******************************************************** 
                      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.

*****************************************************************



Federal Communications Commission DA 12-340
 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Michael W. Perry
Cross City, FL
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No.:  EB-11-TP-0016                                                                                                
NAL/Acct. No.:  201232700003
FRN:  0021257456
FORFEITURE ORDER
Adopted:  March 6, 2012 Released:  March 6, 2012
By the Regional Director, South Central Region, Enforcement Bureau:
I.  INTRODUCTION
1. In this Forfeiture Order (Order), we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four 
hundred fifty dollars ($450) to Michael W. Perry for willful violation of Section 301 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),1 and Sections 95.409 and 95.411 of the Commission’s 
rules (Rules).2 The noted violations involved Mr. Perry’s operation of a radio transmitter without the 
requisite Commission authorization and his failure to operate a Citizens Band (CB) station in conformity 
with the Rules.  The monetary forfeiture imposed reflects consideration of Mr. Perry’s inability to pay 
claim.       
II.  BACKGROUND
2. On November 1, 2011, the Enforcement Bureau’s Tampa Office (Tampa Office) issued a 
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (NAL) 3 to Mr. Perry for operation of a radio 
transmitter without the requisite authorization.  As discussed in detail in the NAL, agents from the Tampa 
Office determined that Mr. Perry operated a non-certified CB transmitter and two linear amplifiers on CB 
channel 28 (on frequency 27.2850 MHz) on March 31, 2011.4  In view of the record evidence, the NAL 
proposed a $10,000 forfeiture against Mr. Perry for violation of Section 301 of the Act and Sections 
95.409 and 95.411 of the Rules.5 Mr. Perry submitted a response to the NAL, denying that he operated the 
non-certified CB transmitter and amplifiers, and requesting cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture 
based on his inability to pay.6  
  
1 47 U.S.C. § 301.  
2 47 C.F.R. §§ 95.409, 95.411.
3 Michael W. Perry, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 15440 (Enf. Bur., Tampa 
Office 2011) (NAL).
4 See id. A comprehensive recitation of the facts and history of this case can be found in the NAL and is incorporated 
herein by reference.  
5 See id. at 15442, para. 6.  
6 Letter from Michael W. Perry to Federal Communications Commission (received by the Tampa Office Dec. 2, 
2011) (on file in EB-11-TP-0016) (NAL Response).  
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-340
2
III. DISCUSSION
3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 
503(b) of the Act,7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and the Forfeiture Policy Statement.9 In examining Mr. 
Perry’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  
As discussed below, after full consideration of Mr. Perry’s response in light of these statutory factors, we 
affirm our findings in the NAL that Mr. Perry violated Section 301 of the Act and Sections 95.409 and 
95.411 of the Rules, but reduce the $10,000 forfeiture proposed to $450 based solely on his documented 
inability to pay.
4. First, we find that Mr. Perry violated Section 95.409 of the CB Rules.  Specifically, 
Section 95.409(a) states that CB operators must use FCC certificated CB transmitters at their CB stations 
and that the use of a transmitter that is not FCC certificated voids the authority to operate the station.11 As 
set forth in the NAL, agents from the Tampa Office determined, using direction-finding techniques, that Mr. 
Perry’s residence was the source of signals on CB channel 28 on March 31, 2011.12 The agents inspected 
Mr. Perry’s CB station, which consisted of a non-certificated CB transmitter and three linear amplifiers.  
The agents observed that the transmitter and two of the linear amplifiers were not connected to each other, 
but were warm to the touch, indicating that they had been recently operated.  During the inspection, Mr. 
Perry admitted that he operated this CB station that evening.  In his NAL Response, however, Mr. Perry 
disputes some of our factual findings, asserting that the non-certificated CB transmitter and linear amplifiers 
were warm to the touch during the inspection, not because he was operating it, but because he “turn[ed] it on 
to dry because it is stored in an addition that has no heat, air or insulation.”13 In addition, Mr. Perry asserts 
he had the equipment because he was studying for his amateur radio license and that “[a]t no time did I tell 
the inspectors that I operated that equipment.”14  
5. Even if we accept as true (which we do not) that Mr. Perry never admitted to the agents that 
he operated the unauthorized equipment, it remains undisputed that transmissions on CB channel 28 
emanated from Mr. Perry’s residence on March 31, 2011, and that he was not using an FCC certificated CB 
transmitter, as Section 95.409 requires.  When the agents requested to inspect the CB station in the 
residence, Mr. Perry first took them to a CB station in his kitchen.  This station consisted of a certificated 
CB transmitter and a linear amplifier, both of which were cold to the touch and neither of which was 
connected to each other or an external antenna.  The agents also attempted to connect the microphone, 
which Mr. Perry stated was used at his station, but found that the four-pin connector did not fit into the six-
pin microphone receptacle in the transmitter.  The agents reiterated their request to inspect his CB station, 
and Mr. Perry took them to the non-certificated CB transmitter and three linear amplifiers.  The non-
certificated CB transmitter was connected to an external antenna, but was not connected to the three linear 
amplifiers next to it.  Although Mr. Perry now denies operating this equipment and claims the equipment 
was only turned on to dry, we find his assertions implausible.  Because the non-certificated CB transmitter 
was the only CB transmitter in Mr. Perry’s residence which was connected to an external antenna and was 
  
7 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
8 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
9 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), recons. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) 
(Forfeiture Policy Statement).  
10 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
11 47 C.F.R. § 95.409(a).
12 See NAL, 26 FCC Rcd at 15440, para. 2. 
13 NAL Response at 1.
14 Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-340
3
warm to the touch, and because a CB transmitter was operated from Mr. Perry’s residence, we conclude that 
Mr. Perry operated the non-certificated CB transmitter on March 31, 2011, in violation of Section 95.409.       
6. Second, we also find that Mr. Perry violated Section 95.411 of the CB Rules.  
Specifically, Section 95.411(a) of the Rules states that CB operators may not attach external radio 
frequency (RF) power amplifiers (sometimes called “linears” or “linear amplifiers”) to certificated CB 
transmitters in any way.15 Further, Section 95.411(b) of the Rules states that there are no exceptions to 
this rule and that use of a power amplifier voids the authority to operate the station.16 Although Mr. Perry 
now denies operating the two warm amplifiers located next to the non-certificated CB transmitter, there is 
no escaping the fact that Mr. Perry nonetheless was in possession, in his home, of the two amplifiers 
which, under the Commission’s rules, is presumed to be use of unauthorized equipment when combined 
with other evidence of operation, as we have here.  As Section 95.411(c) states:  the “FCC will presume 
you have used a linear or other external RF power amplifier if – (1) It is in your possession or on your 
premises; and (2) There is other evidence that you have operated your CB station with more power than 
allowed by CB Rule 10, § 95.410.”17 Because two warm-to-the-touch linear amplifiers were located in 
Mr. Perry’s residence next to a non-certificated CB transmitter that had been operated that evening, we 
presume he used the two amplifiers at his CB station on March 31, 2011, and, therefore, was in violation 
of Section 95.411.    
7. Furthermore, because Mr. Perry was operating his CB station in a manner inconsistent 
with the CB Rules, as discussed above, he was required to have Commission authorization to continue 
operating.  Mr. Perry, however, did not have a Commission license.  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.18 Section 
95.404 of the Rules states that CB operators are not required to have individual licenses because they are 
authorized by this rule to operate a CB station, provided, however, that they operate the station in 
accordance with Subpart D of Part 95 of the Rules (i.e., the CB Rules).19 As such, operation of CB 
stations in a manner that is inconsistent with the CB Rules requires a license pursuant to Section 301 of 
the Act.20 Because Mr. Perry was operating his CB station in a manner inconsistent with the CB Rules 
and did not otherwise possess a Commission license (a fact that he does not dispute), we find that Mr. 
Perry also willfully violated Section 301 of the Act.  
8. With regard to an individual or entity’s inability to pay claim, the Commission has 
determined that, in general, gross revenues are the best indicator of an ability to pay a forfeiture.21 Based 
on the financial documents provided by Mr. Perry, we find sufficient basis to reduce the forfeiture to 
$450.22 However, we caution Mr. Perry that a party’s inability to pay is only one factor in our forfeiture 
  
15 47 C.F.R. § 95.411(a).
16 47 C.F.R. § 95.411(b).  
17 47 C.F.R. § 95.411(c).
18 47 U.S.C. § 301.
19 47 C.F.R. § 95.404 (emphasis added).  
20 47 U.S.C. § 301.
21 See PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 7 FCC Rcd 2088, 2089 (1992) (forfeiture not 
deemed excessive where it represented approximately 2.02 percent of the violator’s gross revenues); Local Long 
Distance, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 16 FCC Rcd 24385 (2000) (forfeiture not deemed excessive where it represented 
approximately 7.9 percent of the violator’s gross revenues); Hoosier Broadcasting Corporation, Forfeiture Order, 
15 FCC Rcd 8640 (2002) (forfeiture not deemed excessive where it represented approximately 7.6 percent of the 
violator’s gross revenues).  
22 This forfeiture amount falls within the percentage range that the Commission has previously found acceptable.  
See supra note 21.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-340
4
calculation analysis, and not dispositive.23 We have previously rejected inability to pay claims in cases of 
repeated or otherwise egregious violations.24 Therefore, future violations of this kind may result in 
significantly higher forfeitures that may not be reduced due to Mr. Perry’s financial circumstances.  
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission’s 
rules, Michael W. Perry IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four 
hundred fifty dollars ($450) for violations of Section 301 of the Act and Sections 95.409 and 95.411 of 
the Commission’s rules.25
10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the 
Rules within thirty (30) calendar 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 enforcement pursuant to 
Section 504(a) of the Act.26 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 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.  Mr. Perry shall 
also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov.
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by both First Class 
and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Michael W. Perry at his address of record.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Dennis P. Carlton
Regional Director, South Central Region
Enforcement Bureau
  
23 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E) (requiring Commission to 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 such other matters as justice may require).
24 Kevin W. Bondy, Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd 7840 (Enf. Bur., Western Region 2011) (holding that violator’s 
repeated acts of malicious and intentional interference outweigh evidence concerning his ability to pay); Hodson 
Broadcasting Corp., Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 13699 (Enf. Bur. 2009) (holding that permittee's continued 
operation at variance with its construction permit constituted an intentional and continuous violation, which 
outweighed permittee's evidence concerning its ability to pay the proposed forfeitures).
25 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 503(b); 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, 1.80(f)(4), 95.409, 95.411.
26 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).