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


                             )                                
                                 File Number: EB-10-BS-0050   
     In the Matter of        )                                
                                 NAL/Acct. No.:               
     Robert Brown            )   201132260002                 
                                                              
     Boston, Massachusetts   )   FRN: 0020036992              
                                                              
                             )                                


                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted: October 1, 2010 Released: October 1, 2010

   By the District Director, Boston Office, Northeast Region, Enforcement
   Bureau:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       that Robert Brown ("Brown") willfully and repeatedly violated section
       301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), by
       operating an unlicensed transmitter on the frequency 99.7 MHz in the
       Mattapan neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts. Based on our review of
       the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that Brown is
       apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of fifteen thousand
       dollars ($15,000).

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. On October 5, 2009, in response to a complaint from a licensed
       broadcaster, agents from the Enforcement Bureau's Boston Office
       ("Boston Office") monitored 99.7 MHz in Boston, Massachusetts. The
       agents used direction-finding techniques to locate the source of the
       signal on 99.7 MHz to a two-story, multi-family dwelling at 61 Ormond
       Street in the Mattapan neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts. They
       observed an antenna mounted on the roof of the building with a coaxial
       cable leading to a basement window. The agents then took field
       strength measurements and determined that the broadcast signals
       exceeded the limits for operation under Part 15 of the Commission's
       rules ("Rules") and therefore required a license. A review of the
       Commission's records revealed that there was no FCC authorization to
       operate a radio station on 99.7 MHz in the Mattapan neighborhood of
       Boston, Massachusetts.

    3. After taking the field strength measurements, the agents approached
       the building at 61 Ormond Street and were met by one of the residents,
       who led them to the basement. In the basement,
       the agents observed radio station equipment, which included an RF
       amplifier, an FM modulator with a front panel display reading 99.7
       MHz, and a power supply. Before leaving, agents left an on-scene
       Notice of Unlicensed Operation ("NOUO") in the mail slot identified by
       the resident as belonging to the building owner.

    4. Shortly thereafter, the office assistant for the Boston Office
       contacted the agents and explained that a man named Lloyd Morris
       ("Morris") called and asked to meet the agents at 61 Ormond Street.
       The agents returned to 61 Ormond Street and were met by Morris and
       Brown. Both men admitted to being the owners and operators of the
       station. The agents handed Morris a NOUO, which warned that operation
       of the unlicensed radio station on 99.7 MHz violated section 301 of
       the Act. Furthermore, the NOUO outlined the potential penalties for
       such a violation, including seizure of the equipment, fines, and
       imprisonment. The NOUO also directed Morris to terminate operation of
       the unlicensed station immediately. Finally, the agents explained
       verbally both to Morris and Brown the penalties associated with
       continued operation of an unlicensed station. Morris and Brown agreed
       to shut off the transmitter. When the agents left the scene, they
       confirmed that the station was off the air.

    5. On October 15, 2009, the Boston Office issued NOUOs to Morris and
       Brown for unlicensed operation on 99.7 MHz in the Mattapan
       neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts. Each NOUO was sent via
       certified mail and regular mail to the home addresses of Morris and
       Brown as identified by the driver's licenses they provided to the
       agents during the inspection on October 5, 2009. The copy of the NOUO
       sent by certified mail to Morris was returned unclaimed, but the copy
       sent by regular mail was not. A receipt for the NOUO sent via
       certified mail to Brown was received on October 20, 2009. No written
       or verbal response to the NOUO was received from either Morris or
       Brown.

    6. On February 11, 2010, agents observed a signal on 99.7 MHz in Boston,
       Massachusetts following a report from the same complainant that the
       station had resumed operations. The agents used direction-finding
       techniques to locate the source of the signal on 99.7 MHz to the same
       two-story multi-family dwelling at 61 Ormond Street in the Mattapan
       neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts. They observed an antenna
       mounted on the roof of the building with a coaxial cable leading to a
       basement window. Again, the agents took field strength measurements
       and determined that the broadcast signals exceeded the limits for
       operation under Part 15 of the Rules and therefore, the station
       required a license. A review of the Commission's records revealed that
       Brown did not have a license for the operation of a radio station on
       99.7 MHz in the Mattapan neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts. The
       agents attempted to conduct an inspection, but no one answered the
       door.

   III. DISCUSSION

    7. Section 503(b) of the Act provides that any person who willfully or
       repeatedly fails to comply substantially with the terms and conditions
       of any license, or willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any of
       the provisions of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued
       by the Commission thereunder, shall be liable for a forfeiture
       penalty. The term "willful" as used in section 503(b) of the Act has
       been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or omissions are
       committed knowingly. The term "repeated" means the commission or
       omission of such act more than once or for more than one day.

    8. Section 301 of the Act states 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 granted under the provisions of the Act.
       Agents determined that an unlicensed radio station operated on 99.7
       MHz from 61 Ormond Street in the Mattapan neighborhood of Boston,
       Massachusetts, on October 5, 2009 and on February 11, 2010. Morris and
       Brown met with agents at 61 Ormond Street on October 5, 2009, and
       identified themselves as the station's owners and operators.
       Notwithstanding the issuance of an on-scene NOUO and a verbal warning
       at the inspection on October 5, 2009, as well as a written NOUO sent
       by regular and certified mail on October 15, 2009, the station was
       found operating again on February 11, 2010. Brown operated a radio
       station without the requisite Commission authorization. Because Brown
       operated the station knowingly, we find that the violation of section
       301 of the Act was willful. Because the operation took place on more
       than one day, we find that the violation was repeated.

    9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section
       1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an
       instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary
       forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory
       factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include
       the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, 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. We find that an upward adjustment in the forfeiture
       amount is warranted because Brown operated an unlicensed radio station
       with full knowledge that such activity violated the Act and the Rules.
       Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement, section 1.80 of the Rules,
       and the statutory factors to the instant case, we conclude that Brown
       is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of fifteen
       thousand dollars ($15,000).

   IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

   10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311,
       0.314 and 1.80 of the Rules, Robert Brown is hereby NOTIFIED of his
       APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of fifteen thousand
       dollars ($15,000) for violations of section 301 of the Act.

   11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the
       Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
       Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Robert Brown SHALL PAY
       the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written
       statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
       forfeiture.

   12. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by credit card, check or
       similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
       Commission. The payment must include the 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.   If you have questions, please contact the
       Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email:
       ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov. Robert Brown shall also send electronic
       notification to NER-Response@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made.

   13. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the
       proposed forfeiture, if any, must include a detailed factual statement
       supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant to
       sections 1.80(f)(3) and 1.16 of the Rules. The written statement must
       be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau,
       Northeast Region, Boston Office, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169
       and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption. The
       statement shall also be emailed to NER-Response@fcc.gov.

   14. 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 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.

   15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
       for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt
       Requested, and regular mail, to Robert Brown at his address of record.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Dennis Loria

   District Director

   Boston Office

   Northeast Region

   Enforcement Bureau

   47 U.S.C. S: 301.

   Section 15.239 of the Rules provides that non-licensed broadcasting in the
   88-108 MHz band is permitted only if the field strength of the
   transmission does not exceed 250 mV/m at three meters. 47 C.F.R. S:
   15.239. Measurements showed that the field strength of the station's
   signal exceeded the permissible level for a non-licensed Part 15
   transmitter.

   Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1), which applies to
   violations for which forfeitures are assessed under section 503(b) of the
   Act, provides that "[t]he term `willful', when used with reference to the
   commission or omission of any act, means the conscious and deliberate
   commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate
   any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission
   authorized by this Act...." See e.g., Southern California Broadcasting
   Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992).

   Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(2), which also applies
   to violations for which forfeitures are assessed under section 503(b) of
   the Act, provides that "[t]he term `repeated', when used with reference to
   the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of
   such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous,
   for more than one day."

   47 U.S.C. S: 301.

   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 (1997) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), recon. denied, 15
   FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   7 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).

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

   A Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture is also being issued on this
   date to Lloyd Morris. See Lloyd Morris, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, DA 10-1907 (Enforcement Bureau, Boston Office, rel. October 1,
   2010).

   47 U.S.C. S:S: 301, 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 0.314, 1.80.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.

   (...continued from previous page)

                                                              (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1908

                                       2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1908