PDA

View Full Version : KA6VHC


K3VR
03-01-2007, 08:14 PM
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of Daniel Granda
File No. EB-03-LA-050
File No. EB-2002-347
Licensee of Amateur Station KA6VHC
NAL/Acct. No. 200432900001 # #
Whittier, California #
FRN: 0008889461


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted: #February 27, 2007
Released: #March 1, 2007

By the Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order (“Order”), we grant, to the extent indicated herein, a petition for reconsideration (“petition”) filed by Mr. Daniel Granda (“Mr. Granda”), licensee of amateur radio station, call sign KA6VHC, Whittier, California. #Mr. Granda seeks reconsideration of a Forfeiture Order in which the Enforcement Bureau (“Bureau”) found Mr. Granda liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) for willful and repeated violation of Sections 308(b) and 333 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”), and Sections 97.101(b) and 97.101(d) of the Commission’s Rules (“Rules”). #The noted violations involve
Mr. Granda’s failure to respond to official Commission correspondence and his intentional interference to amateur radio communications. #For the reasons discussed below, we reduce the forfeiture amount to two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500).

II. BACKGROUND

2. In response to complaints of interference from his amateur station, the Bureau issued official Warning Notices to Mr. Granda on three separate dates (December 4, 2002, January 7, 2003 and January 13, 2003). #In all three cases, Mr. Granda failed to respond to the Warning Notices. #On several occasions beginning on March 6, 2003 through April 14, 2003, the Commission’s Los Angeles, California Field Office (“Los Angeles Office”) used direction finding equipment and techniques to determine that the operation of Mr. Granda’s amateur station, KA6VHC, resulted in interference to amateur radio communications. #Moreover, during an inspection of KA6VHC on April 15, 2003, Mr. Granda admitted to an agent of the Los Angeles Office that he operated his station in a manner to gain exclusive use of an amateur frequency. #The day after the inspection, April 16, 2003, the Los Angeles Office established that Mr. Granda’s station continued to be a source of interference to amateur communications.

3. On March 31, 2004, the District Director of the Los Angeles Office issued to Mr. Granda a Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”) in the amount of $11,000 for apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 308(b) and 333 of the Act and Sections 97.101(b) and 97.101(d) of the Rules. #Mr. Granda did not file a response to the NAL, and on July 9, 2004, the Bureau released a Forfeiture Order affirming the NAL. #Mr. Granda filed a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order on August 9, 2004, requesting cancellation of the forfeiture. #In his petition, Mr. Granda does not dispute our finding that he caused deliberate interference to amateur radio communications nor does he deny his failure to respond to official Commission correspondence. #He does contend, however, that imposition of the full forfeiture amount would impose a financial hardship on him and his spouse. #In support of his inability to pay claim, Mr. Granda submitted federal tax returns for the relevant three year period. #

III. DISCUSSION

4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act , and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. #In examining Mr. Granda’s petition, 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 any other such matters as justice may require. #

5. In analyzing a financial hardship claim, the Commission generally has looked to gross revenues as a reasonable and appropriate yardstick in determining whether a licensee is able to pay the assessed forfeiture. #While we find that Mr. Granda willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 308(b) and 333 of the Act and Sections 97.101(b) and 97.101(d) of the Rules, based upon the financial documentation that he provided, we conclude that reduction of the $11,000 forfeiture to $2,500 is warranted. #The reduction of the forfeiture amount, however, does not lessen the severity of the violations cited in this proceeding, specifically Mr. Granda’s intentional interference to radio communications. #For that reason, we will further admonish Mr. Granda for his violations of Section 333 of the Act.

IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, the petition filed by Daniel Granda IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. # # # #

7. IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules, Daniel Granda IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,500 for willful and repeated violations of Sections 308(b) and 333 of the Act and Sections 97.101(b) and 97.101(d) of the Rules.
# # # # # #
8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Daniel Granda IS ADMONISHED for his intentional interference to amateur radio communications.

9. 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 of the forfeiture must 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 Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box#358340,#Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340.# Payment by overnight mail may be sent to#Mellon Bank#/LB#358340,#500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. #Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number#043000261, receiving bank#Mellon Bank, and account number#911-6106. #Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director – Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.

10. IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class and certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address of record for Mr. Daniel Granda and to his counsel, Lewis H. Goldman, Esq., 45 Dudley Court, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. #

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

George R. Dillon
Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-879A1.pdf

ai4ep
03-03-2007, 02:57 AM
he aint gitting none of my money....I dont care WHAT kind of great bargains that might get offered.

Let him flip burgers. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

kd4wuo
03-08-2007, 09:20 PM
Did they revoke his ticket? It says nothing about that.

k5phw
03-09-2007, 12:33 AM
Fines should not be reduced.

kc4ylv
03-09-2007, 01:20 AM
Quote[/b] ]Fines should not be reduced.

Why, other than just vindictiveness?

They want to send a strong financial message to him, not put his wife and children on the street.

Even 2500 is a STRONG message to somebody who makes $700/month, for example. That's working for six months straight and handing every penny over to the government, after taxes. Worse than jail IMO - at least you get three hots and a cot.

WA9SVD
03-10-2007, 09:19 PM
Quote[/b] (kc4ylv @ Mar. 08 2007,18:20)]Quote[/b] ]Fines should not be reduced.

Why, other than just vindictiveness?

They want to send a strong financial message to him, not put his wife and children on the street.

Even 2500 is a STRONG message to somebody who makes $700/month, for example. That's working for six months straight and handing every penny over to the government, after taxes. Worse than jail IMO - at least you get three hots and a cot.
Would you use the same reasoning for someone who robs your house, or steals your car? They can't "afford" restitution, perhaps, so they don't have to repay?

The fellow SHOULD have his license permanently revoked, and he SHOULD have thought about the consequences of his actions, which were willful and repeated. It was NOT a "first offense."

w4pjh
03-10-2007, 10:27 PM
Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Mar. 10 2007,14:19)]The fellow SHOULD have his license permanently revoked, and he SHOULD have thought about the consequences of his actions, which were willful and repeated. It was NOT a "first offense."
EXACTLY!!!! Well put!!!

k5phw
03-10-2007, 11:22 PM
KC4YLV: You do the crime you do the time.
He can't afford to pay? He could afford to play.
Sorry, no sympathy here.

k4kyv
03-11-2007, 04:59 AM
When I first started in ham radio back in the early 60's, there was none of this "fine" crap, in which very often the offender simply refuses to pay. The FCC is required to have a federal judge get a federal marshal to serve notice, the whole thing involves a lot of bureaucracy, and usually nothing happens. Remember the K1MAN case?

Back in the early 60's, as I recall, the FCC issued a "citation," often called a "pink ticket." The offender was required to respond within a certain time. If the violation was severe enough, they simply pulled the licence. Maybe for a limited period of time, say 6 months. Or in some cases they might permanently revoke the licence.

Then the FCC went virtually out of the enforcement business for a long while. When Riley came on the scene and they started enforcing the amateur rules again, instead of suspending or revoking licences, they have been issuing "notices of apparent liability." Those things are a joke. I think Glenn still hasn't paid his fine.