******************************************************** 
                      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 17-389
       
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554 
Sergio Plasencia
Miami, Florida
  )
  )
  )
  )
  )
)
                
File No.: EB-FIELDSCR-17-00023640
1
NAL/Acct. No.:  201732600003 
FRN:  0017022294  
             
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  April 25, 2017 Released:  April 27, 2017
By the Regional Director, Region Two, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. We propose a penalty of $20,000 against Sergio Plasencia for apparently operating an 
unauthorized radio station on 101.9 MHz and 107.3 MHz in Miami, Florida.  The Commission previously 
warned Mr. Plasencia that operation of this unlicensed station was illegal and that continued operation 
could result in further enforcement action.  Mr. Plasencia’s deliberate disregard of the Commission’ 
warnings warrants a significant penalty.  Unlicensed radio stations create a danger of interference to 
licensed communications, including other broadcasters, aviation, and public safety frequencies.  Such 
operations also undermine the Commission’s authority over FM broadcast radio operations.  
II. BACKGROUND
2. During 2016 and 2017, the Enforcement Bureau investigated multiple complaints of 
unauthorized radio stations that appear to have been operated by Mr. Plasencia.  In early 2016, the 
Bureau’s Miami Office received a complaint of an unauthorized radio station calling itself “The Vibe”,
operating in the Miami area on 101.9 MHz. In response to the complaint, on March 24, 2016, agents used 
mobile direction-finding techniques to trace the source of the radio frequency transmissions to an FM 
transmitting antenna, located at a residential property in Miami, Florida.
2
  One of the agents made field 
strength measurements of the station’s signal and determined it exceeded the requirements under Part 15 
of the Commission’s rules (Rules) for non-licensed operation.
3
  The agent consulted the Commission’s 
records and confirmed that no authorization had been issued for the operation of an FM broadcast station 
at or near that residence. 
3. On May 3, 2016, agents made a follow-up visit to the site and used mobile direction-
finding techniques to trace the source of radio frequency transmissions to an FM transmitting antenna,
located at the same residential property in Miami, Florida, as the one identified on March 24.  During the 
                                                     
1
The investigation began under File No. EB-FIELDSCR-16-00021267.  Any future correspondence with the 
Commission concerning this matter should reflect the new case number.
2
The agents confirmed via public records that a member of Sergio Plasencia’s family owned the residence and that 
Sergio Plasencia lived there.
3
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 CFR § 15.239.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-389
2
May 3, 2016, visit, the agents talked to one of Mr. Plasencia’s relatives, who told the agents that Mr. 
Plasencia owned the radio station.  The relative then called Mr. Plasencia and put one of the agents on the 
phone with him.  Mr. Plasencia identified himself and admitted to the agent that he operated the radio 
station on 101.9 MHz without a license.  He further admitted that he had previously operated a station 
without a license on 99.5 MHz.
4
  The agent verbally warned Mr. Plasencia that it is illegal to operate a 
radio station without a valid FCC license. The agent left a Notice of Unauthorized Operation (NOUO) at 
Mr. Plasencia’s residence that directed him to cease operating the unlicensed radio station on 101.9 MHz 
and warned Mr. Plasencia that continued unlicensed operation could result in additional enforcement 
action.
5
  On May 4, 2016, the Miami Office mailed another NOUO to Mr. Plasencia for operation of an 
unlicensed station on 101.9 MHz.
6
Mr. Plasencia did not respond to either NOUO.  
4. On February 25, 2017, in response to a complaint, agents monitored 107.3 MHz in 
Miami, Florida.  The agents heard a station transmitting on that frequency refer to itself on air as “The 
Vibe,” which is the same station identification that Mr. Plasencia previously used on the air.  The agents 
observed that the car radio RDS display
7
for this signal showed “107.3 Vibe Miami’s Classic Hip-Hop 
Station.”  On the same date, the agents used mobile direction-finding techniques to trace the source of 
radio frequency transmissions to an FM transmitting antenna on a tall mast located at a residential 
property on NW 38th St. in Miami, Florida.  They also observed Mr. Plasencia working in the yard in the 
back of the house.  The agents confirmed via public records that Mr. Plasencia was the owner of the 
property on NW 38th St. in Miami, Florida.
8
  One of the agents took field strength measurements of the 
station’s signal and determined that the transmissions exceeded the limits for operation under Part 15 of 
the Rules, and therefore required a license.  The agent consulted the Commission’s records and confirmed 
that no authorization had been issued for the operation of an FM broadcast station at or near that 
residence. 
5. On March 22 and March 29, 2017, agents again used mobile direction finding techniques 
to trace the source of radio frequency transmissions to an FM transmitting antenna located on NW 38th 
St. in Miami, Florida, the same residential property that agents visited on February 25, 2017.  One of the
agents took field strength measurements of the station’s signal, and consistent with previous visits,
determined that the transmissions exceeded the limits for operation under Part 15 of the Rules, and 
therefore required a license.  The agents consulted the Commission’s records and confirmed that the 
Commission had not issued an authorization for the operation of an FM broadcast station at or near that 
residence.  On both the March 22 and March 29 visits, the agents monitored 107.3 MHz and heard a DJ 
identify himself as “DJ LS,” and announce a phone number for the station.  On March 29, 2017, the 
agents heard DJ LS on the air, and saw that the RDS display showed “The Mix at 6 is on with DJ LS on 
Vibe 107.3 FM.”  
6. On March 31, 2017, FCC agents accompanied the Miami-Dade Police Department 
(Miami-Dade PD) while they executed a search warrant at Mr. Plasencia’s residential property regarding 
a state law violation.  The FCC agents inspected the radio station found at the residential property. They 
                                                     
4
See infra para. 7.
5
Sergio Plasencia, Notice of Unlicensed Operation (EB May 3, 2016)(on file in EBATS File No. EB-FIELDSCR-
16-00021267).    
6
Sergio Plasencia, Notice of Unlicensed Operation (EB May 4, 2016)(on file in EBATS File No. EB-FIELDSCR-
16-00021267).  The return receipt stated that the NOUO was received at Mr. Plasencia’s residence on May 6, 2016.  
7
Radio Data System (RDS) is a feature available on most newer model AM/FM radios which enables the radio 
station name and other data to be shown on the radio display.  https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/audio-
video/broadcast-audio/rds-radio-data-system-basics-tutorial.php.  
8
Note that this property is different than that associated with the May 2016 Plasencia NOUOs.    
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-389
3
found a large, professional studio with a U-shaped console, audio production equipment, transmitters, and 
an RDS generator, among other equipment.  In addition, the agents found an exciter set to 107.3 MHz 
connected to an amplifier.  Mr. Plasencia arrived at his property while the Miami-Dade PD were
executing the warrant.  Mr. Plasencia initially claimed that his general radiotelephone operator license 
allowed him to conduct on-air equipment tests for FM broadcast stations, and that he was doing so on 
behalf of two authorized low power FM stations.  However, he was not able to show evidence that he was 
operating on behalf of an authorized station, or otherwise had authority to transmit on 107.3 MHz or any 
other broadcast frequency.  Later during the same search warrant execution, Mr. Plasencia admitted in 
front of the Commission’s agents and Miami-Dade PD that he was operating on 107.3 MHz without 
authorization.  The FCC agents identified the equipment connected to the 107.3 MHz operation, and the 
Miami-Dade PD seized that equipment pursuant to Florida law.  
7. These were not the first instances for which Mr. Plasencia was found operating 
unlicensed radio operations.  On May 19, 2010, agents from the Commission’s Miami Office, using a 
mobile direction-finding vehicle, monitored 98.7 MHz and determined that a station was broadcasting 
from an FM transmitter (in excess of the Part 15 limits) and antenna located on the roof of a 
condominium building in Miami, Florida, that was still under construction.  An employee of the 
construction company working on that building accompanied the agents to the roof area, where that 
employee disconnected and removed the transmitting equipment.  On May 20, 2010, the building’s 
construction project manager contacted one of the agents and reported that someone who identified 
himself as Sergio Plasencia had asked for his equipment.  The agent spoke to Mr. Plasencia by telephone 
on June 2, 3, and 4, 2010.  In the June 2 conversation, Mr. Plasencia admitted that he owned the station 
and had operated it since January of 2010.  On June 3, 2010, the agent verbally warned Mr. Plasencia that 
his operation of an unlicensed station was illegal and could lead to further enforcement action.  The agent 
also mailed a NOUO to Mr. Plasencia for his unlicensed operation of a broadcast radio station on 
98.7 MHz.
9
  On June 8, the building owner destroyed the radio equipment, with Mr. Plasencia’s consent.  
III. DISCUSSION
8. We find that Mr. Plasencia apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act).
10
  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 March 24 and May 3, 2016, agents from 
the Miami office determined that Mr. Plasencia owned and operated an unlicensed radio station on 
101.9 MHz.  Agents warned Mr. Plasencia that unlicensed operation is a violation of the Act and that 
continued unauthorized operation could result in further enforcement action.  Nonetheless, Mr. Plasencia 
continued to operate, on 107.3 MHz, the unlicensed radio station in February and March, 2017 after 
receiving these warnings.  As a result, we find Mr. Plasencia apparently willfully and repeatedly violated 
Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed radio station.  
9. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to impose a forfeiture against any 
entity that “willfully or repeatedly fail[s] to comply with any of the provisions of [the Act] or of any rule, 
regulation, or order issued by the Commission.”
11
  Here, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes us to 
assess a forfeiture against Mr. Plasencia of up to $19,246 for each day of a continuing violation, up to a 
                                                     
9
Sergio Plasencia, Notice of Unlicensed Operation (EB June 3, 2010) (on file in Case EB-10-MA-0093).
10
47 U.S.C. § 301.
11
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-389
4
statutory maximum of $144,344 for a single act or failure to act.
12
  In exercising our forfeiture authority, 
we must consider 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.”
13
  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.
14
  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.
15
  
10. Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture of $10,000 for unauthorized radio 
station operation for each violation or each day of a continuing violation.
16
  In this case, given the totality 
of the circumstances, and consistent with the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a significant 
upward adjustment is warranted.  Mr. Plasencia has previously been warned verbally and in writing that 
operation of a radio station without a license is illegal.
17
  Despite these repeated warnings, Mr. Plasencia 
operated without a license again in February and March 2017.  Accordingly, we find Mr. Plasencia’s
violation egregious as it showed a complete disregard for the Commission’s authority and Section 301 of 
the Act.  We therefore propose an upward adjustment of $10,000 based on the egregious nature of Mr. 
Plasencia’s apparent violations of Section 301 of the Act.
18
  After applying the Forfeiture Policy 
Statement, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the statutory factors, we propose a total forfeiture of $20,000, 
for which Mr. Plasencia is apparently liable.  
IV. CONCLUSION
11. We have determined that Mr. Plasencia apparently willfully and repeatedly violated 
Section 301 of the Act.  As such, Mr. Plasencia is apparently liable for a forfeiture of $20,000.
                                                     
12
See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); 47 CFR §§ 1.80(b)(7), (9); see also Jay Peralta, Corona, New York, Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 17-35, n.30 (rel. Apr. 14, 2017) (discussing inflation adjustments to the 
forfeitures specified in Section 503(b)(2)(D)).
13
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
14
47 CFR § 1.80(b)(8), Note to paragraph (b)(8). 
15
Id.  See also 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
47 CFR § 1.80(b).
17
Mr. Plasencia was warned verbally and in writing in 2010 that operation of a radio station without authorization is 
illegal and could subject him to forfeitures and other punishment.  Mr. Plasencia was warned verbally and in writing 
again in May 2016 that operation of a radio station without authorization is illegal.  
18
See, e.g., Marc-Nus Charles, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 5835 (EB 2014) (proposing 
to double the $10,000 base forfeiture amount for an unlicensed radio operator after subject continued operating 
despite receiving written warnings); Whisler Fleurinor, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 
2478 (EB 2011) (proposing $20,000 forfeiture for repeat unlicensed operations in violation of Section 301 of the Act 
after receiving two written warnings); Nounoune Lubin, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 
12654 (EB 2010) (proposing $20,000 forfeiture for repeat violation of Section 301 after receiving two written 
warnings).  
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-389
5
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act
19
and 
Sections 1.80 of the Rules,
20
Mr. Plasencia is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY 
FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) for willful and repeated 
violations of Section 301 of the Act.
21
13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,
22
within thirty 
(30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Mr. Plasencia 
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 16 below.
14. 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.  Mr. Plasencia shall 
send electronic notification of payment to SCR-Response@fcc.gov and Janet.Moran@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.
23
  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.
15. 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.
24
  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.
                                                     
19
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
20
47 CFR § 1.80.
21
47 U.S.C. § 301. 
22
47 CFR § 1.80.
23
An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at 
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
24
See 47 CFR § 1.1914.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-389
6
16. 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.
25
  The written statement must be mailed to the Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, ATTN:  
Enforcement Bureau – Janet Moran, Field Counsel, and must include the NAL/Account Number 
referenced in the caption.  The statement must also be e-mailed to Janet.Moran@fcc.gov and SCR-
Response@fcc.gov.  
17. 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.
18. 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 Mr. Plasencia at 
his address of record.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Ronald Ramage
Regional Director
Region Two
Enforcement Bureau 
                                                     
25
47 CFR §§ 1.16, 1.80(f)(3).