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 Custom Interface Technologies, A Division of Thornstar
   Corporation Joshua Tree, California ) ) ) ) ) ) File No.: EB-10-LA-0130
   NAL/Acct. No.: 201232900002 FRN: 0019067206




                                FORFEITURE ORDER

   Adopted: November 12, 2013 Released: November 13, 2013

   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 fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) to Custom Interface
       Technologies, a Division of Thornstar Corporation (CIT), in Joshua
       Tree, California, for willfully and repeatedly violating Section
       302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),^ and
       Sections 2.803(a)(1)^ and 74.851(f) ^ ^ of the Commission's rules
       (Rules). The noted violations involved CIT's manufacturing and
       marketing of unauthorized radio frequency devices.

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. On November 17, 2011, the Enforcement Bureau's Los Angeles Office (Los
       Angeles Office) issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
       (NAL)^ ^ for fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) to CIT for
       manufacturing and marketing uncertified video assist transmitters.^ In
       response to the NAL, CIT does not deny the violations, but requests
       cancellation of the forfeiture based on its inability to pay.^

   III. DISCUSSION

    3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance
       with Section 503(b) of the Act,^ Section 1.80 of the Commission's
       rules (Rules),^ and the Forfeiture Policy Statement.^ In examining
       CIT's response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) 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.^

    4. We affirm the NAL's finding that CIT violated Section 302(b) of the
       Act and Sections 2.803(a)(1) and 74.851(f) of the Rules.^  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 Rules, as in effect at the time of the violation,
       provided 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 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.^

   Video assist transmitters are required by Section 74.851(f) of the Rules
   to be approved through the equipment certification procedures described in
   Part 2 of the Rules prior to marketing in the U.S.^

    5. As reflected in the NAL, in May and June 2010, the Los Angeles Office
       investigated allegations that uncertified video assist transmitters
       were being sold and rented by various entities in the Los Angeles area
       and determined that three film and video supply companies^ were
       marketing uncertified video assist transmitters, models Modulus 3000
       and Modulus 5000, which were manufactured by CIT.^ On November 18,
       2010, the Los Angeles Office issued citations to the Companies.^ The
       Companies responded, with each stating that it acquired the
       uncertified Modulus devices from CIT.^ On November 26, 2010, a Los
       Angeles Office agent found that the Modulus 3000 and 5000 video assist
       transmitters were offered for sale on CIT's website.^ On March 2,
       2011, the Los Angeles Office issued a Letter of Inquiry to CIT.^ On
       May 5, 2011, in response to the LOI, CIT stated that it did
       manufacture the Modulus video assist transmitter in two versions, the
       3000 and the 5000, and that it "did not have any certifications or
       authorizations with regard to the Modulus transmitter, as it was
       manufactured for export only."^ Based on the undisputed evidence, we
       conclude that CIT willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of
       the Act and Sections 2.803(a)(1) and 74.851(f) of the Rules by
       manufacturing and marketing unauthorized radio frequency devices.

    6. In response to the NAL, CIT nonetheless requests cancellation of the
       $14,000 forfeiture, asserting that that it is unable to pay the
       proposed forfeiture amount given its financial circumstances.^ With
       regard to an individual's or entity's inability to pay a claim, the
       Commission has determined that gross income or revenues are generally
       the best indicator of an ability to pay a forfeiture.^ CIT has
       produced three years of tax returns and a bank statement to support
       its claim of an inability to pay. Based on our review of the financial
       documents provided by CIT, we decline to reduce the forfeiture based
       on inability to pay grounds.^ Therefore, after consideration of the
       entire record and the factors listed above, we find that a forfeiture
       in the amount of $14,000 is warranted.

   IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

    7. 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, Custom
       Interface Technologies, a Division of Thornstar Corporation, IS LIABLE
       FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars
       ($14,000) for violations of Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections
       2.803(a)(1) and 74.851(f) of the Rules.^

    8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
       Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days after the
       release date of this Forfeiture Order.^  If the forfeiture is not paid
       within the period specified, the case may be referred to the U.S.
       Department of Justice for enforcement of the forfeiture pursuant to
       Section 504(a) of the Act.^  Custom Interface Technologies, a Division
       of Thornstar Corporation,  shall send electronic notification of
       payment to WR-Response@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made.
       The payment must be made by check or similar instrument, wire
       transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account Number and
       FRN referenced above. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed
       FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.^ When completing
       the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call
       sign/other ID) and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A
       (payment type code).  Below are additional instructions you should
       follow based on the form of payment you select:

     * Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of
       the Federal Communications Commission.  Such payments (along with the
       completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications
       Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent
       via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088,
       SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.

     * Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004,
       receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001.  To complete
       the wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds,
       a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on
       the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.

     * Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit
       card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159
       to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then
       be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
       Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank -
       Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
       Louis, MO 63101.

   8. Any request for full payment over time under an installment plan should
   be sent to:  Chief Financial Officer--Financial Operations, Federal
   Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington,
   D.C.  20554.^  If you have questions regarding payment procedures, please
   contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201,
   or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.

   9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by both
   First Class and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Custom
   Interface Technologies, a Division of Thornstar Corporation, at P.O. Box
   1364, Joshua Tree, CA 92252.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Rebecca L. Dorch

   Regional Director, Western Region

   Enforcement Bureau

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1) (2011). We note that Section 2.803 of the Rules
   was amended effective May 29, 2013. See Promoting Expanded Opportunities
   For Radio Experimentation and Market Trials Under Part 5 of the
   Commission's Rules and Streamlining Other Related Rules,  Report and
   Order, 28 FCC Rcd 758 (2013). The relevant language for this proceeding,
   which was previously found in Section 2.803(a)(1), is now found in Section
   2.803(b)(1): "General rule. No person may market a radio frequency device
   unless: (1) For devices subject to authorization under certification, the
   device has been authorized in accordance with the rules in subpart J of
   this chapter and is properly identified and labeled as required by S 2.925
   and other relevant sections in this chapter . . . ." 47 C.F.R. S
   2.803(b)(1) (2013).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 74.851(f).

   ^ Custom Interface Technologies, A Division of Thornstar Corporation,
   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 16000 (Enf. Bur.
   2011) (NAL). A comprehensive recitation of the facts and history of this
   case can be found in the NAL and is incorporated herein by reference.

   ^ Id. Video assist transmitters are authorized under Part 74, Subpart H of
   the Rules for use by television and motion picture producers, transmitting
   on VHF and UHF television channels on a non-interference basis. 47 C.F.R S
   74.870. This type of device is used as an aide in composing camera shots
   on motion picture and television sets. 47 C.F.R S 74.801. All such
   transmitters marketed for use in this service are required to be
   certificated pursuant to Part 2 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R S 74.851(f).

   ^ See Letter from Philip Spinelli, Custom Interface Technologies, to Los
   Angeles Office, Western Region, Enforcement Bureau (Dec. 13, 2011) (on
   file in EB-10-LA-0130) (NAL Response).

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

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.80.

   ^ 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).

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(E).

   ^ See NAL supra note 4.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1) (2011).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 74.851(f).

   ^ The three companies were South Bay Film and Video Services, Abel Cine
   Tech, and Wolf Seeberg Video (Companies). NAL, 26 FCC Rcd at 16000, para.
   2 n. 4.

   ^ Id. at 16000, para. 2.

   ^ See South Bay Film and Video Services, Citation, 25 FCC Rcd 15989 (Enf.
   Bur. 2010); Abel Cine Tech, Citation, 25 FCC Rcd 15985 (Enf Bur. 2010);
   Wolf Seeberg Video, Citation, 25 FCC Rcd 15981 (Enf. Bur. 2010).

   ^ See Letter from Jonathan L. Kramer, Attorney for South Bay Film and
   Video Services, to Nader Haghighat, District Director, Los Angeles Office,
   Western Region, Enforcement Bureau (Dec. 8, 2010) (on file in
   EB-10-LA-0130); Letter from Peter Abel, Chief Executive Officer, Abel Cine
   Tech, to Nader Haghighat, District Director, Los Angeles Office, Western
   Region, Enforcement Bureau (Dec. 6, 2010) (on file in EB-10-LA-0130);
   Letter from Jonathan L. Kramer, Attorney for Wolf Seeberg Video, to Nader
   Haghighat, District Director, Los Angeles Office, Western Region,
   Enforcement Bureau (Dec. 15, 2010) (on file in EB-10-LA-0130).

   ^ The website contained advertising, sales, and contact information as
   well as dealer contacts. See NAL, 26 FCC Rcd 16001, para. 2 n.8.

   ^ See  Letter of Inquiry from Nader Haghighat, District Director, Los
   Angeles Office, Western Region, Enforcement Bureau, to Custom Interface
   Technologies (Mar. 2, 2011) (on file in EB-10-LA-0130) (LOI).

   ^ See  Letter from Philip Spinelli, Custom Interface Technologies, to
   Nader Haghighat, District Director, Los Angeles Office, Western Region,
   Enforcement Bureau at 1 (May 5, 2011) (on file in EB-10-LA-0130). CIT
   acknowledged that it received notice from the Commission in 1996
   concerning its marketing of the Modulus 2000 video assist transmitter and
   the requirement that such transmitters be certified prior to being
   marketed in the United States. Id. at 1, Attachment 2. CIT further stated
   that it discontinued manufacture of the Modulus models in 2010 and that it
   currently has no inventory of the transmitters. Id. at 2.

   ^ See NAL Response supra note 6.

   ^ See PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order,
   7 FCC Rcd 2088 (1992) (forfeiture not deemed excessive where it
   represented approximately 2.02 percent of the violator's gross revenues);
   Hoosier Broadcasting Corp.,  Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 8640
   (2000) (forfeiture not deemed excessive where it represented approximately
   7.6 percent of the violator's gross revenues); Local Long Distance, Inc.,
   Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 24385 (2000) (forfeiture not deemed
   excessive where it represented approximately 7.9 percent of the violator's
   gross revenues).

   ^ The $14,000 forfeiture falls within the percentage range that the
   Commission has previously found acceptable. See supra note 25.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. SS 302a(b), 503(b); 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314,
   1.80(f)(4), 2.803(a)(1), 74.851(f) (2011).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.80.

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

   ^ An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be
   obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.

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

   Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2153

   2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2153