Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 22nd 04, 11:07 PM
Jerry
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pilot Travel Centers Fined $125,000!

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C.

Knoxville, Tennessee
)

)

)

)

)
File No. EB-03-DL-099

NAL/Acct. No. 200532500001

FRN # 0006096010






NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

Adopted: November 18, 2004 Released: November 22, 2004

By the Commission:

I. Introduction


In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find Pilot
Travel Centers, L.L.C. ("Pilot") apparently liable for a forfeiture in the
amount of one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) for willful
and repeated violations of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended ("Act"), and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules
("Rules"). Specifically, we find Pilot apparently liable for offering for
sale radio frequency devices without the required Commission equipment
authorization.


II. background


Section 302 of the Act authorizes the Commission to make reasonable
regulations, consistent with the public interest, governing the interference
potential of equipment that emits radio frequency energy, and prohibits,
inter alia, the offering for sale of radio frequency devices to the extent
such activity does not comply with those regulations. The purpose of this
section is to ensure that radio transmitters and other electronic devices
meet certain standards to control interference before they reach the market.
The Commission carries out its responsibilities under Section 302 in two
ways. First, the Commission establishes technical regulations for
transmitters and other equipment to minimize their potential for causing
interference to radio services. Second, the Commission administers an
equipment authorization program to ensure that equipment reaching the market
complies with the technical requirements. The equipment authorization
program requires that equipment be tested either by the manufacturer or at a
private test laboratory to ensure that it complies with the technical
requirements. For a large number of devices, including Citizens Band ("CB")
radio transmitting equipment, equipment may not be marketed within the
United States unless it has been tested and found to comply with Commission
technical requirements, granted Commission Certification, and properly
labeled. "Marketing" includes the sale or lease, offer for sale or lease
(including advertising for sale or lease), importing, shipping, and/or
distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or
lease.

Unlike CB radio transmitting equipment, radio transmitting equipment that
transmits solely on Amateur Radio Service ("ARS") frequencies is not subject
to equipment authorization requirements prior to manufacture or marketing.
However, some radio transmitters that transmit in a portion of the 10-meter
band of the ARS (28.000 to 29.700 MHz) are equipped with rotary, toggle, or
pushbutton switches mounted externally on the unit, which allow operation in
the CB bands after completion of minor and trivial internal modifications to
the equipment. To address these radios, the Commission adopted changes to
the CB type acceptance requirements by defining a "CB Transmitter" as "a
transmitter that operates or is intended to operate at a station authorized
in the CB."

Despite these changes to the definition of a CB transmitter, Commission
enforcement agents continued to encounter non-certified CB transmitters
marketed as ARS transmitters. On May 13, 1996, the Commission's Office of
Engineering and Technology ("OET") released a Public Notice "to clarify the
Commission's Rules regarding equipment that is intended to operate in
various radio services in the high frequency radio spectrum, including '10-Meter'
Amateur Radio Service (ARS) equipment." The Notice stated that transmitters
intended for operation on non-amateur frequencies must be approved prior to
manufacture, importation or marketing. The Notice specifically included ARS
transceivers designed "such that they can easily be modified by the users to
extend the operating frequency range into the frequency bands" of the CB and
other non-amateur radio services among those devices subject to equipment
authorization procedures. The Notice also stated that the Commission
considers these transceivers as intended to be operated on frequencies where
the use of type accepted equipment is required "because of the simplicity of
modifying them to extend their operating frequency range." The Commission's
Office of General Counsel ("OGC") later released a letter on the importation
and marketing of ARS transmitters, which clarified that such transmitters
that "have a built-in capability to operate on CB frequencies and can easily
be altered to activate that capability, such as by moving or removing a
jumper plug or cutting a single wire" fall within the definition of "CB
transmitter" under Section 95.603(c) of the Rules and therefore require
certification prior to marketing or importation.

From December 9, 2001 through May 6, 2003, the Commission received four
complaints specifically naming Pilot Travel Centers as marketing
non-certified CB transceivers. From August 2001 through September 2002,
Enforcement Bureau field agents visited eleven Pilot retail outlets at the
following locations: Sulphur Springs, Texas; Dallas, Texas; Weatherford,
Texas; Brooks, Oregon; Casa Grande, California; Quartzsite, California;
North Palm Springs, California; North Las Vegas, Nevada; Barstow,
California; Boron, California; and Hesperia, California. At these locations,
the stores displayed and offered for sale various models of non-certified CB
transceivers marketed as ARS transmitters. Prior to the field visits, OET
had tested all of these models and found each of them to be non-certified CB
transceivers.

As a result of agent inspections of Pilot retail stores from December 2,
1999 to September 6, 2002, Enforcement Bureau Field Offices issued nine
Citations to Pilot. The Bureau issued one Citation to Pilot's corporate
headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee, and eight Citations to different Pilot
retail outlets in Brooks, Oregon; Casa Grande, California; Quartzsite,
California; North Palm Springs, California; North Las Vegas, Nevada;
Barstow, California; Boron, California; and Hesperia, California. Each of
these Citations advised Pilot of observed violations of the Commission's
equipment authorization and marketing rules, specifically, marketing
non-certified CB transceivers in violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and
Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. The Citations warned Pilot that future
violations may subject Pilot to civil monetary forfeitures not to exceed
$11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation,
seizure of equipment through in rem forfeiture action, and criminal
sanctions including fines and imprisonment.

On December 7, 2001, the Enforcement Bureau's Dallas Field Office ("Dallas
Office") received from Pilot a response dated December 6, 2001 to the
Citation issued to Pilot's corporate headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee.
The response from Pilot's Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary
stated that "[a]ll of the radios in question are marketed as amateur radios
and, as sold, operate on the 10-meter amateur band. Part 97 of 47 C.F.R.,
not Part 95, governs these transceivers. Part 97 does not require type
acceptance of amateur radios." On January 28, 2002, the Dallas Office mailed
a letter to Pilot's corporate headquarters addressing Pilot's response to
the Citation. The letter advised Pilot that the devices referred to in the
Citation are intended for use on CB as well as ARS frequencies, because they
have built-in design features which facilitate their operation on CB
frequencies by the exercise of simple, end-user accessible, modifications to
the devices. The letter further advised that such devices are considered CB
transmitters pursuant to Section 95.603(c) of the Rules, irrespective of any
labeling purporting the devices to be "Amateur Radio Transceivers." The
Dallas Office received no further response from Pilot. In addition,
Enforcement Bureau Field Offices received five other responses from
Citations issued to Pilot, one response from Pilot's Vice President, General
Counsel, and Secretary and four other responses from a Pilot Paralegal. All
five responses similarly disputed the Commission's statements in the
Citations that Pilot illegally marketed non-certified CB transmitters.
Enforcement Bureau Field Offices issued follow-up responses to each of these
letters advising Pilot that the devices in question are considered CB
transmitters and that marketing of the non-certified devices was not lawful.

Subsequent to issuance of the above-mentioned Citations and follow-up
letters, from December 11, 2003 to July 3, 2004, Enforcement Bureau field
agents made seven visits to Pilot retail stores nationwide where Pilot
offered for sale non-certified models of Galaxy brand CB transceivers. As
noted above, OET had already tested these specific models and determined
them all to be dual use Amateur Radio and CB transmitters. Each of the
models could be modified to allow transmit capabilities on CB frequencies.

On December 16, 17, and 18, 2003, Enforcement Bureau field agents purchased
three Galaxy transceivers (models DX33HML, DX99V and DX66V, respectively)
from three different Pilot retail stores and had them tested by the
laboratory of OET. On April 1, 2004, the laboratory of OET issued an
evaluation report for each of the three purchased transceivers and found
that they were all non-certified CB transmitters.


III. Discussion


Section 302(b) of the Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import,
sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and
systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated
pursuant to this section. Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules provides that:


(a) Except as provided elsewhere in this section, no person shall sell or
lease, or offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease),
or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing or
offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency device unless: (1) [i]n the
case of a device subject to certification, such device has been authorized
by the Commission in accordance with the rules in this chapter and is
properly identified and labeled as required by 2.925 and other relevant
sections in this chapter[.]


Section 95.603(c) of the Rules requires that "[e]ach CB transmitter (a
transmitter that operates or is intended to operate at a station authorized
in the CB) must be certificated." Section 95.655(a) of the Rules states that
"[n]o transmitter will be certificated for use in the CB service if it is
equipped with a frequency capability not [authorized for CB in Part 95 of
the Rules]." This section also states that "([CB t]ransmitters with
frequency capability for the Amateur Radio Services . will not be
certificated.)" Additionally, Section 95.655(c) of the Rules prohibits any
internal or external add-on device that functions to extend the transmitting
frequency capability of a CB transmitter beyond its original capability.

Prior to October 2002, Pilot offered for sale various non-certified CB
transmitters at eleven of its retail outlets. Commission Field Offices
issued a total of nine Citations to Pilot's corporate headquarters and its
retail outlets warning Pilot that future violations would subject Pilot to
penalties including civil monetary forfeitures. Subsequently, in forty-seven
separate instances from October 8, 2002 to July 3, 2004, Pilot offered for
sale various models of non-certified Galaxy brand CB transmitters, which had
all been tested and determined by OET to be non-certified CB transmitters.
Although they were labeled as "amateur radios," the specified models of
Galaxy transmitters are CB transmitters, because each was designed to be
easily modified by the end user to allow operation on CB frequencies.
Additionally, in at least eleven of the forty-seven instances of marketing
by Pilot, Pilot employees referred to the devices as "CB's."

Based on the evidence before us, we find that in thirteen instances -- six
on December 11, 2003, one each on December 16, 17, and 18, 2003, three on
March 25, 2004, and one on July 3, 2004 -- Pilot offered for sale
non-certified CB transmitters in apparent willful and repeated violation of
Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules.

Section 503(b) of the Act, authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture
for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule,
regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In exercising
such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances,
extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the
degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and
such other matters as justice may require."

Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of
Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines
("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base
forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per
violation. Thus, the total base forfeiture amount for all of Pilot's
violations is $91,000.

We are concerned, however, with the pattern of apparent violations here. Our
equipment authorization rules ensure that radio transmitters and other
electronic equipment comply with Commission technical requirements. The
proliferation of non-certified CB transmitters may result in interference to
certified CB transmitters and other devices, thereby undermining the
effectiveness of our technical rules. Furthermore, we have previously stated
that ARS equipment that can be easily modified to extend the operating
frequency range into CB frequency bands are CB transmitters subject to
equipment authorization procedures.

We are particularly troubled that Pilot continues to violate these rules
despite receiving nine Citations for marketing non-certified CB
transmitters. These Citations put Pilot on actual notice that marketing of
this equipment is unlawful, yet Pilot intentionally continued to market the
unlawful equipment. Pilot's continuing violations of the equipment
authorization requirements evince a pattern of intentional non-compliance
with and apparent disregard for these rules. Accordingly, we believe an
upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount is warranted. Applying the
Forfeiture Policy Statement and statutory factors (e.g., nature, extent and
gravity of the violation and the history of prior offenses) to the instant
case, we conclude that it is appropriate to propose a forfeiture of $125,000
for Pilot's apparent violations. Therefore, we find Pilot apparently liable
for a forfeiture in the amount of $125,000.

IV. ordering clauses


Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's
Rules, Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT
LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred and twenty-five
thousand dollars ($125,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section
302(b) of the Act, and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within
thirty days of the release date of this NAL, Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C.
SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture amount or SHALL FILE a
written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
forfeiture.

Payment of the forfeiture may be made by check or similar instrument,
payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment
must include the NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above. Payment by
check or money order may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance
Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois
60673-7482. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Bank One/LB 73482, 525
West Monroe, 8th Floor Mailroom, Chicago, IL 60661. Payment by wire transfer
may be made to ABA Number 071000013, receiving bank Bank One, and account
number 1165259. Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice of
Apparent Liability under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief,
Revenue and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20554.

The response if any must be mailed to Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554,
ATTN: South Central Region Headquarters and must include the NAL/Acct. No.
200532500001.

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 submitted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NAL shall be sent by regular First
Class Mail and by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to: Pilot Travel
Centers L.L.C., 5508 Lonas Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37909.


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION






Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary



ATTACHMENT



December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy models DX99V displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceivers Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceivers Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceivers Galaxy model DX99V displayed and offered for sale.

December 16, 2003, Pilot center #95, Wildwood, Florida. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed, offered for sale, and sold.

8. December 17, 2003, Pilot center #94, Punta, Florida. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX99V displayed, offered for sale, and sold.

9. December 18, 2003, Pilot center #328, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed, offered for sale, and sold.

10. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for
sale.

11. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for
sale.

12. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX99V displayed and offered for
sale.

13. July 3, 2004, Pilot center #35, South Bend, Indiana. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale.



  #2   Report Post  
Old November 23rd 04, 01:48 PM
Psychiatrist to keyclowns
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jerry" wrote in message ...[i]
Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C.

Knoxville, Tennessee
)

)

)

)

)
File No. EB-03-DL-099

NAL/Acct. No. 200532500001

FRN # 0006096010






NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

Adopted: November 18, 2004 Released: November 22, 2004

By the Commission:

I. Introduction


In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find Pilot
Travel Centers, L.L.C. ("Pilot") apparently liable for a forfeiture in the
amount of one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) for willful
and repeated violations of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended ("Act"), and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules
("Rules"). Specifically, we find Pilot apparently liable for offering for
sale radio frequency devices without the required Commission equipment
authorization.


II. background


Section 302 of the Act authorizes the Commission to make reasonable
regulations, consistent with the public interest, governing the interference
potential of equipment that emits radio frequency energy, and prohibits,
inter alia, the offering for sale of radio frequency devices to the extent
such activity does not comply with those regulations. The purpose of this
section is to ensure that radio transmitters and other electronic devices
meet certain standards to control interference before they reach the market.
The Commission carries out its responsibilities under Section 302 in two
ways. First, the Commission establishes technical regulations for
transmitters and other equipment to minimize their potential for causing
interference to radio services. Second, the Commission administers an
equipment authorization program to ensure that equipment reaching the market
complies with the technical requirements. The equipment authorization
program requires that equipment be tested either by the manufacturer or at a
private test laboratory to ensure that it complies with the technical
requirements. For a large number of devices, including Citizens Band ("CB")
radio transmitting equipment, equipment may not be marketed within the
United States unless it has been tested and found to comply with Commission
technical requirements, granted Commission Certification, and properly
labeled. "Marketing" includes the sale or lease, offer for sale or lease
(including advertising for sale or lease), importing, shipping, and/or
distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or
lease.

Unlike CB radio transmitting equipment, radio transmitting equipment that
transmits solely on Amateur Radio Service ("ARS") frequencies is not subject
to equipment authorization requirements prior to manufacture or marketing.
However, some radio transmitters that transmit in a portion of the 10-meter
band of the ARS (28.000 to 29.700 MHz) are equipped with rotary, toggle, or
pushbutton switches mounted externally on the unit, which allow operation in
the CB bands after completion of minor and trivial internal modifications to
the equipment. To address these radios, the Commission adopted changes to
the CB type acceptance requirements by defining a "CB Transmitter" as "a
transmitter that operates or is intended to operate at a station authorized
in the CB."

Despite these changes to the definition of a CB transmitter, Commission
enforcement agents continued to encounter non-certified CB transmitters
marketed as ARS transmitters. On May 13, 1996, the Commission's Office of
Engineering and Technology ("OET") released a Public Notice "to clarify the
Commission's Rules regarding equipment that is intended to operate in
various radio services in the high frequency radio spectrum, including '10-Meter'
Amateur Radio Service (ARS) equipment." The Notice stated that transmitters
intended for operation on non-amateur frequencies must be approved prior to
manufacture, importation or marketing. The Notice specifically included ARS
transceivers designed "such that they can easily be modified by the users to
extend the operating frequency range into the frequency bands" of the CB and
other non-amateur radio services among those devices subject to equipment
authorization procedures. The Notice also stated that the Commission
considers these transceivers as intended to be operated on frequencies where
the use of type accepted equipment is required "because of the simplicity of
modifying them to extend their operating frequency range." The Commission's
Office of General Counsel ("OGC") later released a letter on the importation
and marketing of ARS transmitters, which clarified that such transmitters
that "have a built-in capability to operate on CB frequencies and can easily
be altered to activate that capability, such as by moving or removing a
jumper plug or cutting a single wire" fall within the definition of "CB
transmitter" under Section 95.603(c) of the Rules and therefore require
certification prior to marketing or importation.

From December 9, 2001 through May 6, 2003, the Commission received four
complaints specifically naming Pilot Travel Centers as marketing
non-certified CB transceivers. From August 2001 through September 2002,
Enforcement Bureau field agents visited eleven Pilot retail outlets at the
following locations: Sulphur Springs, Texas; Dallas, Texas; Weatherford,
Texas; Brooks, Oregon; Casa Grande, California; Quartzsite, California;
North Palm Springs, California; North Las Vegas, Nevada; Barstow,
California; Boron, California; and Hesperia, California. At these locations,
the stores displayed and offered for sale various models of non-certified CB
transceivers marketed as ARS transmitters. Prior to the field visits, OET
had tested all of these models and found each of them to be non-certified CB
transceivers.

As a result of agent inspections of Pilot retail stores from December 2,
1999 to September 6, 2002, Enforcement Bureau Field Offices issued nine
Citations to Pilot. The Bureau issued one Citation to Pilot's corporate
headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee, and eight Citations to different Pilot
retail outlets in Brooks, Oregon; Casa Grande, California; Quartzsite,
California; North Palm Springs, California; North Las Vegas, Nevada;
Barstow, California; Boron, California; and Hesperia, California. Each of
these Citations advised Pilot of observed violations of the Commission's
equipment authorization and marketing rules, specifically, marketing
non-certified CB transceivers in violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and
Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. The Citations warned Pilot that future
violations may subject Pilot to civil monetary forfeitures not to exceed
$11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation,
seizure of equipment through in rem forfeiture action, and criminal
sanctions including fines and imprisonment.

On December 7, 2001, the Enforcement Bureau's Dallas Field Office ("Dallas
Office") received from Pilot a response dated December 6, 2001 to the
Citation issued to Pilot's corporate headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee.
The response from Pilot's Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary
stated that "[a]ll of the radios in question are marketed as amateur radios
and, as sold, operate on the 10-meter amateur band. Part 97 of 47 C.F.R.,
not Part 95, governs these transceivers. Part 97 does not require type
acceptance of amateur radios." On January 28, 2002, the Dallas Office mailed
a letter to Pilot's corporate headquarters addressing Pilot's response to
the Citation. The letter advised Pilot that the devices referred to in the
Citation are intended for use on CB as well as ARS frequencies, because they
have built-in design features which facilitate their operation on CB
frequencies by the exercise of simple, end-user accessible, modifications to
the devices. The letter further advised that such devices are considered CB
transmitters pursuant to Section 95.603(c) of the Rules, irrespective of any
labeling purporting the devices to be "Amateur Radio Transceivers." The
Dallas Office received no further response from Pilot. In addition,
Enforcement Bureau Field Offices received five other responses from
Citations issued to Pilot, one response from Pilot's Vice President, General
Counsel, and Secretary and four other responses from a Pilot Paralegal. All
five responses similarly disputed the Commission's statements in the
Citations that Pilot illegally marketed non-certified CB transmitters.
Enforcement Bureau Field Offices issued follow-up responses to each of these
letters advising Pilot that the devices in question are considered CB
transmitters and that marketing of the non-certified devices was not lawful.

Subsequent to issuance of the above-mentioned Citations and follow-up
letters, from December 11, 2003 to July 3, 2004, Enforcement Bureau field
agents made seven visits to Pilot retail stores nationwide where Pilot
offered for sale non-certified models of Galaxy brand CB transceivers. As
noted above, OET had already tested these specific models and determined
them all to be dual use Amateur Radio and CB transmitters. Each of the
models could be modified to allow transmit capabilities on CB frequencies.

On December 16, 17, and 18, 2003, Enforcement Bureau field agents purchased
three Galaxy transceivers (models DX33HML, DX99V and DX66V, respectively)
from three different Pilot retail stores and had them tested by the
laboratory of OET. On April 1, 2004, the laboratory of OET issued an
evaluation report for each of the three purchased transceivers and found
that they were all non-certified CB transmitters.


III. Discussion


Section 302(b) of the Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import,
sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and
systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated
pursuant to this section. Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules provides that:


(a) Except as provided elsewhere in this section, no person shall sell or
lease, or offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease),
or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing or
offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency device unless: (1) n the
case of a device subject to certification, such device has been authorized
by the Commission in accordance with the rules in this chapter and is
properly identified and labeled as required by 2.925 and other relevant
sections in this chapter[.]


Section 95.603(c) of the Rules requires that "[e]ach CB transmitter (a
transmitter that operates or is intended to operate at a station authorized
in the CB) must be certificated." Section 95.655(a) of the Rules states that
"[n]o transmitter will be certificated for use in the CB service if it is
equipped with a frequency capability not [authorized for CB in Part 95 of
the Rules]." This section also states that "([CB t]ransmitters with
frequency capability for the Amateur Radio Services . will not be
certificated.)" Additionally, Section 95.655(c) of the Rules prohibits any
internal or external add-on device that functions to extend the transmitting
frequency capability of a CB transmitter beyond its original capability.

Prior to October 2002, Pilot offered for sale various non-certified CB
transmitters at eleven of its retail outlets. Commission Field Offices
issued a total of nine Citations to Pilot's corporate headquarters and its
retail outlets warning Pilot that future violations would subject Pilot to
penalties including civil monetary forfeitures. Subsequently, in forty-seven
separate instances from October 8, 2002 to July 3, 2004, Pilot offered for
sale various models of non-certified Galaxy brand CB transmitters, which had
all been tested and determined by OET to be non-certified CB transmitters.
Although they were labeled as "amateur radios," the specified models of
Galaxy transmitters are CB transmitters, because each was designed to be
easily modified by the end user to allow operation on CB frequencies.
Additionally, in at least eleven of the forty-seven instances of marketing
by Pilot, Pilot employees referred to the devices as "CB's."

Based on the evidence before us, we find that in thirteen instances -- six
on December 11, 2003, one each on December 16, 17, and 18, 2003, three on
March 25, 2004, and one on July 3, 2004 -- Pilot offered for sale
non-certified CB transmitters in apparent willful and repeated violation of
Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules.

Section 503(b) of the Act, authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture
for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule,
regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In exercising
such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances,
extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the
degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and
such other matters as justice may require."

Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of
Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines
("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base
forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per
violation. Thus, the total base forfeiture amount for all of Pilot's
violations is $91,000.

We are concerned, however, with the pattern of apparent violations here. Our
equipment authorization rules ensure that radio transmitters and other
electronic equipment comply with Commission technical requirements. The
proliferation of non-certified CB transmitters may result in interference to
certified CB transmitters and other devices, thereby undermining the
effectiveness of our technical rules. Furthermore, we have previously stated
that ARS equipment that can be easily modified to extend the operating
frequency range into CB frequency bands are CB transmitters subject to
equipment authorization procedures.

We are particularly troubled that Pilot continues to violate these rules
despite receiving nine Citations for marketing non-certified CB
transmitters. These Citations put Pilot on actual notice that marketing of
this equipment is unlawful, yet Pilot intentionally continued to market the
unlawful equipment. Pilot's continuing violations of the equipment
authorization requirements evince a pattern of intentional non-compliance
with and apparent disregard for these rules. Accordingly, we believe an
upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount is warranted. Applying the
Forfeiture Policy Statement and statutory factors (e.g., nature, extent and
gravity of the violation and the history of prior offenses) to the instant
case, we conclude that it is appropriate to propose a forfeiture of $125,000
for Pilot's apparent violations. Therefore, we find Pilot apparently liable
for a forfeiture in the amount of $125,000.

IV. ordering clauses


Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's
Rules, Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT
LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred and twenty-five
thousand dollars ($125,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section
302(b) of the Act, and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within
thirty days of the release date of this NAL, Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C.
SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture amount or SHALL FILE a
written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
forfeiture.

Payment of the forfeiture may be made by check or similar instrument,
payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment
must include the NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above. Payment by
check or money order may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance
Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois
60673-7482. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Bank One/LB 73482, 525
West Monroe, 8th Floor Mailroom, Chicago, IL 60661. Payment by wire transfer
may be made to ABA Number 071000013, receiving bank Bank One, and account
number 1165259. Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice of
Apparent Liability under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief,
Revenue and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20554.

The response if any must be mailed to Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554,
ATTN: South Central Region Headquarters and must include the NAL/Acct. No.
200532500001.

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 submitted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NAL shall be sent by regular First
Class Mail and by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to: Pilot Travel
Centers L.L.C., 5508 Lonas Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37909.


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION






Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary



ATTACHMENT



December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy models DX99V displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceivers Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceivers Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceivers Galaxy model DX99V displayed and offered for sale.

December 16, 2003, Pilot center #95, Wildwood, Florida. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed, offered for sale, and sold.

8. December 17, 2003, Pilot center #94, Punta, Florida. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX99V displayed, offered for sale, and sold.

9. December 18, 2003, Pilot center #328, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed, offered for sale, and sold.

10. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for
sale.

11. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for
sale.

12. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX99V displayed and offered for
sale.

13. July 3, 2004, Pilot center #35, South Bend, Indiana. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale.


HEHEHEHE...more keyclowns gonna cry now. Doncha love it!
  #3   Report Post  
Old November 23rd 04, 03:44 PM
Twistedhed
 
Posts: n/a
Default

As long as folks like Oxendine continue to accept this as enforcement,
nothing will change. Corporations get popped and pay fines all the time.
It's accepted and often standard business practice in the USA and a
specialty of the right wing. The fine is listed as an expense at tax
time. The large corporations continue to do business as usual while the
feds pacify insignificants with smoke and mirrors (fines). Meanwhile,
the Oxendines of the land are easily fooled. Armed with a false sense
of superiority, Oxendine, in all actuality, is saying,
"Thank-you-sir-my-I-have-another?", when he is unable to grasp exactly
what it is he just received. Cut him some slack. He's in a learning
process.

  #4   Report Post  
Old November 23rd 04, 11:03 PM
Leland C. Scott
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
The large corporations continue to do business as usual while the
feds pacify insignificants with smoke and mirrors (fines).


Except when the "go to jail" part of the penalty comes up for repeated
violations. Also don't overlook that some of those Pilot Travel centers may
be wholly own franchises where the owner has to pay the fine if they get
busted. The real fine is having to go to court to fight the FCC, and that
sounds like what may happen. When it does it could cost them much more than
the $125K fine depending on how far they want to take the fight up the legal
ladder. This would be the case to watch.
--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Wireless Network
Mobile computing
on the go brought
to you by Micro$oft

Meanwhile,
the Oxendines of the land are easily fooled. Armed with a false sense
of superiority, Oxendine, in all actuality, is saying,
"Thank-you-sir-my-I-have-another?", when he is unable to grasp exactly
what it is he just received. Cut him some slack. He's in a learning
process.



  #6   Report Post  
Old November 24th 04, 12:16 AM
U Know Who
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Psychiatrist to keyclowns" wrote in message
om...[i]
"Jerry" wrote in message
...
Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C.

Knoxville, Tennessee
)

)

)

)

)
File No. EB-03-DL-099

NAL/Acct. No. 200532500001

FRN # 0006096010






NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

Adopted: November 18, 2004 Released: November 22, 2004

By the Commission:

I. Introduction


In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
Pilot
Travel Centers, L.L.C. ("Pilot") apparently liable for a forfeiture in
the
amount of one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) for willful
and repeated violations of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of
1934,
as amended ("Act"), and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules
("Rules"). Specifically, we find Pilot apparently liable for offering for
sale radio frequency devices without the required Commission equipment
authorization.


II. background


Section 302 of the Act authorizes the Commission to make reasonable
regulations, consistent with the public interest, governing the
interference
potential of equipment that emits radio frequency energy, and prohibits,
inter alia, the offering for sale of radio frequency devices to the
extent
such activity does not comply with those regulations. The purpose of this
section is to ensure that radio transmitters and other electronic devices
meet certain standards to control interference before they reach the
market.
The Commission carries out its responsibilities under Section 302 in two
ways. First, the Commission establishes technical regulations for
transmitters and other equipment to minimize their potential for causing
interference to radio services. Second, the Commission administers an
equipment authorization program to ensure that equipment reaching the
market
complies with the technical requirements. The equipment authorization
program requires that equipment be tested either by the manufacturer or
at a
private test laboratory to ensure that it complies with the technical
requirements. For a large number of devices, including Citizens Band
("CB")
radio transmitting equipment, equipment may not be marketed within the
United States unless it has been tested and found to comply with
Commission
technical requirements, granted Commission Certification, and properly
labeled. "Marketing" includes the sale or lease, offer for sale or lease
(including advertising for sale or lease), importing, shipping, and/or
distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale
or
lease.

Unlike CB radio transmitting equipment, radio transmitting equipment that
transmits solely on Amateur Radio Service ("ARS") frequencies is not
subject
to equipment authorization requirements prior to manufacture or
marketing.
However, some radio transmitters that transmit in a portion of the
10-meter
band of the ARS (28.000 to 29.700 MHz) are equipped with rotary, toggle,
or
pushbutton switches mounted externally on the unit, which allow operation
in
the CB bands after completion of minor and trivial internal modifications
to
the equipment. To address these radios, the Commission adopted changes to
the CB type acceptance requirements by defining a "CB Transmitter" as "a
transmitter that operates or is intended to operate at a station
authorized
in the CB."

Despite these changes to the definition of a CB transmitter, Commission
enforcement agents continued to encounter non-certified CB transmitters
marketed as ARS transmitters. On May 13, 1996, the Commission's Office of
Engineering and Technology ("OET") released a Public Notice "to clarify
the
Commission's Rules regarding equipment that is intended to operate in
various radio services in the high frequency radio spectrum, including
'10-Meter'
Amateur Radio Service (ARS) equipment." The Notice stated that
transmitters
intended for operation on non-amateur frequencies must be approved prior
to
manufacture, importation or marketing. The Notice specifically included
ARS
transceivers designed "such that they can easily be modified by the users
to
extend the operating frequency range into the frequency bands" of the CB
and
other non-amateur radio services among those devices subject to equipment
authorization procedures. The Notice also stated that the Commission
considers these transceivers as intended to be operated on frequencies
where
the use of type accepted equipment is required "because of the simplicity
of
modifying them to extend their operating frequency range." The
Commission's
Office of General Counsel ("OGC") later released a letter on the
importation
and marketing of ARS transmitters, which clarified that such transmitters
that "have a built-in capability to operate on CB frequencies and can
easily
be altered to activate that capability, such as by moving or removing a
jumper plug or cutting a single wire" fall within the definition of "CB
transmitter" under Section 95.603(c) of the Rules and therefore require
certification prior to marketing or importation.

From December 9, 2001 through May 6, 2003, the Commission received four
complaints specifically naming Pilot Travel Centers as marketing
non-certified CB transceivers. From August 2001 through September 2002,
Enforcement Bureau field agents visited eleven Pilot retail outlets at
the
following locations: Sulphur Springs, Texas; Dallas, Texas; Weatherford,
Texas; Brooks, Oregon; Casa Grande, California; Quartzsite, California;
North Palm Springs, California; North Las Vegas, Nevada; Barstow,
California; Boron, California; and Hesperia, California. At these
locations,
the stores displayed and offered for sale various models of non-certified
CB
transceivers marketed as ARS transmitters. Prior to the field visits, OET
had tested all of these models and found each of them to be non-certified
CB
transceivers.

As a result of agent inspections of Pilot retail stores from December 2,
1999 to September 6, 2002, Enforcement Bureau Field Offices issued nine
Citations to Pilot. The Bureau issued one Citation to Pilot's corporate
headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee, and eight Citations to different
Pilot
retail outlets in Brooks, Oregon; Casa Grande, California; Quartzsite,
California; North Palm Springs, California; North Las Vegas, Nevada;
Barstow, California; Boron, California; and Hesperia, California. Each of
these Citations advised Pilot of observed violations of the Commission's
equipment authorization and marketing rules, specifically, marketing
non-certified CB transceivers in violation of Section 302(b) of the Act
and
Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. The Citations warned Pilot that future
violations may subject Pilot to civil monetary forfeitures not to exceed
$11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation,
seizure of equipment through in rem forfeiture action, and criminal
sanctions including fines and imprisonment.

On December 7, 2001, the Enforcement Bureau's Dallas Field Office
("Dallas
Office") received from Pilot a response dated December 6, 2001 to the
Citation issued to Pilot's corporate headquarters in Knoxville,
Tennessee.
The response from Pilot's Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary
stated that "[a]ll of the radios in question are marketed as amateur
radios
and, as sold, operate on the 10-meter amateur band. Part 97 of 47 C.F.R.,
not Part 95, governs these transceivers. Part 97 does not require type
acceptance of amateur radios." On January 28, 2002, the Dallas Office
mailed
a letter to Pilot's corporate headquarters addressing Pilot's response to
the Citation. The letter advised Pilot that the devices referred to in
the
Citation are intended for use on CB as well as ARS frequencies, because
they
have built-in design features which facilitate their operation on CB
frequencies by the exercise of simple, end-user accessible, modifications
to
the devices. The letter further advised that such devices are considered
CB
transmitters pursuant to Section 95.603(c) of the Rules, irrespective of
any
labeling purporting the devices to be "Amateur Radio Transceivers." The
Dallas Office received no further response from Pilot. In addition,
Enforcement Bureau Field Offices received five other responses from
Citations issued to Pilot, one response from Pilot's Vice President,
General
Counsel, and Secretary and four other responses from a Pilot Paralegal.
All
five responses similarly disputed the Commission's statements in the
Citations that Pilot illegally marketed non-certified CB transmitters.
Enforcement Bureau Field Offices issued follow-up responses to each of
these
letters advising Pilot that the devices in question are considered CB
transmitters and that marketing of the non-certified devices was not
lawful.

Subsequent to issuance of the above-mentioned Citations and follow-up
letters, from December 11, 2003 to July 3, 2004, Enforcement Bureau field
agents made seven visits to Pilot retail stores nationwide where Pilot
offered for sale non-certified models of Galaxy brand CB transceivers. As
noted above, OET had already tested these specific models and determined
them all to be dual use Amateur Radio and CB transmitters. Each of the
models could be modified to allow transmit capabilities on CB
frequencies.

On December 16, 17, and 18, 2003, Enforcement Bureau field agents
purchased
three Galaxy transceivers (models DX33HML, DX99V and DX66V, respectively)
from three different Pilot retail stores and had them tested by the
laboratory of OET. On April 1, 2004, the laboratory of OET issued an
evaluation report for each of the three purchased transceivers and found
that they were all non-certified CB transmitters.


III. Discussion


Section 302(b) of the Act provides that no person shall manufacture,
import,
sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and
systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations
promulgated
pursuant to this section. Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules provides that:


(a) Except as provided elsewhere in this section, no person shall sell or
lease, or offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or
lease),
or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing or
offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency device unless: (1) n
the
case of a device subject to certification, such device has been
authorized
by the Commission in accordance with the rules in this chapter and is
properly identified and labeled as required by 2.925 and other relevant
sections in this chapter[.]


Section 95.603(c) of the Rules requires that "[e]ach CB transmitter (a
transmitter that operates or is intended to operate at a station
authorized
in the CB) must be certificated." Section 95.655(a) of the Rules states
that
"[n]o transmitter will be certificated for use in the CB service if it is
equipped with a frequency capability not [authorized for CB in Part 95 of
the Rules]." This section also states that "([CB t]ransmitters with
frequency capability for the Amateur Radio Services . will not be
certificated.)" Additionally, Section 95.655(c) of the Rules prohibits
any
internal or external add-on device that functions to extend the
transmitting
frequency capability of a CB transmitter beyond its original capability.

Prior to October 2002, Pilot offered for sale various non-certified CB
transmitters at eleven of its retail outlets. Commission Field Offices
issued a total of nine Citations to Pilot's corporate headquarters and
its
retail outlets warning Pilot that future violations would subject Pilot
to
penalties including civil monetary forfeitures. Subsequently, in
forty-seven
separate instances from October 8, 2002 to July 3, 2004, Pilot offered
for
sale various models of non-certified Galaxy brand CB transmitters, which
had
all been tested and determined by OET to be non-certified CB
transmitters.
Although they were labeled as "amateur radios," the specified models of
Galaxy transmitters are CB transmitters, because each was designed to be
easily modified by the end user to allow operation on CB frequencies.
Additionally, in at least eleven of the forty-seven instances of
marketing
by Pilot, Pilot employees referred to the devices as "CB's."

Based on the evidence before us, we find that in thirteen instances --
six
on December 11, 2003, one each on December 16, 17, and 18, 2003, three on
March 25, 2004, and one on July 3, 2004 -- Pilot offered for sale
non-certified CB transmitters in apparent willful and repeated violation
of
Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules.

Section 503(b) of the Act, authorizes the Commission to assess a
forfeiture
for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule,
regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In
exercising
such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances,
extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator,
the
degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and
such other matters as justice may require."

Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of
Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines
("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base
forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per
violation. Thus, the total base forfeiture amount for all of Pilot's
violations is $91,000.

We are concerned, however, with the pattern of apparent violations here.
Our
equipment authorization rules ensure that radio transmitters and other
electronic equipment comply with Commission technical requirements. The
proliferation of non-certified CB transmitters may result in interference
to
certified CB transmitters and other devices, thereby undermining the
effectiveness of our technical rules. Furthermore, we have previously
stated
that ARS equipment that can be easily modified to extend the operating
frequency range into CB frequency bands are CB transmitters subject to
equipment authorization procedures.

We are particularly troubled that Pilot continues to violate these rules
despite receiving nine Citations for marketing non-certified CB
transmitters. These Citations put Pilot on actual notice that marketing
of
this equipment is unlawful, yet Pilot intentionally continued to market
the
unlawful equipment. Pilot's continuing violations of the equipment
authorization requirements evince a pattern of intentional non-compliance
with and apparent disregard for these rules. Accordingly, we believe an
upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount is warranted. Applying
the
Forfeiture Policy Statement and statutory factors (e.g., nature, extent
and
gravity of the violation and the history of prior offenses) to the
instant
case, we conclude that it is appropriate to propose a forfeiture of
$125,000
for Pilot's apparent violations. Therefore, we find Pilot apparently
liable
for a forfeiture in the amount of $125,000.

IV. ordering clauses


Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the
Commission's
Rules, Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT
LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred and twenty-five
thousand dollars ($125,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating
Section
302(b) of the Act, and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within
thirty days of the release date of this NAL, Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C.
SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture amount or SHALL FILE
a
written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
forfeiture.

Payment of the forfeiture may be made by check or similar instrument,
payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The
payment
must include the NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above. Payment by
check or money order may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section,
Finance
Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago,
Illinois
60673-7482. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Bank One/LB 73482,
525
West Monroe, 8th Floor Mailroom, Chicago, IL 60661. Payment by wire
transfer
may be made to ABA Number 071000013, receiving bank Bank One, and account
number 1165259. Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice of
Apparent Liability under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief,
Revenue and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
Washington,
D.C. 20554.

The response if any must be mailed to Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554,
ATTN: South Central Region Headquarters and must include the NAL/Acct.
No.
200532500001.

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 submitted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NAL shall be sent by regular
First
Class Mail and by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to: Pilot
Travel
Centers L.L.C., 5508 Lonas Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37909.


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION






Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary



ATTACHMENT



December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy models DX99V displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceivers Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceivers Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceivers Galaxy model DX99V displayed and offered for sale.

December 16, 2003, Pilot center #95, Wildwood, Florida. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed, offered for sale, and sold.

8. December 17, 2003, Pilot center #94, Punta, Florida. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX99V displayed, offered for sale, and sold.

9. December 18, 2003, Pilot center #328, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed, offered for sale, and sold.

10. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered
for
sale.

11. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for
sale.

12. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX99V displayed and offered for
sale.

13. July 3, 2004, Pilot center #35, South Bend, Indiana. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale.


HEHEHEHE...more keyclowns gonna cry now. Doncha love it!


Betcha slapped your little dinky while reading it too.


  #8   Report Post  
Old November 24th 04, 12:31 AM
Steveo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
No twisted ****ehad this is another step in ridding the truckers and
others of export radios. amp makers will be next, rome wasnt built in one
day

Can ya pry them from cold dead fingers too?
  #9   Report Post  
Old November 24th 04, 12:32 AM
Steveo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
The large corporations continue to do business as usual while the
feds pacify insignificants with smoke and mirrors (fines).


Except when the "go to jail" part of the penalty comes up for repeated
violations. Also don't overlook that some of those Pilot Travel centers
may be wholly own franchises where the owner has to pay the fine if they
get busted. The real fine is having to go to court to fight the FCC, and
that sounds like what may happen. When it does it could cost them much
more than the $125K fine depending on how far they want to take the fight
up the legal ladder. This would be the case to watch.

I think you can bankrupt on that one.
  #10   Report Post  
Old November 24th 04, 12:34 AM
Lancer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:16:20 GMT, "U Know Who"
wrote:
[i]

"Psychiatrist to keyclowns" wrote in message
. com...
"Jerry" wrote in message
...
Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C.

Knoxville, Tennessee
)

)

)

)

)
File No. EB-03-DL-099

NAL/Acct. No. 200532500001

FRN # 0006096010






NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

Adopted: November 18, 2004 Released: November 22, 2004

By the Commission:

I. Introduction


In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
Pilot
Travel Centers, L.L.C. ("Pilot") apparently liable for a forfeiture in
the
amount of one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) for willful
and repeated violations of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of
1934,
as amended ("Act"), and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules
("Rules"). Specifically, we find Pilot apparently liable for offering for
sale radio frequency devices without the required Commission equipment
authorization.


II. background


Section 302 of the Act authorizes the Commission to make reasonable
regulations, consistent with the public interest, governing the
interference
potential of equipment that emits radio frequency energy, and prohibits,
inter alia, the offering for sale of radio frequency devices to the
extent
such activity does not comply with those regulations. The purpose of this
section is to ensure that radio transmitters and other electronic devices
meet certain standards to control interference before they reach the
market.
The Commission carries out its responsibilities under Section 302 in two
ways. First, the Commission establishes technical regulations for
transmitters and other equipment to minimize their potential for causing
interference to radio services. Second, the Commission administers an
equipment authorization program to ensure that equipment reaching the
market
complies with the technical requirements. The equipment authorization
program requires that equipment be tested either by the manufacturer or
at a
private test laboratory to ensure that it complies with the technical
requirements. For a large number of devices, including Citizens Band
("CB")
radio transmitting equipment, equipment may not be marketed within the
United States unless it has been tested and found to comply with
Commission
technical requirements, granted Commission Certification, and properly
labeled. "Marketing" includes the sale or lease, offer for sale or lease
(including advertising for sale or lease), importing, shipping, and/or
distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale
or
lease.

Unlike CB radio transmitting equipment, radio transmitting equipment that
transmits solely on Amateur Radio Service ("ARS") frequencies is not
subject
to equipment authorization requirements prior to manufacture or
marketing.
However, some radio transmitters that transmit in a portion of the
10-meter
band of the ARS (28.000 to 29.700 MHz) are equipped with rotary, toggle,
or
pushbutton switches mounted externally on the unit, which allow operation
in
the CB bands after completion of minor and trivial internal modifications
to
the equipment. To address these radios, the Commission adopted changes to
the CB type acceptance requirements by defining a "CB Transmitter" as "a
transmitter that operates or is intended to operate at a station
authorized
in the CB."

Despite these changes to the definition of a CB transmitter, Commission
enforcement agents continued to encounter non-certified CB transmitters
marketed as ARS transmitters. On May 13, 1996, the Commission's Office of
Engineering and Technology ("OET") released a Public Notice "to clarify
the
Commission's Rules regarding equipment that is intended to operate in
various radio services in the high frequency radio spectrum, including
'10-Meter'
Amateur Radio Service (ARS) equipment." The Notice stated that
transmitters
intended for operation on non-amateur frequencies must be approved prior
to
manufacture, importation or marketing. The Notice specifically included
ARS
transceivers designed "such that they can easily be modified by the users
to
extend the operating frequency range into the frequency bands" of the CB
and
other non-amateur radio services among those devices subject to equipment
authorization procedures. The Notice also stated that the Commission
considers these transceivers as intended to be operated on frequencies
where
the use of type accepted equipment is required "because of the simplicity
of
modifying them to extend their operating frequency range." The
Commission's
Office of General Counsel ("OGC") later released a letter on the
importation
and marketing of ARS transmitters, which clarified that such transmitters
that "have a built-in capability to operate on CB frequencies and can
easily
be altered to activate that capability, such as by moving or removing a
jumper plug or cutting a single wire" fall within the definition of "CB
transmitter" under Section 95.603(c) of the Rules and therefore require
certification prior to marketing or importation.

From December 9, 2001 through May 6, 2003, the Commission received four
complaints specifically naming Pilot Travel Centers as marketing
non-certified CB transceivers. From August 2001 through September 2002,
Enforcement Bureau field agents visited eleven Pilot retail outlets at
the
following locations: Sulphur Springs, Texas; Dallas, Texas; Weatherford,
Texas; Brooks, Oregon; Casa Grande, California; Quartzsite, California;
North Palm Springs, California; North Las Vegas, Nevada; Barstow,
California; Boron, California; and Hesperia, California. At these
locations,
the stores displayed and offered for sale various models of non-certified
CB
transceivers marketed as ARS transmitters. Prior to the field visits, OET
had tested all of these models and found each of them to be non-certified
CB
transceivers.

As a result of agent inspections of Pilot retail stores from December 2,
1999 to September 6, 2002, Enforcement Bureau Field Offices issued nine
Citations to Pilot. The Bureau issued one Citation to Pilot's corporate
headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee, and eight Citations to different
Pilot
retail outlets in Brooks, Oregon; Casa Grande, California; Quartzsite,
California; North Palm Springs, California; North Las Vegas, Nevada;
Barstow, California; Boron, California; and Hesperia, California. Each of
these Citations advised Pilot of observed violations of the Commission's
equipment authorization and marketing rules, specifically, marketing
non-certified CB transceivers in violation of Section 302(b) of the Act
and
Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. The Citations warned Pilot that future
violations may subject Pilot to civil monetary forfeitures not to exceed
$11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation,
seizure of equipment through in rem forfeiture action, and criminal
sanctions including fines and imprisonment.

On December 7, 2001, the Enforcement Bureau's Dallas Field Office
("Dallas
Office") received from Pilot a response dated December 6, 2001 to the
Citation issued to Pilot's corporate headquarters in Knoxville,
Tennessee.
The response from Pilot's Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary
stated that "[a]ll of the radios in question are marketed as amateur
radios
and, as sold, operate on the 10-meter amateur band. Part 97 of 47 C.F.R.,
not Part 95, governs these transceivers. Part 97 does not require type
acceptance of amateur radios." On January 28, 2002, the Dallas Office
mailed
a letter to Pilot's corporate headquarters addressing Pilot's response to
the Citation. The letter advised Pilot that the devices referred to in
the
Citation are intended for use on CB as well as ARS frequencies, because
they
have built-in design features which facilitate their operation on CB
frequencies by the exercise of simple, end-user accessible, modifications
to
the devices. The letter further advised that such devices are considered
CB
transmitters pursuant to Section 95.603(c) of the Rules, irrespective of
any
labeling purporting the devices to be "Amateur Radio Transceivers." The
Dallas Office received no further response from Pilot. In addition,
Enforcement Bureau Field Offices received five other responses from
Citations issued to Pilot, one response from Pilot's Vice President,
General
Counsel, and Secretary and four other responses from a Pilot Paralegal.
All
five responses similarly disputed the Commission's statements in the
Citations that Pilot illegally marketed non-certified CB transmitters.
Enforcement Bureau Field Offices issued follow-up responses to each of
these
letters advising Pilot that the devices in question are considered CB
transmitters and that marketing of the non-certified devices was not
lawful.

Subsequent to issuance of the above-mentioned Citations and follow-up
letters, from December 11, 2003 to July 3, 2004, Enforcement Bureau field
agents made seven visits to Pilot retail stores nationwide where Pilot
offered for sale non-certified models of Galaxy brand CB transceivers. As
noted above, OET had already tested these specific models and determined
them all to be dual use Amateur Radio and CB transmitters. Each of the
models could be modified to allow transmit capabilities on CB
frequencies.

On December 16, 17, and 18, 2003, Enforcement Bureau field agents
purchased
three Galaxy transceivers (models DX33HML, DX99V and DX66V, respectively)
from three different Pilot retail stores and had them tested by the
laboratory of OET. On April 1, 2004, the laboratory of OET issued an
evaluation report for each of the three purchased transceivers and found
that they were all non-certified CB transmitters.


III. Discussion


Section 302(b) of the Act provides that no person shall manufacture,
import,
sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and
systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations
promulgated
pursuant to this section. Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules provides that:


(a) Except as provided elsewhere in this section, no person shall sell or
lease, or offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or
lease),
or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing or
offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency device unless: (1) n
the
case of a device subject to certification, such device has been
authorized
by the Commission in accordance with the rules in this chapter and is
properly identified and labeled as required by 2.925 and other relevant
sections in this chapter[.]


Section 95.603(c) of the Rules requires that "[e]ach CB transmitter (a
transmitter that operates or is intended to operate at a station
authorized
in the CB) must be certificated." Section 95.655(a) of the Rules states
that
"[n]o transmitter will be certificated for use in the CB service if it is
equipped with a frequency capability not [authorized for CB in Part 95 of
the Rules]." This section also states that "([CB t]ransmitters with
frequency capability for the Amateur Radio Services . will not be
certificated.)" Additionally, Section 95.655(c) of the Rules prohibits
any
internal or external add-on device that functions to extend the
transmitting
frequency capability of a CB transmitter beyond its original capability.

Prior to October 2002, Pilot offered for sale various non-certified CB
transmitters at eleven of its retail outlets. Commission Field Offices
issued a total of nine Citations to Pilot's corporate headquarters and
its
retail outlets warning Pilot that future violations would subject Pilot
to
penalties including civil monetary forfeitures. Subsequently, in
forty-seven
separate instances from October 8, 2002 to July 3, 2004, Pilot offered
for
sale various models of non-certified Galaxy brand CB transmitters, which
had
all been tested and determined by OET to be non-certified CB
transmitters.
Although they were labeled as "amateur radios," the specified models of
Galaxy transmitters are CB transmitters, because each was designed to be
easily modified by the end user to allow operation on CB frequencies.
Additionally, in at least eleven of the forty-seven instances of
marketing
by Pilot, Pilot employees referred to the devices as "CB's."

Based on the evidence before us, we find that in thirteen instances --
six
on December 11, 2003, one each on December 16, 17, and 18, 2003, three on
March 25, 2004, and one on July 3, 2004 -- Pilot offered for sale
non-certified CB transmitters in apparent willful and repeated violation
of
Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules.

Section 503(b) of the Act, authorizes the Commission to assess a
forfeiture
for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule,
regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In
exercising
such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances,
extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator,
the
degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and
such other matters as justice may require."

Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of
Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines
("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base
forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per
violation. Thus, the total base forfeiture amount for all of Pilot's
violations is $91,000.

We are concerned, however, with the pattern of apparent violations here.
Our
equipment authorization rules ensure that radio transmitters and other
electronic equipment comply with Commission technical requirements. The
proliferation of non-certified CB transmitters may result in interference
to
certified CB transmitters and other devices, thereby undermining the
effectiveness of our technical rules. Furthermore, we have previously
stated
that ARS equipment that can be easily modified to extend the operating
frequency range into CB frequency bands are CB transmitters subject to
equipment authorization procedures.

We are particularly troubled that Pilot continues to violate these rules
despite receiving nine Citations for marketing non-certified CB
transmitters. These Citations put Pilot on actual notice that marketing
of
this equipment is unlawful, yet Pilot intentionally continued to market
the
unlawful equipment. Pilot's continuing violations of the equipment
authorization requirements evince a pattern of intentional non-compliance
with and apparent disregard for these rules. Accordingly, we believe an
upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount is warranted. Applying
the
Forfeiture Policy Statement and statutory factors (e.g., nature, extent
and
gravity of the violation and the history of prior offenses) to the
instant
case, we conclude that it is appropriate to propose a forfeiture of
$125,000
for Pilot's apparent violations. Therefore, we find Pilot apparently
liable
for a forfeiture in the amount of $125,000.

IV. ordering clauses


Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the
Commission's
Rules, Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT
LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred and twenty-five
thousand dollars ($125,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating
Section
302(b) of the Act, and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within
thirty days of the release date of this NAL, Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C.
SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture amount or SHALL FILE
a
written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
forfeiture.

Payment of the forfeiture may be made by check or similar instrument,
payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The
payment
must include the NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above. Payment by
check or money order may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section,
Finance
Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago,
Illinois
60673-7482. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Bank One/LB 73482,
525
West Monroe, 8th Floor Mailroom, Chicago, IL 60661. Payment by wire
transfer
may be made to ABA Number 071000013, receiving bank Bank One, and account
number 1165259. Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice of
Apparent Liability under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief,
Revenue and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
Washington,
D.C. 20554.

The response if any must be mailed to Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554,
ATTN: South Central Region Headquarters and must include the NAL/Acct.
No.
200532500001.

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 submitted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NAL shall be sent by regular
First
Class Mail and by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to: Pilot
Travel
Centers L.L.C., 5508 Lonas Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37909.


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION






Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary



ATTACHMENT



December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy models DX99V displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceivers Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceivers Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale.

December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceivers Galaxy model DX99V displayed and offered for sale.

December 16, 2003, Pilot center #95, Wildwood, Florida. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed, offered for sale, and sold.

8. December 17, 2003, Pilot center #94, Punta, Florida. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX99V displayed, offered for sale, and sold.

9. December 18, 2003, Pilot center #328, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed, offered for sale, and sold.

10. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered
for
sale.

11. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for
sale.

12. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX99V displayed and offered for
sale.

13. July 3, 2004, Pilot center #35, South Bend, Indiana. Non-certified CB
transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale.


HEHEHEHE...more keyclowns gonna cry now. Doncha love it!


Betcha slapped your little dinky while reading it too.


He might slap it more if he knew that Pilots were still selling those
radios. HEHEHEHE..


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
'keyclowns' prevail! Dave Policy 2 December 5th 04 12:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017