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-07-SF-051
Martha S. and Miguel G. Campos ) NAL/Acct. No. 200832980001
San Jose, California ) FRN: 0017083221
)
)
FORFEITURE ORDER
Adopted: May 19, 2008 Released: May 21, 2008
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 eight hundred dollars ($800) to Martha S. and Miguel G.
Campos, owners and operators of a Citizens Band ("CB") radio station
in San Jose, California, for willful violation of Section 301 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("Act"). On October 31, 2007,
the Enforcement Bureau's San Francisco Office issued a Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to
the Campos for operating a modified CB radio station on a frequency
not authorized for CB use. In this Order, we consider the Campos'
arguments that they were not aware of the severity of their
violations, and that they do not have the ability to pay the
forfeiture.
II. BACKGROUND
2. On April 7, 2006, the Enforcement Bureau's San Francisco Office
received a complaint alleging intentional interference to CB radio
communications on 27.055 MHz. The complaints alleged that the source
of the interference was located at the residence of CB radio
operators, Martha and Miguel Campos, in San Jose, California.
3. On August 24, 2006, after subsequent complaints, the San Francisco
Field Office issued a Warning Letter to Miguel G. Campos ("August
Warning Letter"). The Warning Letter informed Mr. Campos that,
pursuant to Section 95.407 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules") (CB
Rule 7), he must operate his CB station only on the 40 channels
allocated to the CB service and he must not modify his CB radio to
operate on any other frequency other than allocated to the service.
The August Warning Letter also warned Mr. Campos that pursuant to
Section 95.409 of the Rules (CB Rule 9), he must not make, or have
made, any internal modification to a FCC certificated CB transmitter.
Further, Mr. Campos was warned that if the transmissions continue, he
would be investigated during ongoing FCC enforcement efforts and if
such an investigation indicates that he had violated the
Communications Act or any FCC Rules, he could be subject to severe
penalties, including, but not limited to, substantial monetary
forfeitures.
4. On August 31, 2006, Mr. Campos replied to the letter acknowledging
that he was a CB operator and detailing the CB equipment that he used.
5. On September 29, 2006, in response to continued complaints, the San
Francisco Office issued a Warning Letter to Martha S. Campos
("September Warning Letter"). The September Warning Letter informed
Mrs. Campos that, pursuant to Section 95.407 of the Rules (CB Rule 7),
she must operate her CB station only on the 40 channels allocated to
the CB service and she must not modify her CB radio to operate on any
other frequency other than allocated to the service. The September
Warning Letter also warned Ms. Campos that pursuant to Section 95.409
of the Rules (CB Rule 9), she must not make, or have made, any
internal modification to a FCC certificated CB transmitter. Further,
Ms. Campos was warned that if the transmissions continue, she would be
investigated during ongoing FCC enforcement efforts and if such an
investigation indicates that he had violated the Communications Act or
any FCC Rules, she could be subject to severe penalties, including,
but not limited to, substantial monetary forfeitures.
6. On October 27, 2006, Martha and Miguel Campos came to the San
Francisco Office to discuss the warning letters they had received. A
San Francisco agent clarified some of the CB Rules to them and again
warned them about the consequences of not following the CB Rules.
7. During the period of November 2, 2006, to February 2, 2007, the San
Francisco Office continued to receive complaints alleging interference
by the Campos.
8. On March 16, 2007, San Francisco agents, using mobile direction
finding techniques, located the source of the alleged interfering
signal on 27.675 MHz to the Campos' residence in San Jose, California.
The San Francisco agents monitored the transmission of one-way
communications on 27.675 MHz. The agents also conducted an inspection
of the Campos' CB station and found two CB transmitters that were set
up and connected to outdoor antennas at Campos's residence. By
conducting on/off tests, the agents confirmed that one of the
transmitters had been modified to operate on frequency 27.675 MHz, a
frequency that is not authorized for use by CB stations. The agents
further determined that the transmitter set up in the Campos'
residence was capable of operating in excess of the four-watt power
limitations.
9. From April 10, 2007, to September 10, 2007, the San Francisco Office
continued to receive complaints alleging interference by the Campos.
10. On October 31, 2007, the San Francisco Office issued a NAL in the
amount of $10,000 to the Campos. In the NAL, the San Francisco Office
found that the Campos apparently willfully violated Section 301 of the
Act, by operating a modified CB radio station on a frequency not
authorized for CB use. Campos filed a response ("Response") to the NAL
on January 16, 2008. In their Response, the Campos argue that they
were not aware of the severity of the violations, and that they do not
have the ability to pay the forfeiture.
III. DISCUSSION
11. 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
the 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.
12. Section 301 of the Act requires that no person shall use or operate
any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or
signals by radio within the United States except under and in
accordance with the Act and with a license. Individual licenses are
not required to operate CB radio stations. Section 95.404 of the Rules
provides a blanket authorization to all CB users, provided that their
stations are operated in accordance with the Rules. Section 95.425(c)
of the Rules states that "you must not operate a CB transmitter which
has been modified by anyone in any way, including modification to
operate on unauthorized frequencies . . . ." Section 95.409(b) of the
Rules states that "[y]ou must not make, or have made, any internal
modification to a certificated CB transmitter. . . . Any internal
modification to a certificated CB transmitter cancels the
certification, and use of such a transmitter voids your authority to
operate the station." Section 95.407(a) of the Rules limits CB
operators to operation on 40 specific channels. Frequency 27.675 MHz
is not listed among those channels.
13. On August 24, 2006, September 29, 2006, and October 10, 2006, the
Campos' were warned by the San Francisco Office that subsequent
violation of the Commission's Rules could result in monetary
forfeitures. On March 16, 2007, an investigation by San Francisco
agents revealed that the Campos had modified their CB transmitter to
operate on 27.675 MHz, a frequency not authorized for CB use, and
observed the Campos operating on 27.675 MHz.
14. In their Response, the Campos do not deny the use of the CB
transmitter as detailed in the NAL. Instead, they argue that did not
comprehend the severity of the situation, because they were not able
to read English, however, Miguel Campos was able to "understand
English in spoken form." We are not persuaded by this argument. After
the Campos received two warning letters from the San Francisco Office
concerning their violations, they came to the San Francisco Office on
October 27, 2006, for an interview, during which a San Francisco agent
went through the violations in spoken English with the Campos. The San
Francisco agent also answered questions from Miguel Campos during that
interview. It was only after that interview, when the Campos continued
to operate their CB transmitter in violation of the Rules, that the
San Francisco Office issued the NAL against the Campos.
15. The Campos also argue that they do not have the ability to pay the
proposed forfeiture amount. To support this claim, the Campos supplied
tax returns for the three years prior to the NAL. In analyzing a
financial hardship claim, the Commission generally has looked to gross
revenues as a reasonable and appropriate yardstick in determining
whether a licensee is able to pay the assessed forfeiture. We have
reviewed the data supplied by the Campos and we conclude that
reduction of the forfeiture from $10,000 to $800 is warranted.
16. 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 the Campos
willfully violated Section 301 of the Act. Considering the entire
record and the factors listed above, we find that reduction of the
proposed forfeiture to $800 is warranted. In light of the repeated
complaints received by the San Francisco Office prior to the NAL, and
the substantial reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on a
demonstrated inability to pay, we caution the Campos that any new
violations would mitigate against forfeiture reduction in the future.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
17. 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, Martha S. and Miguel
G. Campos, ARE LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $800
for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act.
18. 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/Account
Number and FRN Number referenced above. Payment by check or money
order may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box
979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by overnight mail may be
sent to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005
Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire transfer may be
made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account
number 27000001. For payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159
(Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form
159, enter the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other
ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type
code). Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be
sent to: Chief Financial Officer -- Financial Operations, 445 12th
Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C. 20554. Please contact
the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email:
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures.
19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First
Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Martha S.
and Miguel G. Campos, at their address of record.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Rebecca L. Dorch
Regional Director, Western Region
Enforcement Bureau
47 U.S.C. S: 301.
47 C.F.R. S: 95.407.
47 C.F.R. S: 95.409.
47 C.F.R. S: 95.407.
47 C.F.R. S: 95.409.
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200832980001
(Enf. Bur., Western Region, San Francisco Office, released October 31,
2007).
47 U.S.C. S: 301.
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 U.S.C. S: 301.
47 C.F.R. S: 95.404.
47 C.F.R. S: 95.425(c).
47 C.F.R. S: 95.409(b).
47 C.F.R. S: 95.407(a). The authorized frequencies for CB operation range
from 26.965 MHz (CB Channel 1) to 27.405 MHz (CB Channel 40).
San Francisco Office records show that the Campos' son spoke with San
Francisco agents on August 31, 2006, and September 8, 2006, so that he
could translate the violations contained in the August Warning Letter to
Mr. Campos.
See PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 2088 (1992).
See PJB Communications, 7 FCC Rcd at 2089 (forfeiture not deemed excessive
where it represented approximately 2.02 percent of the violator's gross
revenues).
47 U.S.C. S:S: 301, 503(b), 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).
47 U.S.C. S: 504(a).
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1188
1
2
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1188