Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version


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 Tommie Salter Jacksonville, Florida ) ) ) ) ) File
   Number: EB-FIELDSCR-14-00014625 NAL/Acct. No.: 201432700005 FRN:


   Adopted: February 5, 2015 Released: February 5, 2015

   By the Regional Director, South Central Region, Enforcement Bureau:


    1. We impose a penalty of $3,000 against Tommie Salter for refusing to
       allow an inspection of his Citizen Band (CB) radio station by
       Commission agents. The Commission's ability to conduct unannounced
       inspections to assess compliance with its rules is essential to our
       responsibility to promote safety of life and property through the use
       of wire and radio communication. Mr. Salter does not explicitly deny
       that he refused to allow agents to inspect his CB station, and, for
       the reasons stated below, we find that the violation was willful.
       However, we reduce the forfeiture based on Mr. Salter's demonstrated
       inability to pay.

    2. Specifically, we issue a monetary forfeiture to Mr. Salter for willful
       violation of Section 303(n) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
       amended (Act),^ and Section 95.426(a) of the Commission's rules


    3. On August 22, 2014, the Enforcement Bureau's Tampa Office (Tampa
       Office) issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) ^
       to Mr. Salter proposing a $14,000 forfeiture against him for failure
       to allow an agent inspection of his CB station.^ As detailed in the
       NAL, Mr. Salter refused to allow agents from the Tampa Office to
       inspect his CB station after he was warned that refusing to allow such
       an inspection constituted a violation of the Rules.^ In his NAL
       Response, Mr. Salter does not deny refusing to allow the agents to
       inspect his CB station, but, as a mitigating factor, alleges he told
       the agents at approximately 1:10 P.M. that he had to leave for a
       doctor's appointment at 2 P.M.^ In addition, he submitted his federal
       tax returns for the previous 3 years.^


    4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance
       with Section 503(b) of the Act,^ Section 1.80 of the Rules,^ and the
       Forfeiture Policy Statement.^ In examining Mr. Salter's NAL 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.^ As discussed below, we have
       considered Mr. Salter's NAL Response in light of these statutory
       factors and find that the violations were willful, but that a
       forfeiture reduction is justified based on Mr. Salter's documented
       inability to pay the forfeiture.

    5. Mr. Salter does not deny that he refused to allow the agents to
       inspect his CB station but alleges he could not stay for the
       inspection, because he had a doctor's appointment. Neither of the two
       agents present during the attempted inspection recall Mr. Salter
       mentioning the doctor's appointment or documented the alleged
       appointment in their notes, and Mr. Salter provided no third party
       evidence of the alleged appointment. However, even if he had such an
       appointment, Mr. Salter refused to allow an inspection at the time of
       request and did not ask the agents to reschedule the inspection, so we
       find no reason to reduce the forfeiture based on his alleged
       appointment. We therefore find that Mr. Salter willfully refused to
       allow an inspection of his CB station.

    6. Mr. Salter requests cancellation or reduction of the proposed
       forfeiture based on his inability to pay. With regard to an
       individual's or entity's inability to pay claim, the Commission has
       determined that, in general, gross income or revenues are the best
       indicator of an ability to pay a forfeiture.^ Based on the financial
       documents provided by Mr. Salter, we find sufficient basis to reduce
       the forfeiture to $3,000.^ However, we caution Mr. Salter 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. Salter's financial circumstances. Accordingly, after
       consideration of the entire record, including Mr. Salter's NAL
       Response, the Forfeiture Policy Statement, and the factors set forth
       in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,^ we find that, although
       cancellation of the monetary forfeiture is not warranted, a reduction
       of the forfeiture amount from $14,000 to $3,000 is appropriate in this


    7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act
       and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,
       Tommie Salter IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of
       three thousand dollars ($3,000) for violations of Section 303(n) of
       the Act and Section 95.426(a) 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.^  Mr. Salter shall send electronic
       notification of payment to 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

     * 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.

   9. Any request for making 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,

   10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be
       sent by both First Class and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested,
       to Tommie Salter at his address of record.


   Dennis P. Carlton

   Regional Director, South Central Region

   Enforcement Bureau

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 303(n).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 95.426(a).

   ^ Tommie Salter., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd
   10065 (Enf. Bur. 2014) (NAL)

   ^ Id. at 10066, para. 4.

   ^ Letter from Tommie Salter, to Tampa Office, South Central Region,
   Enforcement Bureau at 1(received Sept. 22, 2014) (on file in
   EB-FIELDSCR-14-00014625) (NAL Response). Moreover, Mr. Salter states that
   local police instructed the community not to let officers into their homes
   without seeing identification. At that same time, however, he admits that
   the agents from the Tampa Office identified themselves as agents and
   showed him their identification. Id. Accordingly, we find this information
   provides no grounds upon which to reduce the forfeiture.

   ^ Id. at 2.

   ^ 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 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).

   ^ This forfeiture amount falls within the percentage range that the
   Commission has previously found acceptable. See supra note 11. If Mr.
   Salter finds it financially infeasible to make full payment of this amount
   within 30 days, he can request an installment plan, as described in infra
   paragraph 10 of this Order.

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

   ^ Kevin W. Bondy, Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd 7840 (Enf. Bur. 2011)
   (holding that violator's repeated acts of malicious and intentional
   interference outweigh evidence concerning his ability to pay), aff'd,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 1170 (Enf. Bur. 2013), aff'd,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 16815 (Enf. Bur. 2013); Hodson
   Broad., 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

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(E). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(8).

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b); 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, 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

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

   (Continued from previous page)


   Federal Communications Commission DA 15-156


   Federal Communications Commission DA 15-156