Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of Tommie Salter Jacksonville, Florida ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File
Number EB-03-TP-191 NAL/Acct. No. 200532700002 FRN 0011485604


FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted: December 22, 2004
Released: December 27, 2004

By the Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I. introduction
In this Forfeiture Order (“Order�), we issue a monetary forfeiture in the
amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to Tommie Salter for willful violation
of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Act�). The
noted violation involves Mr. Salter’s operation of a citizens band radio
station without Commission authorization.
II. background
In response to complaints of interference, on March 18, 2004, an Official
Notice was sent certified and regular mail to Mr. Salter, restricting the hours
of operation for his citizens band (“CB�) radio station (“March 18th
Official Notice�). On May 5, 2004, an Official Notice was sent to Mr. Salter
advising him that he could resume normal operation of his CB radio station as
long as he operated in full compliance with the Commission’s Rules. In July
2004, the Enforcement Bureau received several interference complaints regarding
Mr. Salter’s CB radio station. In response to these complaints, another
Official Notice was sent certified mail on July 15, 2004 to Mr. Salter, once
again restricting his hours of operation (“July 15th Official Notice�).
Specifically, Mr. Salter was restricted from operating between 6 a.m. and 11:59
p.m. On July 23, 2004, a certified mail return receipt was received at the
Commission’s Tampa Office of the Enforcement Bureau (“Tampa Office�),
which indicated that the July 15th Official Notice was received at Mr.
Salter’s residence.
On August 10, 2004, agents from the Tampa Office located the source of a CB
radio transmission to Mr. Salter’s residence at 9:59 a.m. The agents then
inspected Mr. Salter’s CB radio station. The agents observed that Mr. Salter
was operating a CB transmitter that was not FCC certificated for CB radio use.
The agents warned him that such operation was in violation of Section 95.409(a)
of the Commission’s Rules (“Rules�).
On October 18, 2004, the Tampa Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture to Mr. Salter in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for
the apparent willful violation of Section 301 of the Act. In his response, Mr.
Salter requests cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, because he did not
intend to violate the Rules and has not demonstrated a pattern of
non-compliance. Mr. Salter admits that the July 15th Official Notice was
delivered to his residence and signed for by a family member, but states he did
not read it. He claims the July 15th Official Notice “wound up in his ‘FCC
file’ unread.� He asserts he would have complied with the July 15th
Official Notice, if he had read it, as he complied with the March 18th Official
Notice. He also states he did not appreciate that use of non-certificated
transmitters violated the Rules.
III. discussion
The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with
Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules
(“Rules�), and The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment
of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC
Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (“Forfeiture Policy
Statement�). In examining Mr. Salter’s response, Section 503(b) of the Act
requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances,
extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the
degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other
such matters as justice may require.
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 except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license.
Pursuant to Section 95.404 of the Rules, individual licenses are not required
to operate CB radio stations. Individuals, however, are only authorized to
operate their CB radio stations in accordance with the Rules. Section 95.409
of the Rules states that individuals may only use FCC certificated CB
transmitters at their stations. Mr. Salter essentially argues that his
violation was not willful, because he did not read the July 15th Official
Notice and did not know that his hours were restricted. He also argues that
his violation was not willful, because he did not know that it was unlawful to
use a non-certificated transmitter. For a violation to be willful, it must be
committed consciously and deliberately, irrespective of any intent to violate
the Rules. Mr. Salter admits that he operated his non-certificated CB
transmitter at his CB station at 9:59 a.m. on August 10, 2004. He was placed
on restricted hours when the July 15th Official Notice was received at his
residence. It is irrelevant whether Mr. Salter knew he was violating the Rules,
when he violated them. It is also irrelevant whether Mr. Salter violated other
Rules in the past. Because Mr. Salter operated his CB station in a manner
inconsistent with the Rules, he was not authorized pursuant to Section 95.404
to operate his CB station. Thus, based on the evidence, we find that Mr.
Salter willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a CB radio
station without the required authorization from the Commission on August 10,
2004.
Although Mr. Salter asserted he could never pay the proposed fine given his
fixed Social Security income, he did not provide his tax returns, or any other
documentation, as set forth in paragraph 15 of the NAL. Any claim of inability
to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the
financial documentation submitted. Accordingly, there is no basis to cancel
the assessed forfeiture amount due to inability to pay.
We have examined Mr. Salter’s response to the NAL pursuant to the statutory
factors above, and in conjunction with the Forfeiture Policy Statement. As a
result of our review, we conclude that Mr. Salter willfully violated Section
301 of the Act. We find no basis for cancellation or reduction of the $10,000
forfeiture proposed for this violation.
IV. ordering clauses
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and
1.80(f)(4) of the Commission’s Rules, Tommie Salter IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY
FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for willfully
violating Section 301 of the Act.
Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section
1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to
the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.
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. The payment should note NAL/Acct. No.
200532700002, and FRN 0011485604. Requests for full payment under an
installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables Group, 445
12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class
and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Tommie Salter, 3551 Dawson
Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32209 and Donald E. Pinaud, Jr., 4069 Atlantic
Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida 32207.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



George R. Dillon
Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau

HPDSCTraining wrote:

Subject: FCC fines CBer $10K even though no license needed
From:

Did you read the letter? It sounds like dude built his own transmitter, and for
whatever reason someone didnt like it (interfered with their TV during
Survivor?) and complained. I didnt know you had to use a licensed transmitter
either.

Not 'licensed' but 'type accepted' by the FCC for use on CB.

Of course, no license is needed.

(Most mysteries are easily solved)

dxAce
Michigan
USA


We used to have problems in my area with a guy that had a CB and a 1500watt
amp. He lived just down the block, and the RF was so strong, you could unplug
the stereo from the wall, and still here the guy faintly through the stereo
speakers. He messed up TV reception and cordless phones, and forget listening
to shortwave. No one called the FCC though. A neighbor who knew a bit about CB
ran a big safety pin through his antenna coax one evening while the guy was at
work. He got the hint and switched to a 200 watt amp, after his 1500 watt tube
job burned out, which didnt bother the rest of us at all.

You don't have to have a license or licensed transmitter. It must, however,
be FCC type accepted. "Converted" 10 meter radios (which seem to be the
thing these days) are not type accepted for CB use. If you have a legal CB
radio and do any modifications to it, it is no longer type accepted and is
illegal to use.

"HPDSCTraining" wrote in message
...
Subject: FCC fines CBer $10K even though no license needed
From:

Did you read the letter? It sounds like dude built his own transmitter,
and for
whatever reason someone didnt like it (interfered with their TV during
Survivor?) and complained. I didnt know you had to use a licensed
transmitter
either.
We used to have problems in my area with a guy that had a CB and a
1500watt
amp. He lived just down the block, and the RF was so strong, you could
unplug
the stereo from the wall, and still here the guy faintly through the
stereo
speakers. He messed up TV reception and cordless phones, and forget
listening
to shortwave. No one called the FCC though. A neighbor who knew a bit
about CB
ran a big safety pin through his antenna coax one evening while the guy
was at
work. He got the hint and switched to a 200 watt amp, after his 1500 watt
tube
job burned out, which didnt bother the rest of us at all.