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