******************************************************** 
                      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 FCC 17-35
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Jay Peralta,
Corona, New York
)
)
)
)
)
File No. EB-FIELDNER-16-00022343
NAL/Acct. No.: 201732380002
FRN: 0026136218
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  April 13, 2017 Released:  April 14, 2017
By the Commission: Chairman Pai issuing a statement.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. We propose a forfeiture in the amount of $404,166 against Jay Peralta for apparently 
operating a radio on frequencies licensed to the New York City Police Department (NYPD)
1
without 
authorization from the Commission, maliciously interfering with NYPD officers’ communications, and 
transmitting false distress calls.  Through his actions, as he described them to the NYPD, Mr. Peralta has 
demonstrated not only a deliberate disregard of the Commission’s authority and rules, but of the safety of 
NYPD officers and the public that they are called to serve and protect.  Commission action in this context 
is therefore essential to safeguard authorized operations on spectrum licensed for public safety uses, and, 
accordingly, a substantial penalty appears warranted.  
II. BACKGROUND
2. According to a police report provided to the Commission, the NYPD occasionally 
experiences unauthorized transmissions by third parties on frequencies that the Commission has licensed 
to the NYPD.
2
  Today’s action by the Commission addresses nine unauthorized and interfering 
transmissions that Mr. Peralta admitted to the NYPD he made on its radio system.  As described in 
greater detail below, Mr. Peralta’s unauthorized transmissions included false bomb threats, false claims of 
criminal activities involving firearms, false distress calls from purported NYPD officers, and threats 
against individual NYPD officers.
3
  
3. On August 1, 2016, the Commission was alerted by a posting on Twitter
4
about an 
unlawful intrusion on the NYPD’s radio system, whereupon the Enforcement Bureau dispatched an agent 
from its New York Field Office (New York Office) to confirm the intrusion and offer assistance.  On 
September 30, 2016, the NYPD contacted the New York Office and advised that it had arrested two 
                                                     
1
The NYPD holds numerous licenses issued by the Commission.  Today’s action by the Commission relates to Mr. 
Peralta’s unauthorized transmissions on frequencies licensed for the NYPD’s use under call signs WIF539, WIF542, 
WIF573, WIF575, and WIF577.
2
Memorandum from Lt. Marc Moreno, LIU, NYPD to DCI/Chief of Intelligence, 1 (Sept. 26, 2016) (on file in EB-
FIELDNER-16-00022343) (NYPD Report). 
3
Id.
4
@joshzepps, Twitter (Aug. 1, 2016, 6:51am), https://twitter.com/joshzepps/status/760110817517920256. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-35
2
individuals, Mr. Peralta and an accomplice, in connection with unauthorized transmissions made on the 
NYPD’s radio system.  
4. As detailed in the NYPD Report, a copy of which was provided to the Commission, 
during a September 26, 2016, interrogation by the NYPD, Mr. Peralta admitted to making so-called 
“10-13” (Officer Needs Emergency Assistance) and “10-85” (Officer Needs Assistance) calls on the 
NYPD’s radio system.
5
  In connection with a written statement Mr. Peralta composed during his 
interrogation by the NYPD, a NYPD officer presented Mr. Peralta with a list of intrusions on its radio 
system.
6
  Mr. Peralta then inscribed his initials on the NYPD list as an acknowledgment of having made 
nine of the intrusions identified on the NYPD list.
7
  That same day, the NYPD arrested Mr. Peralta on a 
range of charges, including reckless endangerment, robbery, criminal impersonation of a police officer, 
and false reporting of an incident.
8
  Based on the information obtained during its investigation, the NYPD 
requested and obtained a search warrant from a New York court for Mr. Peralta’s residence and, upon 
execution of the search warrant, seized a radio and tactical vest.
9
  For ease of reference, the unauthorized 
transmissions Mr. Peralta acknowledged making in his written statement are summarized in Exhibit A.  
III. DISCUSSION
A. Mr. Peralta Apparently Violated Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, by Making Unauthorized Transmissions on Spectrum Licensed to the 
NYPD.
5. We find that Mr. Peralta, by his own admission, apparently willfully and repeatedly 
violated Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act).  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.
10
  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.
11
  Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines “willful” as the “conscious and deliberate 
commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent to violate” the law.
12
  The Commission may 
                                                     
5
NYPD Report at 3.  As used by the NYPD, the transmission of a 10-85 code indicates that an NYPD officer is in 
need of assistance.  See Carin v. City of New York, No. 95 Civ. 3472, 1998 WL 60952 (E.D.N.Y., 1998).  By 
contrast, the transmission of a 10-13 code is more serious and represents a “radio call for officer assistance during 
which all non-priority radio transmission must be suspended.” Cox v. Ebert, No. 06 Civ. 3159, 2010 WL 3119445, 
at *11, n. 19 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
6
Statement of Jay Peralta, 1 – 3 (on file in EB-FIELDNER-16-00022343) (Peralta Statement).  The Peralta 
Statement is comprised of (a) three handwritten pages and (b) a copy of a three-page NYPD-produced document, 
titled “Unauthorized Timeline,” on to which Mr. Peralta inscribed his initials. 
7
NYPD Report at 3. 
8
Id. at 4. 
9
Id. at 3. 
10
47 U.S.C. § 301.
11
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
12
47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).  The legislative history to Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful 
applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) 
context.  H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97
th
Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982) (“This provision [inserted in Section 312] defines the 
terms ‘willful’ and ‘repeated’ for purposes of section 312, and for any other relevant section of the act (e.g., Section 
503)   . . . .  As defined[,] . . . ‘willful’ means that the licensee knew that he was doing the act in question, regardless 
of whether there was an intent to violate the law.  ‘Repeated’ means more than once, or where the act is continuous, 
for more than one day.  Whether an act is considered to be ‘continuous’ would depend upon the circumstances in 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-35
3
also assess a forfeiture for violations that are merely repeated, and not willful.
13
  The term “repeated” 
means the commission or omission of such act more than once or for more than one day.
14
  
6. Based on the record before us, Mr. Peralta, who is not a Commission licensee, has 
apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act on nine occasions when, by his own 
admission, he operated a radio transmitter on frequencies for which a Commission license is required.
15
The Peralta Statement is replete with statements indicating that Mr. Peralta acted willfully through his 
conscious and deliberate efforts to use frequencies licensed to the NYPD to communicate directly with 
NYPD officers or NYPD radio dispatchers.
16
  We also find that Mr. Peralta apparently repeatedly violated 
Section 301 of the Act by making unauthorized transmissions on different days or, when he made 
multiple transmissions on the same day, switching transmission frequencies in order to “ensure maximum 
attention”
17
from different NYPD precincts, sometimes while assisting in the commission of criminal 
activities.
18
B. Mr. Peralta Apparently Violated Section 333 of the Act by Interfering with NYPD’s 
Use of Licensed Spectrum. 
7. We find that Mr. Peralta apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 333 of the Act.  
Section 333 of the Act states that “[n]o person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause 
interference to any radio communications of any stations licensed or authorized by or under the Act or 
operated by the United States Government.”
19
The legislative history for Section 333 of the Act provides 
a number of examples of willful and malicious interference: “intentional jamming, deliberate transmission 
on top of the transmissions of authorized users already using specific frequencies in order to obstruct their 
communications, repeated interruptions, and the use and transmission of whistles, tapes, records, or other 
types of noisemaking devices to interfere with the communications or radio signals of other stations.”
20
  
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
each case.  The definitions are intended primarily to clarify the language in Sections 312 and 503, and are consistent 
with the Commission’s application of those terms . . . .”); see, e.g., S. Cal. Broad. Co., Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388, para. 5 (1991), recons. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992).  
13
See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 
1362, para. 10 (2001) (proposing a forfeiture for, inter alia, a cable television operator’s repeated signal leakage) 
(Callais Cablevision), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 22626 (2002). 
14
See 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(2); Callais Cablevision, 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, para. 9.
15
See, e.g., Jason Humphreys, Seffner, Florida, Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd 6123, para. 1 (2016) (affirming a 
proposed forfeiture for violations of Section 301 of the Act stemming from the operation of a radio jammer on 
frequencies allocated for use by public safety entities); Drew Buckley, Bay Shore, New York, Notice of Apparent 
Violation for Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 7586, 7588, para. 8 (EB 2014), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 30 FCC 
Rcd 165 (EB 2015) (finding an apparent violation of Section 301 of the Act where an individual operated, without a 
license, on frequencies allocated for use by public safety entities).
16
By way of example: “I Jay Peralta keyed uponManhattan South Captain,” and “I said on radio 19th floor central 
and Unit [illegible] . . . said 10-85 male has sawed off shotgun . . . .”  Peralta Statement at 2 (emphasis added).
17
See NYPD Report at 2.  Separately, the NYPD explained to Commission personnel that within the NYPD, it 
manages its licensed frequencies, such that officers use specific frequencies when operating in different NYPD-
defined geographic zones (which often span multiple precincts).  See Email from Scott Semone, M.R.R.O., I.T.B. 
Life-Safety Systems & Electronics Division, NYPD to Luis Roman, Field Agent, Enforcement Bureau, FCC (Oct. 
13, 2016).  In light of the NYPD’s internal spectrum management practices, multiple precincts received Mr. 
Peralta’s unauthorized transmissions, thus corroborating Mr. Peralta’s statement to the NYPD that the goal of the 
unauthorized transmissions was “to ensure maximum attention from the NYPD.”
18
See generally Exhibit A.
19
47 U.S.C. § 333.
20
H.R. Rep. No. 101-316, at 8 (1989).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-35
4
In the context of interference to public safety communications, the Commission has noted that 
unauthorized transmissions on public safety frequencies violate Section 333 of the Act when the 
unauthorized transmissions disrupt communications between public safety personnel and central 
dispatchers while the frequencies were being used to respond to an emergency.
21
  For example, in 
Buckley, a monetary forfeiture for violations of Section 333 of the Act was imposed in response to the 
unauthorized transmission of “chanting and heavy breathing” on frequencies licensed to the Fire District
of Melville, New York.
22
  As set forth in Buckley, the Commission found that he “apparently willfully 
violated Section 333 of the Act by maliciously interfering with licensed communications of the Melville 
Fire District.”
23
  
8. Here, Mr. Peralta admits to having made, on nine different occasions (as summarized in 
Exhibit A), unauthorized transmissions on frequencies licensed to the NYPD, an entity charged with the 
safety of the nation’s most populous city.
24
  Given the magnitude of the NYPD’s public safety mission, 
we find that, even if Mr. Peralta did not actually talk over or interrupt officers attempting to communicate 
with radio dispatchers, his admitted conduct was nevertheless disruptive to officer-dispatcher 
communications and therefore apparently violated Section 333 of the Act.
25
  Following the reasoning of 
Buckley, we therefore find that each of Mr. Peralta’s unauthorized transmissions on the NYPD’s radio 
system not only precluded the NYPD’s exclusive authorized use during the times of those transmissions, 
but also had the effect of diverting the attention of NYPD radio dispatchers, which, as a result, disrupted 
dispatchers’ ability to communicate with NYPD officers.  Accordingly, we find that each of Mr. Peralta’s 
unauthorized transmissions on the NYPD’s radio system was both willful and malicious interference with 
radio communications, and therefore apparently violated Section 333 of the Act.  
C. Mr. Peralta Apparently Violated Section 325(a) of the Act by Transmitting False 
Distress Signals.
9. We find that Mr. Peralta apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 325(a) of 
the Act.  Section 325(a) of the Act states that “[n]o person within the jurisdiction of the United States 
shall knowingly utter or transmit, or cause to be uttered or transmitted, any false or fraudulent signal of 
distress, or communication relating thereto.”
26
  In his written statement to the NYPD, Mr. Peralta 
admitted to making three transmissions whose contents included a “false or fraudulent signal of distress.”  
Specifically, Mr. Peralta admitted to having transmitted a bomb threat on June 27, 2016, on a frequency 
licensed to the NYPD, and he also admitted to having transmitted on August 20 and August 26, 2016, 10-
13 and 10-85 codes, respectively, both of which indicate that an NYPD officer is in need of assistance.  
As stated in the NYPD Report, Mr. Peralta transmitted the false distress calls for the purpose of “ensuring 
maximum attention from the NYPD.”
27
  Further, on at least one occasion, Mr. Peralta apparently made a 
                                                     
21
See Humphreys, 31 FCC Rcd at 6123, para. 1; Buckley, 29 FCC Rcd at 7586, 7589, paras. 1, 10 (finding “Mr. 
Buckley intentionally and maliciously interfered with frequencies used by [the Melville Fire District of New York]” 
where unauthorized transmissions on the fire department's frequencies disrupted dispatcher-firefighter 
communications).
22
Buckley, 29 FCC Rcd at 7586, paras. 3 - 4.
23
Id. at 7589, para. 10.
24
See U.S. Census Bureau, United States Summary: 2010, Population and Housing Unit Counts, 140, Table 37 
(Sept. 2012), at https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/cph-2-1.pdf. 
25
In this regard, we observe, in particular, that the transmission of a 10-13 code not only signals an officer in 
distress, but also requires that other officers using the channel cease non-priority communications to keep the 
channel free for use by the officer in distress. See, note 5, supra.
26
47 U.S.C. § 325(a).  See, e.g., Daniel Delise, Astoria, New York, Forfeiture Order, DA 16-1338 (EB Dec. 5, 
2016), 2016 WL 7107201; John J. Emil, Baltimore, Michigan, Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1891 (Field Ops. Bur. 1994). 
27
NYPD Report at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-35
5
false distress call in order to distract officers while Mr. Peralta’s accomplices “broke into [a] federal law 
enforcement car.”
28
  The underlying purposes for the false distress calls demonstrate that Mr. Peralta’s 
transmissions were both false and knowingly made to elicit a desired response from the NYPD.  
Accordingly, based on the preponderance of the evidence before us, we find that the false distress calls 
constitute apparent violations of Section 325(a) of the Act. 
D. Proposed Forfeiture
10. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to impose a forfeiture against any 
individual or 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.”
29
  Here, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act 
authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture against Mr. Peralta of up to $19,246 for each violation or 
each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $144,344 for a single act or failure to 
act.
30
  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.”
31
  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.
32
  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.
33
  
                                                     
28
Peralta Statement at 2. 
29
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
30
See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); 47 CFR §§ 1.80(b)(7), (9).  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 (DCIA), as further amended by the Federal Reports Elimination Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-362, 
Sec. 1301, 112 Stat. 3280, and as further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act 
Improvements Act of 2015, Sec. 701, Pub. L. No. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599 (2015 Inflation Adjustment Act)
(collectively, Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended), codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 
2461 note, required the Commission to adjust its penalties for inflation and publish interim final rules with the initial 
penalty adjustment amounts by July 1, 2016 and new penalty levels must take effect no later than August 1, 2016.  
See 28 U.S.C. § 2461 note.  The Commission published those interim final rules on June 30, 2016.  See Amendment 
of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission’s Rules, Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, Order, 31 
FCC Rcd 6793 (EB 2016); see also Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, 81 Fed. Reg. 42554 
(June 30, 2016) (setting August 1, 2016, as the effective date for the increases).  The Federal Civil Penalties 
Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended, also requires agencies, starting in 2017, to adjust annually the civil 
monetary penalties covered thereunder, and to publish each such annual adjustment by January 15 of each year.  28 
U.S.C. § 2461 note, citing the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 as amended, § 4(a).  See also
Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the President, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments 
and Agencies re Implementation of the 2017 annual adjustment pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 
Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, M-17-11, Dec. 16, 2016 at 1.  The Bureau released the order making 
the 2017 annual adjustment on December 30, 2016.  See Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission’s Rules, 
Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, Order, DA 16-1453 (EB 2016), 2016 WL 7492481; see 
also Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, 82 Fed. Reg. 8170 (Jan. 24, 2017) (setting January 
24, 2017, as the effective date for the increases).  The 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act provides that the new penalty 
levels shall apply to penalties assessed after the effective date of the increase, “including [penalties] whose 
associated violation predated such increase.”  See 28 U.S.C. § 2461 note, citing the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 
Adjustment Act, as amended, § 6.  
31
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
32
47 CFR § 1.80(b)(8), note to paragraph (b)(8).
33
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-35
6
11. Section 1.80(b) of the Commission’s rules sets the following base forfeiture amounts for 
the apparent violations at issue here: $10,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation
relating to the construction or operation of a station without an instrument of authorization for the service 
in violation of Section 301 of the Act; $7,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation
relating to causing interference in violation of Section 333 of the Act; and $8,000 for each violation or 
each day of a continuing violation relating to transmitting false or fraudulent distress signals in violation 
of Section 325(a) of the Act.
34
  We have discretion, however, to depart from these guidelines, taking into 
account the particular facts of each individual case.
35
  Here, the facts require us to propose a substantial 
penalty.  As discussed above, we find that Mr. Peralta has admitted to nine separate apparent violations of 
Section 301 of the Act, nine separate apparent violations of Section 333 of the Act, and three separate 
apparent violations of Section 325(a) of the Act.  We note that four of Mr. Peralta’s unauthorized 
transmissions took place on a single day, July 30, 2016, but we nevertheless treat each unauthorized 
transmission as a separate apparent violation for purposes of calculating the proposed base forfeiture 
amount.  As shown in Exhibit A, Mr. Peralta’s unauthorized transmissions on July 30, 2016, were made 
on several different frequencies licensed to the NYPD.  Mr. Peralta’s decision to operate on different 
frequencies on July 30, 2016, meant that his unauthorized transmissions were received by different NYPD 
precincts.
36
  Accordingly, and consistent with Commission precedent, we treat each unauthorized 
transmission on July 30, 2016, as a separate apparent violation for purposes of calculating the proposed 
forfeiture amount.
37
  Application of the base forfeiture amounts described above and detailed in Exhibit A 
yields an aggregate base forfeiture of $177,000.
38
  
12. Given the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that significant upward adjustments
of the proposed base forfeiture are warranted.
39
  In assessing the appropriate monetary penalty for the 
misconduct at issue, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of 
the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to 
                                                     
34
47 CFR § 1.80(b).
35
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).
36
See note 17, supra.
37
See, e.g., Viacom Inc., ESPN Inc., Forfeiture Order, 30 FCC Rcd 797, 806-07, para. 24 (2015) (treating each 
transmission of false EAS tones contained in a movie trailer as a separate violation rather than a single, ongoing 
violation); see also Radio License Holding XI, LLC, Forfeiture Order, 29 FCC Rcd 1623, 1628, para. 12 (2014) 
(where Commission found that eleven deficient broadcasts that failed to include required sponsorship disclosures 
constituted eleven discrete violations, not a single violation); Net One Int’l Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 9046, 9052, paras. 9 – 10 (2014), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd 2367 
(2016) (applying base forfeiture to each of 20 cramming violations) (citing Consumer Telcom, Inc., Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 28 FCC Rcd 17196, 17208 n.79 (2013)); Scott Malcolm DSM Supply, LLC, 
Somaticare, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 2476, 2484, para. 20 (2014), forfeiture 
ordered, Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd 1652 (2016) (finding that each junk fax violation constitutes a separate and 
distinct rule violation).
38
See Exhibit A.
39
See Midessa Television Limited Partnership, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 13247, 
13250-51, para. 11 (2014) (forfeiture paid) (proposing a significant upward adjustment for operating three Broadcast 
Auxiliary Services (BAS) stations without authorization and six BAS stations at variance from authorizations for at 
least four years); Union Oil Company of California, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 13806, 
13811, para. 10 (2012) (significant upward adjustment for unlicensed operation of a Private Land Mobile Radio 
Service station for six years and an Aeronautical and Fixed Advisory station for nearly eight years).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-35
7
the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters 
as justice may require.
40
  As explained above and summarized in Exhibit A, Mr. Peralta made nine 
unauthorized and interfering transmissions on the NYPD’s radio system.  This conduct was particularly 
troubling because, by disrupting NYPD officers’ ability to effectively communicate with radio 
dispatchers, each of Mr. Peralta’s transmissions created a scenario in which a dispatcher might not be able 
to hear and respond to an emergency transmission from an NYPD officer.  Accordingly, we find these 
repeated actions to be particularly egregious, warranting a 100 percent upward adjustment of the base 
forfeiture amount for each apparent violation referenced herein.
41
  
13. In light of the unique circumstances of this case, we find that further upward adjustments 
are warranted.  Seven of Mr. Peralta’s nine transmissions included messages that had the potential to
cause substantial harm, whether through false bomb threats, threats to harm NYPD officers, false distress 
calls, and false reports of gun-related crimes.
42
  We therefore apply a further 100 percent upward 
adjustment for each of the apparent violations referenced herein associated with those seven 
transmissions.  With respect to Mr. Peralta’s remaining two transmissions,
43
we note that those 
transmissions were part of an apparent effort to distract multiple NYPD precincts at approximately the 
same time, thereby compounding the harmful impact on the NYPD’s radio system by forcing multiple 
NYPD precincts to respond to unauthorized and interfering transmissions at roughly the same time.
44
  We 
therefore propose a further 100 percent upward adjustment for the apparent violations associated with 
those two transmissions.  In total, the upward adjustments we propose here triple the base forfeiture for 
each apparent violation at issue.
14. As stated above, we find that Mr. Peralta apparently committed nine separate violations 
of Section 301 of the Act, nine violations of Section 333 of the Act, and three violations of Section 325(a) 
of the Act.
45
  Consistent with the Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules, 
and the statutory factors discussed above, we conclude that proposed forfeiture amounts of $30,000 for 
each Section 301 violation, $21,000 for each Section 333 violation, and $24,000 for each Section 325(a) 
violation are warranted, resulting in an aggregate proposed forfeiture of $531,000.  However, because 
Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act imposes a maximum penalty of $19,246 for each violation,
46
we must 
reduce the total proposed forfeiture amount to $404,166, the maximum amount allowed. 
15. In applying the applicable statutory factors, we also consider whether there is any basis 
for a downward adjustment of the proposed forfeiture.  Because of the nature and frequency of the 
violations of Section 301 and 333, coupled with the harm caused, or potentially caused, by the apparent 
violations of Section 325(a), we find no basis for a downward adjustment of the proposed forfeiture.  
Therefore, after applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules, and the 
statutory factors, we propose a total forfeiture of $404,166, for which Mr. Peralta is apparently liable.  
                                                     
40
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
41
See Jason Humphreys, Notice of Apparent Liability, 29 FCC Rcd 5476, 5480, para. 13 (2014), forfeiture ordered, 
Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd 6123 (2016) (proposing significant increase in proposed forfeiture amount for 
particularly egregious jammer operation). 
42
More specifically, the seven transmissions subject to this second upward adjustment are as follows: (1) April 15, 
2016 at 01:33:17, (2) June 27, 2016 at 05:23:38, (3) July 30, 2017 at 17:22:00, (4) July 30, 2016 at 17:43:38, (5) 
August 20, 2016 at 19:22:38, (6) August 21, 2016 at 22:36:37, and (7) August 26, 2016 at 17:25:51. See Exhibit A.
43
These transmissions were made at 17:27:14 and 17:29:30 on July 30, 2016.  Id.
44
Specifically, the 17:27:14 transmission was made on a channel used by the 110th and 115th precincts, while the 
17:29:30 transmission was made on a channel used by the 108th and 114th precincts.  Id.
45
47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 333; 325(a). 
46
See paragraph 10, supra. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-35
8
IV. CONCLUSION
16. We have determined that Mr. Peralta apparently willfully and repeatedly violated 
Sections 301, 325(a) and 333 of the Act.  As such, Mr. Peralta is apparently liable for a forfeiture of 
$404,166.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act
47
and Section 
1.80 of the Commission’s rules,
48
Jay Peralta is hereby NOTIFIED of his APPARENT LIABILITY 
FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Hundred Four Thousand, One Hundred Sixty-Six Dollars 
($404,166) for willful and repeated violations of Sections 301, 325(a) and 333 of the Act.
49
18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission’s 
rules,
50
within thirty (30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, Jay Peralta 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 
21, below.
19. Payment of the proposed 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.  Jay 
Peralta shall send electronic notification of payment to NER-Response@fcc.gov on the date said payment 
is made.  An FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted with payment unless payment is 
made online at the Commission’s Fee Filer website.
51
  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:
52
? 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 –
                                                     
47
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
48
47 CFR § 1.80.
49
47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 325(a), and 333.
50
47 CFR § 1.80.
51
Payment may be made online at the Commission’s Fee Filer website: https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/fee-filer.  
Online payments do not require payors to submit FCC Form 159.  Alternatively, payment may be made using FCC 
Form 159; detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at:  
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
52
Questions regarding payment procedures should be directed to the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by 
phone at 1-877-480-3201, or by e mail at ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-35
9
Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 
63101.
20. 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.
53
  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.
21. 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 Commission’s rules.
54
  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 – Field Counsel, and must include the NAL/Account Number 
referenced in the caption.  The statement must also be e-mailed to NER-Response@fcc.gov.
22. 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.
23. 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 Jay Peralta at his 
address of record. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
                                                     
53
See 47 CFR § 1.1914.
54
47 CFR §§ 1.16, 1.80(f)(3).
10
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-35
Exhibit A
Unauthorized Transmissions Acknowledged by Mr. Peralta
55
Date Time NYPD 
Zone
NYPD 
Precincts
Transmission Frequency NYPD 
Call 
Sign
Apparent 
Violations 
of the Act
Calculated 
Forfeiture
56
Proposed 
Forfeiture
57
04/15/2016 01:33:17 2 6 & 9 “Off duty MOS gun 
run at Walgreens 14th 
Street, 2nd Floor
479.4375 
MHz
WIF575 § 301
§ 333
$30,000
$21,000
$19,246
$19,246
06/27/2016 05:23:38 4 14,17 & 
18
“Bomb threat to Times 
Square Walgreens, 
10th floor.”
479.5875 
MHz
WIF542 § 301
§ 325(a)
§ 333
$30,000
$24,000
$21,000
$19,246
$19,246
$19,246
07/30/2016 17:22:00 34 110 & 115 “There’s a gun run.  
Shut the f**k up I’m 
talking to the 
Lieutenant.” Music 
begins at 17:24:51
479.8125 
MHz
WIF573 § 301
§ 333
$30,000
$21,000
$19,246
$19,246
07/30/2016 17:27:14 34 110 & 115 “If I turn in this radio 
how (much) can I 
get?”
479.8125 
MHz
WIF573 § 301
§ 333
$30,000
$21,000
$19,246
$19,246
07/30/2016 17:43:38 4 14, 17 & 
18
“Threat to South Duty 
Captain.”
479.5875 
MHz
WIF542 § 301
§ 333
$30,000
$21,000
$19,246
$19,246
07/30/2016 17:29:30 32 108 & 114 “I found this radio, 
will someone give me 
cash?”
479.6125 
MHz
WIF577 § 301
§ 333
$30,000
$21,000
$19,246
$19,246
                                                     
55
As discussed in paragraph 4, supra, the NYPD presented Mr. Peralta with a list of unauthorized transmissions made on frequencies licensed to the NYPD, nine 
of which Mr. Peralta initialed as an acknowledgement that he made the unauthorized transmissions.  The data in the first five columns of the table above are 
taken directly from the NYPD-generated list that Mr. Peralta initialed.  See Peralta Statement at 4 – 6.  The remaining data are derived from NYPD and 
Commission records relating to the use of specific Commission-issued licenses within specific geographic zones defined by the NYPD. 
56
The values in this column represent the aggregate proposed forfeiture for each apparent violation of the Act before giving effect the current statutory limit of 
$19,246 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation.  See note 30, supra.  Specifically, for each apparent violation of the Act, the value in the 
Calculated Forfeiture column represents (a) the applicable proposed base forfeiture set forth in paragraph 11, plus (b) the proposed upward adjustments set forth 
in paragraphs 12-13.  See paras. 11 – 13, supra.  
57
Because the values in the Calculated Forfeiture column exceed the maximum forfeiture permitted under the Act for a single violation, the Proposed Forfeiture
values have been reduced to that value, $19,246 per violation.  See para. 14, supra.
11
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-35
Date Time NYPD 
Zone
NYPD 
Precincts
Transmission Frequency NYPD 
Call 
Sign
Apparent 
Violations 
of the Act
Calculated 
Forfeiture
56
Proposed 
Forfeiture
57
08/20/2016 19:22:38 6 20, 22 & 
24
“10-85 & South 
Captain, gonna put a 
bullet in your head.”
479.3125 
MHz
WIF539 § 301
§ 325(a)
§ 333
$30,000
$24,000
$21,000
$19,246
$19,246
$19,246
08/21/2016 22:36:37 6 20, 22 & 
24
“Does anyone want 
this radio?” “South 
Captain raised again 
“I’m gonna put a 
bullet in your head, I 
hope you know that . . 
. Oh wait, wrong 
station.”
479.3125 
MHz
WIF539 § 301
§ 333
$30,000
$21,000
$19,246
$19,246
08/26/2016 17:25:51 34 110 & 115 “10-13, Central 10-
13.” Tones. 
479.8125 
MHz
WIF573 §301
§ 325(a)
§ 333
$30,000
$24,000
$21,000
$19,246
$19,246
$19,246
Total Proposed Forfeiture $404,166
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-35
STATEMENT OF 
CHAIRMAN AJIT PAI
Re: Jay Peralta, Corona, New York, File No. EB-FIELDNER-16-00022343.
Today, the FCC makes it abundantly clear that it will not tolerate unauthorized and illegal use of 
the radio spectrum.  This may not be a typical pirate radio case in which an unauthorized operator inflicts 
damage on a radio broadcaster that is operating with a valid FCC license, but it does involve unauthorized 
interference to critical public safety communications systems.  
Jay Peralta deliberately disregarded the Commission’s rules and the safety and security of New 
York City Police Department (NYPD) officers and the general public when he operated a radio on 
frequencies licensed to the NYPD without FCC authorization.  Mr. Peralta’s nine unauthorized and 
interfering transmissions involved false bomb threats, false claims of criminal activities involving 
firearms, false distress calls from purported NYPD officers, and threats against NYPD officers.  These 
transmissions were malicious and egregious actions that could have caused substantial and widespread 
harm. 
For as long as the FCC has existed, the agency has had the important mission of preventing radio 
interference.  And within the realm of public safety, the FCC has no higher purpose than promoting 
secure and reliable public safety and emergency response communications.  The Commission must 
continue to discharge these critical duties—and vigorous prosecution of the fight against unauthorized 
operators is an important way to do so.  
I am grateful to my fellow Commissioners for agreeing to act swiftly and strongly in this serious 
matter.