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 Jose Torres Licensee of Station N3TX Philadelphia,
   Pennsylvania ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No.: EB-08-PA-0180 NAL/Acct. No.:
   200932400002 FRN: 0001831825




                          Memorandum opinion and order

   Adopted: March 19, 2013 Released: March 19, 2013

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. Introduction

    1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O), we grant in part and deny
       in part the Petition for Reconsideration (Petition)  filed by Jose
       Torres, licensee of amateur radio station N3TX in Philadelphia,
       Pennsylvania.^ Mr. Torres seeks reconsideration of the Forfeiture
       Order issued by the Enforcement Bureau's Northeast Region (Northeast
       Region) on May 16, 2011.^ The Forfeiture Order imposed a monetary
       forfeiture against Mr. Torres in the amount of $4,000 for willful and
       repeated operation of his amateur radio station on an unauthorized
       frequency in violation of Section 1.903(a)  of the Commission's rules
       (Rules).^ For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is granted in
       part and denied in part and the forfeiture amount is reduced to three
       thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500).

   II. Background

    2. On January 6, 2009, the Enforcement Bureau's Philadelphia Office
       (Philadelphia Office) issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for
       Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $4,000 to Mr. Torres for apparently
       willfully and repeatedly operating his amateur radio station on the
       unauthorized frequency 26.71 MHz at his residence in violation of
       Section 1.903(a)  of the Rules.^ On February 17, 2009, Mr. Torres met
       with agents in the Philadelphia Office to respond to the apparent
       findings in the NAL.^ During the meeting, Mr. Torres claimed that he
       was not at home during the alleged unauthorized operations on April
       17, 2008, and June 2, 2008. In the Forfeiture Order, the Northeast
       Region considered and found no merit in this argument, affirmed the
       findings in the NAL,  and assessed a $4,000 forfeiture.^

    3. In the Petition, Mr. Torres claims that the forfeiture should be
       cancelled or reduced because he did not admit to operating his amateur
       radio station on 26.71 MHz and the Northeast Region erred in
       concluding that he did.^ In addition, Mr. Torres reiterates his claims
       made in his response to the NAL  that he was not at home on April 17,
       2008, and June 2, 2008, when the alleged unauthorized transmissions on
       26.71 MHz occurred.^ Finally, Mr. Torres submits new financial
       information in support of his request for cancellation or reduction
       based on his inability to pay the forfeiture amount.^

   III. Discussion

    4. Reconsideration is appropriate only where the petitioner either
       demonstrates a material error or omission in the underlying order or
       raises additional facts not known or not existing until after the
       petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters.^ A petition for
       reconsideration that reiterates arguments that were previously
       considered and rejected will be denied.^ As discussed below, we find
       that Mr. Torres's Petition fails to demonstrate a material error in
       the Forfeiture Order and reiterates arguments previously presented to
       and rejected by the Northeast Region. We therefore deny
       reconsideration of the Petition on this basis. We do, however, find
       that reconsideration of Mr. Torres's ability to pay the forfeiture
       amount is warranted based on newly submitted financial documentation.
       We therefore affirm the Northeast Region's finding that Mr. Torres
       willfully and repeatedly operated on an unauthorized frequency in
       violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules, but reduce the forfeiture
       amount to $3,500.

    5. First, we reject Mr. Torres's claim that we committed a material error
       because we incorrectly concluded "for the first time" in the
       Forfeiture Order that he admitted to operating his amateur station on
       26.71 MHz without authorization. In the Forfeiture Order, the
       Northeast Region did not state that Mr. Torres admitted to the
       unauthorized operations on April 17, 2008, and June 2, 2008, at issue
       in the current proceeding. Rather, the Northeast Region noted that Mr.
       Torres  admitted to operating on 26.71 MHz without authorization in
       response to a Notice of Violation issued by the Philadelphia Office in
       2007.^ In the Forfeiture Order, the Northeast Region concluded that
       Mr. Torres operated on an unauthorized frequency based on evidence
       obtained by agents from the Philadelphia Office. Specifically, the
       agents determined that unauthorized transmissions on 26.71 MHz were
       emanating from Mr. Torres's residence on April 17, 2008, and June 2,
       2008.^ Second, to the extent Mr. Torres claims in his Petition that he
       was not at home on those days, the Northeast Region previously
       considered and rejected that claim and reconsideration therefore is
       not warranted on this basis. We therefore decline to cancel or reduce
       the forfeiture on these grounds and affirm the Northeast Region's
       finding that Mr. Torres willfully and repeatedly violated Section
       1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on an unauthorized frequency.

    6. Mr. Torres reasserts his claim that the forfeiture would pose a
       financial hardship and submits updated financial information. Having
       reviewed Mr. Torres's newly submitted documentation, we find
       sufficient basis to reduce the forfeiture to $3,500, an amount within
       the range determined by the Bureau to not be excessive.^  However, we
       caution Mr. Torres that a party's inability to pay is only one factor
       in our forfeiture calculation analysis, and is not dispositive.^ We
       have previously rejected inability to pay claims in cases of repeated
       or otherwise egregious violations.^ Therefore, future violations of
       this kind may result in significantly higher forfeitures that may not
       be reduced due to Mr. Torres's financial circumstances.

   IV. ordering clauses

    7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended,^ and Section 1.106 of the
       Commission's rules,^ that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by
       Jose Torres  IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

    8. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and
       Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules,^ Jose
       Torres IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of three
       thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500) for violations of Section
       1.903(a) of the Commission's rules.

    9. 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 Memorandum Opinion and 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.^ Jose Torres shall send
       electronic notification of payment to [1]NER-Response@fcc.gov on the
       date said payment is made.

   10. 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.

   Any request for full payment 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, [2]ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.

   11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be
       sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested,
       to Jose Torres at his address of record.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   P. Michele Ellison

   Chief, Enforcement Bureau

   ^ See Jose Torres, Petition for Reconsideration (June 15, 2011) (on file
   in EB-08-PA-0180) (Petition).

   ^ Jose Torres, Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd 6813 (Enf. Bur., Northeast
   Region 2011) (Forfeiture Order), aff'g, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200932400002 (Enf. Bur., Philadelphia Office,
   rel. Jan. 6, 2009) (NAL). A comprehensive recitation of the facts and
   history of this case can be found in the NAL and Forfeiture Order and is
   incorporated herein by reference.

   ^  47 C.F.R. S 1.903(a).

   ^ NAL, supra note 2. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.903(a).

   ^ Mr. Torres requested the meeting based on an alleged language barrier
   and his inability to properly refute in writing the findings in the NAL.
   Two FCC agents and the Philadelphia Office's Spanish-speaking Office
   Assistant were present during the meeting. Mr. Torres's statements were
   recorded with his consent. See Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 6814, n.7.

   ^ Forfeiture Order, supra note 2.

   ^ Petition at 2.

   ^ Id. at 4-6.

   ^ Id. at 6.

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 1.106(c); EZ Sacramento, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
   Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18257, (Enf. Bur. 2000), citing WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC 685,
   686 (1964), aff'd sub. nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C.
   Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 967 (1966).

   ^ EZ Sacramento, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd at 18257.

   ^ We reached this conclusion based on Mr. Torres's statement in his NOV
   Response that "[w]ith this writing respond I agree to the Notice listed
   above. I fully understand the violation. According to my license N3TX I
   will transmit where I'm authorized, at the Extra Class portion only." See
   Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 6813, para. 2. See also Jose Torres,
   Notice of Violation, NOV No. V20083240007 (Enf. Bur., Philadelphia Office,
   rel. Jan. 3, 2008) (NOV); Jose Torres, Response to NOV (on file in
   EB-08-PA-0180) (NOV Response).

   ^ In addition, during the 2008 investigation, agents recognized Mr.
   Torres's voice from the 2007 investigation. In his Petition, Mr. Torres
   mistakenly believes that the Northeast Region stated in the Forfeiture
   Order that it confirmed by listening to audio recordings that it was his
   voice on recordings taken during the 2008 investigation. See Petition at
   3. The Forfeiture Order states "[t]he voice that the agents heard during
   the transmissions on April 17, 2008, and June 2, 2008, is the same voice
   that agents heard, and that Torres conceded was his, on December 11,
   2007."  Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 6814, para. 5. The reference to
   Mr. Torres conceding the voice was his relates to his admission in
   response to the 2007 NOV. That is, during the 2007 investigation, agents
   inspected Torres's station and obtained audio recordings of the
   unauthorized transmissions. See Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 6813, n.4.
   Based on the recordings from 2007, and Mr. Torres's admission to the 2007
   NOV, agents concluded that by admitting to the operation on 26.71 MHz on
   December 11, 2007, he was therefore admitting that it was his voice that
   agents heard on December 11, 2007. Accordingly, agents concluded that the
   voice they heard in 2008 was the same voice they heard "and that Mr.
   Torres conceded was his" in 2007.

   ^ 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).

   ^ See 47 U.S.C. S 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).

   ^ Dexter Blake, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 15087 (Enf. Bur.
   2012), aff'd in part, [3]Forfeiture Order, 25 FCC Rcd 10038 (Enf. Bur.,
   Northeast Region 2010) (reducing forfeiture based on inability to pay, but
   warning that future violations of the same kind may not be reduced due to
   financial circumstances); 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) (petition for reconsideration pending);
   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). See Michael W. Perry, Forfeiture Order, 27 FCC Rcd
   2281, 2284, para. 8 (2012) (reducing forfeiture based on inability to pay,
   but warning that future violations of the same kind may not be reduced due
   to financial circumstances).

   ^47 U.S.C. S 405.

   ^47 C.F.R. S 1.106.

   ^47 U.S.C. S 503(b); 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

   ^ 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.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 13-500

   5

   Federal Communications Commission DA 13-500

References

   Visible links
   1. mailto:NER-Response@fcc.gov
   2. mailto:ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov
   3. https://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=Westlaw&db=0004493&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2029442470&serialnum=2022592807&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&pbc=419A2F2F&rs=WLW13.01