page. Further, Ramko admitted that none of the
       subject devices received Commission authorization prior to marketing.
       Ramko objected to the findings of the 2001 Citation and argued that
       the radios "as received and sold by Ramko" were governed by Part 97 of
       the Rules and did not require certification prior to marketing. Ramko
       also claimed that an email from a Commission staff member supported
       its position. Finally, Ramko said that the Bureau failed to respond to
       a second follow-up letter from Ramko to the 2001 Citation, and that
       Ramko therefore believed that the Bureau "dropp[ed] the matter" at
       that time.

   10. On July 20, 2006, the Division issued a Second LOI to Ramko ("Second
       LOI"). The Division again requested that Ramko provide information
       concerning certain devices that it was marketing as amateur radio
       equipment. In view of Ramko's statement that it had a two-year
       document retention policy, the Division directed Ramko to provide the
       requested information for the most recent two-year period.

   11. On August 23, 2006, Ramko filed a response  to the Second LOI.   In
       its response, Ramko provided data on the total number of units sold
       for certain of the subject devices for the five-month period from
       April 1, 2006, to August 17, 2006. This data indicated that Ramko sold
       units of the following 13 devices during this five-month period:
       Connex models 3300, 3300HP, and 4400; Galaxy models DX33, DX44, DX55,
       DX66, DX77, DX99, and DX2517; General models Jackson and Lee; and
       Magnum model Mini Mag. Ramko also provided a price list, which stated
       the sale price for 12 of these devices. Additionally, in response to a
       question as to whether the subject devices were capable of operating,
       or of being modified to operate, on any frequencies beyond the ARS
       band, Ramko stated that "every Amateur radio is capable of being
       modified to work out of band." Ramko also said that "information on
       how to modify almost every brand of Amateur radio to work out of band
       is freely available on the Internet."

   12. Subsequently, in September 2006, the Division observed that Ramko was
       advertising the following 16 models of 10-meter radios in a flyer on
       its website: Connex models 3300, 3300HP, and 4800HPE; Galaxy models
       DX33, DX44, DX55, DX66, DX77, DX88, DX99 and DX2517; General models
       Jackson and Lee; Magnum models Delta Force and Mini Mag; and Superstar
       model 121.

   13. Thus, the record indicates that Ramko either sold or advertised for
       sale the following 17 models of 10-meter radios between April 1, 2006
       and September 2006: Connex models 3300, 3300HP, 4400, and 4800HPE;
       Galaxy models DX33, DX44, DX55, DX66, DX77, DX88, DX99 and DX2517;
       General models Jackson and Lee; Magnum models Delta Force and Mini
       Mag; and Superstar model 121. Of these 17 models, 16 models were
       specifically identified by the Bureau in the 2001 Citation as devices
       that could easily be altered for use as CB devices and therefore could
       not be lawfully marketed in the United States.

   14. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act, any person who is determined by
       the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with
       any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by
       the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture
       penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must
       issue a notice of apparent liability and the person against whom such
       notice has been issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing,
       why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed. The Commission will
       then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence
       that the person has violated the Act or rule. As set forth below, we
       conclude under this standard that Ramko is apparently liable for
       forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated violations of Section
       302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules by marketing radio
       transceivers that are neither Commission authorized nor eligible for
       such authorization.

   III. discussion

          A. Marketing of non-certified radio transceivers

   15. We conclude that Ramko apparently violated Section 302(b) of the Act
       and Section 2.803 of the Rules by willfully and repeatedly marketing
       17 unauthorized radio transceivers in the United States. Specifically,
       we find that Ramko marketed the following 17 devices: Connex models
       3300, 3300HP, 4400, and 4800HPE; Galaxy models DX33, DX44, DX55, DX66,
       DX77, DX88, DX99 and DX2517; General models Jackson and Lee; Magnum
       models Delta Force and Mini Mag; and Superstar model 121. As set forth
       in detail above, the record establishes that Ramko sold or advertised
       for sale each of these devices between April 1, 2006 and September
       2006. Ramko concedes that these devices have not been certified.
       Moreover, as previously discussed, these devices are not eligible for
       certification under Section 95.655(a) of the Rules because they are
       capable of operating on frequencies not authorized for the CB service.
       Ramko marketed these devices after receiving the 2001 Citation
       advising it that amateur radios that may be easily modified to
       transmit on CB frequencies are considered CB transmitters and
       therefore may not legally be marketed in the United States.

   16. In its responses, Ramko contends that the subject devices are "legal
       Amateur equipment." Ramko argues that these devices "as received by
       Ramko and as sold by Ramko, transmit on the 10 meter Amateur band,"
       and require no certification under Part 97 of the Rules. We reject
       this argument. Section 95.603(c) of the Rules states that a CB
       transmitter is a "transmitter that operates or is intended to operate
       at a station authorized in the CB" service and that such transmitters
       must be certificated. The OGC Letter clarified that ARS transmitters
       that "have a built-in capability to operate on CB frequencies and can
       easily be altered to activate that capability" are intended for use in
       the CB service as well as the amateur service and fall within the
       definition of "CB transmitter" under Section 95.603(c). In Pilot
       Travel Centers, LLC, the Commission affirmed the interpretation set
       forth in the OGC Letter. The 17 devices at issue are substantially
       similar to devices that have been evaluated by the Commission's Office
       of Engineering and Technology and found to be easily altered for use
       as CB devices. Further, Ramko does not dispute that these 17 devices
       are capable of being easily modified to operate on CB frequencies.
       Accordingly, we find that these devices fall within the definition of
       "CB transmitter."

   17. Next, Ramko asserts that Commission staff agree with its position that
       the subject devices are legal to market. In support of this assertion,
       Ramko references an informal 1997 email from a Commission staffer whom
       Ramko states "advised that the radios were legal to sell as Amateur
       equipment." We disagree with Ramko's assertion. First, the Commission
       has consistently held that regulatees are responsible for compliance
       with the Commission's rules and that they should not rely on informal
       opinions from Commission staff. In addition, as previously noted, the
       OGC Letter, which was issued subsequent to the 1997 email, clarified
       that ARS transmitters that have a built-in capability to operate on CB
       frequencies and can easily be altered to do so fall within the
       definition of a "CB transmitter" and require certification prior to
       marketing or importation. The OGC Letter was published in the FCC
       Record. Pursuant to Section 0.445(e) of the Rules, interpretations
       designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are
       published in the FCC Record "may be relied upon, used or cited as
       precedent by the Commission" in any matter. Furthermore, the 2001
       Citation put Ramko on actual notice of the OGC Letter and also
       notified Ramko that 41 devices that it was marketing as amateur
       radios, including 16 of the devices at issue here, could not legally
       be marketed in the United States. Once Ramko received the 2001
       Citation, it knew or should have known that the email did not contain
       current information and it cannot use the email as justification for
       violating the rules.

   18. Finally, Ramko claims that because the Bureau did not respond to
       Ramko's second follow-up letter to the 2001 Citation, it believed that
       the Bureau agreed with its position and "dropp[ed] the matter." We
       find it unreasonable for Ramko to have concluded that the Dallas
       Office agreed with its position and was dropping the matter.  The
       Dallas Office at no time - orally or in writing - agreed with Ramko's
       position or closed the case. To the contrary, the only written
       correspondence from the Dallas Office  - the 2001 Citation and the
       follow-up letter dated January 28, 2002 - unambiguously stated that
       Ramko's assertions were incorrect and that its actions flatly violated
       Section 302(b) of the Act and 2.803 of the Rules.   In the face of
       clear statements from the Bureau that Ramko's actions were unlawful,
       the company's decision to proceed with marketing the equipment was at
       its own risk.

   19. Accordingly, based on the preponderance of the evidence, we find that
       Ramko apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of
       the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules by selling or offering for sale
       17 models of radio transceivers which, by their nature, are ineligible
       for equipment certification.

     A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount

   20. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide
       that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the
       provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture
       penalty. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Ramko's
       violations of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules
       were willful and repeated.

   21. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establishes a base forfeiture amount
       of $7,000 for each violation involving the marketing of unauthorized
       equipment. Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, however, authorizes the
       Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each
       violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory
       maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In
       determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of
       the Act directs the Commission to consider factors, such as "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 such other matters as justice may
       require." In the present case, we find that each instance of marketing
       of an unauthorized model constitutes a separate and continuing
       violation, and, as discussed below, we find that the circumstances
       presented warrant a substantial proposed forfeiture amount.

   22. The record establishes that within the past year, Ramko has marketed
       17 models of non-certified radio transceivers in the United States.
       Consequently, as an initial matter, we find that Ramko is apparently
       liable for a base forfeiture of $7,000 for each of the 17 models of
       non-certified devices, for an aggregate base forfeiture of $119,000.
       That base forfeiture amount is, however, subject to an upward
       adjustment.

   23. Having considered the statutory factors enumerated above, we conclude
       that an upward adjustment is warranted. We find the violations here
       are intentional given that Ramko continued to market these
       unauthorized radio transceivers after the 2001 Citation put it on
       actual notice that marketing of this equipment is unlawful. The
       proposed upward adjustment here is consistent with our decision in
       Pilot Travel, in which we proposed a comparable upward adjustment of
       the base forfeiture amount from $91,000 to $125,000, noting that Pilot
       Travel had received Citations that the marketing of its non-certified
       CB transmitters was unlawful but continued marketing the equipment. In
       that case, as here, we concluded that the company's behavior evinced a
       pattern of intentional non-compliance with and disregard for these
       rules, meriting a larger forfeiture amount based on the company's
       culpability. Accordingly, we propose an aggregate forfeiture of
       $150,000 for Ramko's apparent willful and repeated violation of
       Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules.

   IV. Ordering CLauses

   24. 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, Ramko Distributors,
       Inc., IS NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the
       amount of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) for willfully
       and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803
       of the Rules.

   25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,
       within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent
       Liability for Forfeiture, Ramko Distributors, Inc. SHALL PAY the full
       amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement
       seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

   26. 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
       payment of the full amount of the NAL under an installment plan should
       be sent to: Associate Managing Director - Financial Operations, 445
       12^th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.

   27. The response, if any, must be mailed to the Office of the Secretary,
       Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington,
       D.C. 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - Spectrum Enforcement Division,
       and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.

   28. 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 principles; 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
       for Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail
       return receipt requested to Mr. Thad Disbrow, Ramko Distributors,
       Inc., 3840 LaGrange Street, Toledo, Ohio 43612.

                       FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

   Secretary

   47 U.S.C. S 302a(b) and 47 C.F.R. S 2.803.

   47 U.S.C. S 302a.

   47 C.F.R. S 2.801 defines a radio frequency device as "any device which in
   it its operation is capable of emitting radio frequency energy by
   radiation, conduction, or other means."

   47 C.F.R. S 2.927(a).

   47 C.F.R. S 2.803(e)(4).

   47 C.F.R. S 95.603(c).

   47 C.F.R. S 95.655(a).

   47 C.F.R. S 95.655(c).

   The "10-meter" band refers to the amateur service band from 28.0 - 29.7
   MHz. See 47 C.F.R. S 97.305(c). CB stations are authorized channels in the
   "11-meter" band, which is the frequency segment 26.965 - 27.405 MHz. See
   47 C.F.R. S 95.407.

   Amendment of the Part 95, Subpart E, Technical Regulations in the Personal
   Radio Services Rules, Order, 3 FCC Rcd 5032 (1988). The Commission later
   simplified the Rules to combine "type acceptance" and "certification"
   procedures into a single procedure called "certification." Amendment of
   Parts 2, 15, 18 and Other Parts of the Commission's Rules, Report and
   Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11415 (1998).

   Extended Coverage High Frequency Transceivers, Public Notice, Report No.
   62882 (OET rel. May 13, 1996) ("Notice").

   Id.

   Letter from Christopher Wright, General Counsel, Federal Communications
   Commission, to John Atwood, Chief, Intellectual Property Rights, US
   Customs Service, 14 FCC Rcd 7797 (OGC 1999)("OGC Letter").

   Ramko Distributors, Inc., Citation, EB-01-DL-664 (Enf. Bur., Dallas
   Office, Nov. 26, 2001) ("2001 Citation" or "Citation"). Section 503(b)(5)
   of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5), provides that prior to imposing a
   forfeiture penalty on an entity, such as Ramko, that does not hold a
   Commission license, permit, certificate or other authorization, or
   application for license, permit, certificate or other authorization, a
   Citation must be issued and ample time given to consult a Commission field
   office. If the entity subsequently engages in the activity described in
   the citation, then a forfeiture penalty may be imposed. See also 47 C.F.R.
   S 1.80(d).

   2001 Citation at 3 P 6. The 2001 Citation listed the following 41 devices:
   Connex models 3300, 3300HP, 4400, 4400HP, 4800HP, and 4800HPE; Galaxy
   models DX33, DX33HML, DX44, DX44V, DX55, DX55V, DX66, DX66V, DX73, DX73V,
   DX77, DX77V, DX77HML, DX88, DX88HL, DX99, DX99V, DX2517, and DX2527;
   General models Grant, Hill, Jackson, Lee, and Longstreet; Magnum models
   257, Alpha Force, and Delta Force; Mirage models 44, 66, 88, 99, and 2950;
   Virage models V3300 and V3300HP; and Superstar model 121. Id. at 1-2 PP
   3-4.

   2001 Citation at 3 P 6, citing OGC Letter.

   Letter from Michael C. Olson, counsel for Ramko, to James D. Wells,
   District Director, Dallas, Texas Field Office, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
   Communications Commission (Nov. 30, 2001).

   Letter from James D. Wells, District Director, Dallas, Texas Field Office,
   Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Michael C. Olson
   (Jan. 28, 2002) ("January 28, 2002 Letter").

   Id.

   Letter from Michael C. Olson, to James D. Wells, District Director,
   Dallas, Texas Field Office, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
   Commission (Feb. 13, 2002).

   Letter from Michael C. Olson, to James D. Wells, District Director,
   Dallas, Texas Field Office, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
   Commission (Apr. 4, 2002).

   The 2005 flyer advertised the following 16 10-meter radios: Connex models
   3300, 3300HP, and 4800HPE; Galaxy models DX33, DX44, DX55, DX66, DX77,
   DX88, DX99, and DX2517; General models Jackson and Lee; Magnum models
   Delta Force and Mini Mag; and Superstar model 121. Of these 16 devices,
   the following 15 devices were listed in the 2001 Citation: Connex models
   3300, 3300HP, and 4800HPE; Galaxy models DX33, DX44, DX55, DX66, DX77,
   DX88, DX99, and DX2517; General models Jackson and Lee; Magnum model Delta
   Force; and Superstar model 121.

   Letter from Kathryn Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Carl E. Disbrow,
   President, Ramko Distributors, Inc. (April 17, 2006).

   Letter from Thad Disbrow, Vice President-Secretary, Ramko Distributors,
   Inc., to Jennifer Burton, Esq., Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement
   Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (May 22, 2006) ("First
   Response").

   Id.  at 2.

   Id.

   Id.

   Id.

   Id. at 1.

   Id.

   Letter from Kathryn Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Carl E. Disbrow,
   President, Ramko Distributors, Inc. (July 20, 2006).

   Letter from Thad Disbrow, Vice President-Secretary, Ramko Distributors,
   Inc., to Jennifer Burton, Esq., Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement
   Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (August 23, 2006) ("Second
   Response").

   In its Second Response, Ramko claimed that it changed its computer
   software as of April 1, 2006 and could only provide data from that date
   forward. Second Response at 2. Ramko also provided sales data for certain
   other devices that were not the subject of the Division's LOIs.

   Ramko requested confidential treatment of certain information submitted in
   its Second Response, including the total number of units of each device
   sold. Second Response at 2. Ramko asserted that this information
   constitutes trade secrets customarily guarded from competitors and that
   disclosure of this information would result in substantial competitive
   harm. We will accord confidential treatment of Ramko's sales data. For
   purposes of this NAL, we need not address Ramko's request for confidential
   treatment of certain other information included in its Second Response.

   Ramko's price list included price information for the following 12 models:
   Connex models 3300, 3300HP, and 4400; Galaxy models DX33, DX44, DX55,
   DX66, DX77, DX99, and DX2517; General model Jackson; and Magnum model Mini
   Mag. Ramko's price list also included price information for certain other
   devices that were not the subject of the Division's LOIs.

   Second Response at 2.

   Id.

   Although the Magnum Mini Mag was not specifically listed in the 2001
   Citation, we note that it is a 10-meter radio transceiver substantially
   similar to the devices identified in the 2001 Citation.

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(a)(1). Section 312(f)(1) of the
   Act defines "willful" as "the conscious and deliberate commission or
   omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent to violate" the law. 47
   U.S.C. S 312(f)(1). The legislative history of Section 312(f)(1) of the
   Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312
   and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th Cong. 2d Sess. 51
   (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section
   503(b) context. See, e.g., Southern California Broadcasting Co.,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991), recon. denied,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) ("Southern
   California"). The term "repeated" means that the act was committed or
   omitted more than once, or lasts more than one day. Callais Cablevision,
   Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362
   (2001); Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388.

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(f).

   See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589,
   7591 (2002).

   See supra paragraphs 11-12.

   First Response at 2.

   See supra paragraph 4.

   First Response at 1-2; Second Response at 2.

   See OGC Letter, 14 FCC Rcd at 7797.

   Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19
   FCC Rcd 23113, 23114 (2004), consent decree issued, Order and Consent
   Decree, 21 FCC Rcd 5308, 5311 (2006) ("Pilot Travel"). The Bureau has also
   affirmed the OGC Letter's interpretation in numerous enforcement
   proceedings. See Gambler's CB & Ham Radio Sales & Service, Forfeiture
   Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14628, 14630 (Regional Dir., Northeast Region, Enf.
   Bur., rel. December 21, 2006) ("Gambler's"); Hightech CB Shop, Forfeiture
   Order, 20 FCC Rcd 12514, 12517 (Enf. Bur. 2005), recon. denied, Memorandum
   Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 19269 (Enf. Bur. 2005), ("Hightech Shop");
   Loves Travel Stops and Country Stores, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd
   10798, 10802 (Regional Dir., South Central Region, Enf. Bur. 2006) ("Loves
   Travel"); Travelcenters of America Troutdale, Oregon,  Forfeiture Order,
   21 FCC Rcd 6978, 6981 (Regional Dir., Western Region, Enf. Bur. 2006)
   ("Travelcenters").

   See Pilot Travel, 19 FCC Rcd at 23116 (noting that OET had determined that
   Galaxy models DX33HML, DX66V and DX99V were capable of being easily
   modified to operate on CB frequencies); Hightech Shop, 20 FCC Rcd at 12516
   (noting that OET had determined that Connex model 3300HP was capable of
   being easily modified to operate on CB frequencies); Travelcenters, 21 FCC
   Rcd at 19271 (noting that OET had determined that Galaxy models DX33HML,
   DX44V, DX66V, DX88HL, and DX99V were capable of being easily modified to
   operate on CB frequencies).

   First Response at 1.

   See Texas Media Group, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 2851,
   2852 (1990), aff'd sub nom. Malkan FM Associates v. FCC, 935 F.2d 1313
   (D.C. Cir. 1991) ("It is the obligation of interested parties to ascertain
   facts from official Commission records and files and not rely on
   statements or informal opinions by the staff."); Hinton Telephone Company,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 11625, 11637
   (1995) ("The Commission has specifically held that parties who rely on
   staff advice or interpretations do so at their own risk.").

   See OGC Letter,  14 FCC Rcd at 7797.

   47 C.F.R. S 0.455(e).

   2001 Citation at 1-2.

   See Hightech Shop, 20 FCC Rcd at 12518.

   See notes 21-22 and accompanying text.

   2001 Citation at 1-2; January 28, 2002 Letter.

   The Bureau has repeatedly rejected this argument in similar cases
   involving the marketing of ARS transmitters that can be easily modified to
   operate on CB frequencies. In each of these cases, the Bureau issued a
   Citation that placed the retailer on clear notice that such marketing
   violates Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules and the
   retailer filed multiple follow-up letters disputing the Citation. The
   Bureau subsequently found that it was unreasonable for the retailer to
   conclude, based on the Bureau's failure to respond to a second or third
   follow-up letter to the Citation, that the Bureau agreed with the
   retailer's position and was withdrawing the Citation. See Gambler's, 21
   FCC Rcd at 14631; Hightech Shop, 20 FCC Rcd at 12516; Loves Travel, 21 FCC
   Rcd at 10801.

   47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(4).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(E). See Amendment of Section 1.80 of the
   Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
   Inflation, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004) (adjusting the maximum statutory
   amounts from $11,000/$87,500 to $11,000/$97,500); see also 47 C.F.R. S
   1.80(c).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(E). See also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(4), Note to
   paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503
   Forfeitures.

   See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
   1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,  Report and
   Order,  12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17112 (1997), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion
   and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (noting that we "retain the discretion to
   issue a higher or lower forfeiture" than the base forfeiture amounts set
   forth in our Rules and our Forfeiture Guidelines).

   See Pilot Travel, 19 FCC Rcd at 23117.

   Id.

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b).

   47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80.

   47 U.S.C. S 504(a).

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.

   Id.

   (...continued from previous page)

                                                              (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-49

                                       10

   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 07-49