******************************************************** 
                      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 16-910
1
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554 
In the Matter of
Kedner Maxime
Oakland Park, FL
  )
  )
  )
  )
  )
                
  File No.:  EB-FIELDSCR-15-00020432
  NAL/Acct. No.:  201632600002
  FRN:  0025807728
             
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  August 12, 2016 Released:  August 12. 2016
By the Regional Director, Region Two, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. We propose a penalty of $15,000 against Kedner Maxime for operating an unlicensed radio 
station on the frequencies 89.1 and 102.1 MHz from two locations in Broward County, Florida.  The 
Commission previously warned Mr. Maxime that operation of this unlicensed station was illegal and that 
continued operation could result in further enforcement action.  Mr. Maxime’s deliberate disregard of the 
Commission’s warnings warrants a significant penalty.  Commission action in this area is essential because 
unlicensed radio stations create a danger of interference to licensed communications and undermine the 
Commission’s authority over FM broadcast radio operations.  
II. BACKGROUND
2. On July 14, 2015, the Enforcement Bureau’s Miami Office (Miami Office) received a 
complaint from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that an unidentified FM broadcast station in 
the Broward County, Florida area was operating on 102.1 MHz and also was transmitting a spurious 
signal on a frequency assigned to U.S. military aeronautical operations.
3. On July 15, 2015, agents from the Miami Office used mobile direction-finding techniques 
to locate the source of radio frequency transmissions on the frequency 102.1 MHz to an FM transmitting 
antenna at a church building in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.  The agents also observed a spurious signal on the 
U.S. military aeronautical frequency originating from the same antenna. The agents took field strength 
measurements of the station’s signal and determined that the transmissions on 102.1 MHz exceeded the 
limits for operation under Part 15 of the Commission’s rules (Rules),
1
and therefore required a license.  
The agents consulted the Commission’s records and confirmed that no authorization had been issued for 
the operation of an FM broadcast station at or near Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. No one was present at the 
church at the time the agents located the station and made field strength measurements. The agents 
observed a sign at the church indicating “Kedner Maxime” as the church pastor. Public records showed 
that Mr. Maxime was a registered agent and president of “N.E.W. Community Development Center, 
Inc.”,
2
a Florida corporation that owns the church.
3
  Agents went to the address listed for the corporation
                                                     
1
Part 15 of the Rules sets out the conditions and technical requirements under which certain radio transmission 
devices may be used without a license.  In relevant part, Section 15.239 of the Rules provides that non-licensed 
broadcasting in the 88-108 MHz band is permitted only if the field strength of the transmission does not exceed 250 
?V/m at three meters.  47 C.F.R. § 15.239.
2
Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations Homepage, www.sunbiz.org (last visited January 19, 2016).
3
Broward County, FL Property Appraiser Homepage, http://www.bcpa.net (last visited January 19, 2016).
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-910
2
and observed a sign on the door that read “Dr. Kedner Maxime.”
4. On three other occasions, July 20, July 23, and July 29, 2015, agents from the Miami Office 
used mobile direction-finding techniques to locate the source of radio frequency transmissions on 102.1
MHz to an FM transmitting antenna located at the same church property in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. On 
July 20 and July 29, the agents also observed spurious signals on the military aeronautical frequency as 
well as numerous other frequencies in the civilian aviation band, all emanating from the same antenna.
5. Later on July 29, 2015, the agents spoke to Mr. Maxime at his business office in Oakland 
Park, Florida. Mr. Maxime identified himself as Kedner Maxime.  The agents advised Mr. Maxime that 
the unlicensed station at his church was operating in violation of Commission Rules, was causing 
interference to air traffic communications, and must cease operation. Mr. Maxime admitted that he had 
been operating the station at the church for about a month, and stated that he could turn it off.  The agents 
then met Mr. Maxime at his church where Mr. Maxime unlocked and opened the main doors, as well as 
the door to a small storage room where the transmitter was located. Specifically, Mr. Maxime showed the 
agents a transmitter connected to an antenna coaxial cable.  The transmitter was also connected to an 
audio mixer/computer on a table nearby. The readout on the transmitter showed 102.1 MHz. Mr. Maxime 
turned off the transmitter, disconnected cables, and removed the transmitter. Mr. Maxime voluntarily 
relinquished possession of the transmitter to agents. Agents issued to Mr. Maxime a hand-delivered 
Notice of Unlicensed Operation (NOUO), which he read and signed. The Notice directed Mr. Maxime to 
cease operating the unlicensed radio station on 102.1 MHz, and warned that continued unlicensed 
operation could result in additional enforcement action.
4
6. On November 12, 2015, the Miami Office received a complaint of interference to a 
licensed FM broadcast station caused by the operation of an unlicensed FM broadcast station operating on 
the frequency 89.1 MHz in Broward County, Florida.
7. On November 17, 2015, agents from the Miami Office used mobile direction-finding 
techniques to locate the source of radio frequency transmissions on 89.1 MHz to an FM transmitting 
antenna located on a two-story multi-unit commercial building in Oakland Park, Florida. The building 
contains the same address as Mr. Maxime’s business office. The agents once again took field strength 
measurements of the station’s signal, confirmed that the station required a license, and determined that no 
authorization had been issued to operate this station at or near Oakland Park, Florida.
8. On December 2, 2015, a Miami Office agent spoke by telephone to the property owner of 
the commercial building in Oakland Park, Florida. The property owner stated that Mr. Maxime leased two 
units on the property: the office on the first floor and another unit on the second floor.  The owner stated 
that the radio station would almost certainly be located in the unit on the second floor which is directly 
below the FM transmitting antenna on the roof. The owner stated that Mr. Maxime had recently requested 
to place a small antenna on the roof.
9. Later on December 2, 2015, agents from the Miami Office used mobile direction-finding 
techniques to locate the source of radio frequency transmissions on 89.1 MHz to an FM transmitting 
antenna located on the same two-story multi-unit commercial building in Oakland Park, Florida. The agents 
again took field strength measurements of the station’s signal, confirmed that the station required a 
license, and determined that no authorization had been issued to operate this station at or near Oakland 
Park, Florida.
10. Still on December 2, 2015, after taking measurements of the unlicensed station, the 
Miami agents met with the property owner outside the second floor unit. The agents and the property 
owner then went to Mr. Maxime’s office on the first floor and spoke to Mr. Maxime's wife, who stated 
                                                     
4
New Community Development Center, Inc./Kedner Maxime, Notice of Unlicensed Operation (Enf. Bur. Jul. 29, 
2015) (on file in EB-FIELDSCR-15-00020432).
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-910
3
Mr. Maxime was not present. The agents obtained from the property owner a copy of the lease for the 
second floor unit showing that Kedner Maxime and New Community Development Center, Inc. leased 
the unit.  While the agents were at the management office, Mr. Maxime called the property owner. The 
agents returned to Mr. Maxime’s first floor office and issued a hand-delivered NOUO to Mr. Maxime for 
unlicensed operation on 89.1 MHz. The Notice directed Mr. Maxime to cease operating the unlicensed 
radio station on 89.1 MHz in Oakland Park, Florida, and warned that continued unlicensed operation 
could result in additional enforcement action.
5
III. DISCUSSION
11. We find that Mr. Maxime apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act).
6
  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 without a license granted by the Commission. On July 15, July 20, July 23, July 29, 
November 17, and December 2, 2015, agents from the Miami Office determined that Mr. Maxime
operated an unlicensed radio station at two locations in Broward County, Florida.
7
On July 29 and 
December 2, 2015, Mr. Maxime was warned by the Commission in writing that such unlicensed 
operations violated the Act.
8
  As a result, we find Mr. Maxime apparently willfully and repeatedly 
violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed radio station.
12. Section 503(b) of the Act provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to 
comply substantially with the terms and conditions of any license, or willfully or repeatedly fails to comply 
with any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission 
thereunder, shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.
9
  Here, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes us to 
assess a forfeiture against Mr. Maxime of up to $16,000 for each day of a continuing violation, up to a 
statutory maximum of $122,500 for a single act or failure to act.
10
  In exercising our forfeiture authority, we 
must consider the “nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the 
                                                     
5
Kedner Maxime, Notice of Unlicensed Operation (Enf. Bur. Dec. 2, 2015) (on file in EB-FIELDSCR-15-
00020432).
6
47 U.S.C. § 301.
7
See supra paras. 3–10.
8
See supra paras. 5 and 10.
9
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
10
See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(7). These amounts reflect inflation adjustments to the 
forfeitures specified in Section 503(b)(2)(D) ($10,000 per violation or per day of a continuing violation and $75,000
per any single act or failure to act). The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-
410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, Sec. 31001, 
110 Stat. 1321, requires the Commission to adjust its forfeiture penalties periodically for inflation. See 28 U.S.C. §
2461 note (4). The Commission most recently adjusted its penalties to account for inflation this year.  Amendment 
of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission’s Rules, Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, Order, 
DA 16-644 (Enf. Bur. 2016); see also Inflation Adjustment of Monetary Penalties, 81 Fed. Reg. 42554 (June 30, 
2016) (setting August 1, 2016, as the effective date for the increases).  However, because the DCIA specifies that 
any inflationary adjustment “shall apply only to violations which occur after the date the increase takes effect,” we 
apply the forfeiture penalties in effect at the time the apparent violations took place.  28 U.S.C. § 2461 note (6).  
Here, because the apparent violations at issue occurred before August 1, 2016, the applicable maximum penalties are 
based on the Commission’s previous inflation adjustment that became effective on September 13, 2013.  See 
Inflation Adjustment of Maximum Forfeiture Penalties, 73 Fed. Reg. 44,663, 44,664 (July 31, 2008); Amendment of
Section 1.80(b) of the Commission’s Rules, Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, Order, 28 
FCC Rcd 10785 (Enf. Bur. 2013); see also Inflation Adjustment of Monetary Penalties, 78 Fed. Reg. 49,370-01 
(Aug. 14, 2013) (setting Sept. 13, 2013, as the effective date for those increases).    
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-910
4
violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as 
justice may require.”
11
  In addition, the Commission has established forfeiture guidelines; they establish 
base penalties for certain violations and identify criteria that we consider when determining the appropriate 
penalty in any given case.
12
Under these guidelines, we may adjust a forfeiture upward for violations that 
are egregious, intentional, or repeated, or that cause substantial harm or generate substantial economic gain 
for the violator.
13  
13. Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture of $10,000 for operation without an 
instrument of authorization.
14
  We have discretion, however, to depart from these guidelines, taking into 
account the particular facts of each individual case.
15
  On July 29, 2015, Mr. Maxime was issued a warning
explaining that unlicensed operation of a radio station violated the law and could subject him to further 
enforcement action, including a substantial monetary forfeiture. The fact that Mr. Maxime continued to 
operate an unlicensed station after being put on notice that his actions contravened the Act, the Rules, and 
related Commission orders demonstrates a deliberate disregard for the Commission’s authority and 
requirements.  Thus, we find that an upward adjustment in the forfeiture amount of $5,000 is warranted.
16
  
After applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the statutory factors, we 
propose a total forfeiture of $15,000, for which Mr. Maxime is apparently liable.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act
17
and Section
1.80 of the Rules,
18
Kedner Maxime is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A 
FORFEITURE in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for willful and repeated violations of 
Section 301 of the Act.
19
15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,
20
within thirty 
(30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Kedner Maxime
SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking 
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture consistent with paragraph 18 below.
                                                     
11
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
12
47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(8), Note to paragraph (b)(8). 
13
Id.
14
Id.
15
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, 17098–99, para. 22 (1997) (noting that “[a]lthough we 
have adopted the base forfeiture amounts as guidelines to provide a measure of predictability to the forfeiture 
process, we retain our discretion to depart from the guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under 
our general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act”) (Forfeiture Policy Statement), recons. denied, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
16
See Robert Brown, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 6975 (Enf. Bur. 2012), aff’g, Forfeiture Order, 
26 FCC Rcd 6854 (Enf. Bur. 2011), aff’g, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 13740 (Enf. Bur. 
2010) (upwardly adjusted proposed forfeiture by $5,000 because violator operated an unlicensed radio station after 
receiving a written warning that such action violated the Act and Rules); Lloyd Morris, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 27 FCC Rcd 6979 (Enf. Bur. 2012), aff’g, Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd 6856 (Enf. Bur. 2011), aff’g, Notice 
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 13736 (Enf. Bur. 2010) (same).  
17
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
18
47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
19
47 U.S.C. § 301.
20
47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-910
5
16. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, wire transfer, or 
credit card, and must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced above. Kedner Maxime
shall send electronic notification of payment to Steven Spaeth at steven.spaeth@fcc.gov on the date said 
payment is made.  Regardless of the form of payment, a completed FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) 
must be submitted.
21
  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 that should be followed based on the form of payment selected:
• 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.
17. 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, SW, Room 1-A625, Washington, DC 20554.
22
  Questions regarding payment procedures should be 
directed to the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, 
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
18. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, if any, 
must include a detailed factual statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant 
to Sections 1.16 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Rules.
23
  The written statement must be mailed to the Federal 
Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, South Central Region, Miami Office, P.O. Box 
266468, Weston, FL 33326, and must include the NAL/Account Number referenced in the caption.  The 
statement must also be e-mailed to steven.spaeth@fcc.gov.  
19. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a 
claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:  (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-
year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices; or 
(3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner’s current 
financial status.  Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by 
reference to the financial documentation.
                                                     
21
An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at 
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
22
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
23
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.16, 1.80(f)(3).
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-910
6
20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Kedner Maxime
at his address of record.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Ronald D. Ramage
Regional Director, Region Two 
Enforcement Bureau