Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Visiplex, Inc

Download Options

Released: December 31, 1969

Federal Communications Commission

DA 08-2794

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)

File No. EB-06-SE-181
Visiplex, Inc.
)
NAL/Acct. No. 200932100019
Licensee of Stations WPJU326 and WQBF524
)
FRN # 0017200742
)

NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER

Adopted: December 29, 2008

Released: January 2, 2009

By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:

I. INTRODUCTION

1.
In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, we find Visiplex, Inc.
("Visiplex"),1 licensee of Private Land Mobile Radio Service Stations WPJU326 and WQBF524,
apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) for operating its
stations in a manner inconsistent with the terms its authorizations, in apparent willful and repeated
violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("Act")2 and Section 1.903(a)
of the Commission's Rules ("Rules").3

II.

BACKGROUND

2.
In 2001, Visiplex was granted a nationwide PLMRS license under call sign WPJU326 for
mobile operations on frequencies 464.600 MHz, 464.625 MHz, 464.650 MHz, 464.700 MHz, and
464.725 MHz with an output power and effective radiated power of 100 watts.4 In 2004, Visiplex was
granted a nationwide PLMRS license under call sign WQBF524 for mobile operations on frequencies
467.750 MHz, 467.775 MHz, 467.800 MHz, 467.850 MHz, 467.875 MHz, and 467.900 MHz with an
output power and effective radiated power of 2 watts.5 Visiplex operates wireless synchronized clock
radio systems for its customers under these nationwide licenses.
3.
The Enforcement Bureau received a complaint alleging that Visiplex was operating its
wireless synchronized clock radio systems at permanent fixed locations, notwithstanding that its licenses
only authorize mobile operations. The complaint also alleged that Visiplex's systems were operating at
power levels in excess of its authorized power limits. On August 15, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement
Division of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Visiplex requesting


1 On March 13, 2008, the authorization for Station WPJU326 was assigned from Visiplex Technologies, Inc. to
Visiplex, Inc., and on April 15, 2008, the authorization for Station WQBF524 was assigned from Visiplex
Technologies, Inc. to Visiplex, Inc. See File Nos. 0003358356 and 0003381924. For convenience, we will refer
to both entities as "Visiplex."
2 47 U.S.C. 301.
3 47 C.F.R. 1.903(a).
4 See File No. 0001519167.
5 See File No. 0001845730.

Federal Communications Commission

DA 08-2794

that the company respond to the allegations raised by the complaint.6 In its response dated September 14,
2007, Visiplex asserts that it was unaware that its license specified mobile operations.7 Visiplex explains
that when it originally filed for its licenses with the Personal Communications Industry Association
("PCIA"),8 it specifically requested fixed location licenses.9 Visiplex further states that after receiving the
LOI, it contacted PCIA for clarification and only then did PCIA explain that the licenses are for mobile
equipment. Finally, Visiplex indicates that its transmitters used under call sign WPJU326 operate at or
below its authorized power limit.
4.
On February 25, 2008, the Bureau sent Visiplex a follow-up LOI.10 In its March 18,
2008 response,11 Visiplex provides documentation indicating that its transmitters used under call sign
WQBF524 operate with an output power of "2 or 4 watts."12

III.

DISCUSSION

A.

Operation at Variance with Authorizations

5.
Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules prohibit the use or operation of
any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by a wireless radio station
except under, and in accordance with, a Commission granted authorization.13 Visiplex acknowledges
that it operated its wireless synchronized clock radio systems under call signs WPJU326 and WQBF524
at permanent fixed locations, rather than mobile locations as authorized in its licenses. Accordingly, we
find that Visiplex apparently willfully14 and repeatedly15 operated Stations WPJU326 and WQBF524 at


6 See Letter from Ricardo Durham, Senior Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, to Sam Agam, President, Visiplex Technologies, Inc. (August 15, 2007).
7 See Letter from David S. Grosky, V.P. of Legal Affairs, Visiplex Technologies, Inc., to Ricardo Durham, Senior
Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
(September 14, 2007) ("LOI Response").
8 PCIA is an industry association which performs frequency coordination, FCC license filing, and other services
for its member companies.
9 LOI Response at 1. In support of its assertion that it specifically requested fixed location licenses, Visiplex
provides a partial copy of an application which it apparently submitted to PCIA for the authorization ultimately
granted under call sign WQBF524. Although Schedule D of this application indicates that the operation will be at
a fixed location, Schedule H indicates that the applicant is requesting mobile operations. Id. at Attachment.
10 See Letter from Ricardo Durham, Senior Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, to Sam Agam, President, Visiplex Technologies, Inc. (February 25, 2008).
11 Letter from David S. Grosky, V.P. of Legal Affairs, Visiplex Technologies, Inc., to Ricardo Durham, Senior
Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
(March 18, 2008).
12 Id. at Attachment.
13 47 U.S.C. 301; 47 C.F.R. 1.903(a).
14 Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines "willful" as "the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of [any]
act, irrespective of any intent to violate" the law. 47 U.S.C. 312(f)(1). The legislative history of Section
312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R.
Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section
503(b) context. See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387,
4388 (1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) ("Southern California").
2

Federal Communications Commission

DA 08-2794

permanent fixed locations in violation of Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules.
6.
Additionally, the license for Station WQBF524 authorizes an output power and effective
radiated power of 2 watts. The documentation provided by Visiplex, however, indicates that the
transmitters used under call sign WQBF524 operate with an output power of "2 or 4 watts."
Accordingly, we find that Visiplex apparently willfully16 and repeatedly17 operated Station WQBF524 at
a higher than authorized power in violation of Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules.

B.

Proposed Forfeiture

7.
Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act, any person who is determined by the Commission
to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or
order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.18 To impose
such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability and the person against
whom such notice has been issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture
penalty should be imposed.19 The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance
of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule.20 We conclude under this
standard that Visiplex is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated violations of
Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules.
8.
The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement21 and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules22
establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for construction or operation at an
unauthorized location. Visiplex concedes that it operated its wireless synchronized clock radio systems
under call signs WPJU326 and WQBF524 at permanent fixed locations, rather than mobile locations as
authorized in its licenses. We find that Visiplex's operation of each of these stations at permanent fixed
(Continued from previous page)


15 Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures assessed pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,
provides that "[t]he term `repeated,' ... means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such
commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day." 47 U.S.C. 312(f)(2). See Callais Cablevision,
Inc.
, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 (2001); Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd
at 4388.
16 Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines "willful" as "the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of [any]
act, irrespective of any intent to violate" the law. 47 U.S.C. 312(f)(1). The legislative history of Section
312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R.
Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section
503(b) context. See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387,
4388 (1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) ("Southern California").
17 Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures assessed pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,
provides that "[t]he term `repeated,' ... means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such
commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day." 47 U.S.C. 312(f)(2). See Callais Cablevision,
Inc.
, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 (2001); Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd
at 4388.
18 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a)(1).
19 47 U.S.C. 503(b); 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f).
20 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591 (2002).
21 See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate
the Forfeiture Guidelines
, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture
Policy Statement
").
22 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4), Note to Paragraph (b)(4): Section I. Base Amounts for Section 503 Forfeitures.
3

Federal Communications Commission

DA 08-2794

locations is a separate violation, subject to a separate proposed forfeiture of $4,000. We accordingly
conclude that Visiplex is apparently liable for a total proposed forfeiture of $8,000 for these violations.
9.
The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement23 and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules24 also
establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for exceeding power limits. The
documentation submitted by Visiplex indicates that the transmitters used under call sign WQBF524
operated in excess of its authorized power limit. We therefore find Visiplex apparently liable for a
$4,000 forfeiture for operating under call sign WQBF524 in excess of its authorized power limit.
10.
Accordingly, we conclude that Visiplex is apparently liable for a total forfeiture of
$12,000 for operating at variance from the terms of its authorizations in apparent willful and repeated
violation of Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules.
11.
Visiplex asserts that it was unaware that the licenses for Stations WPJU326 and
WQBF524 authorized only mobile operations. Visiplex explains that when it originally filed for its
licenses with the PCIA, it specifically requested fixed location licenses. As a Commission licensee,
however, Visiplex is charged with the responsibility of knowing and complying with the terms of its
authorizations, the Act and the Rules. In this regard, the Commission has long held that a downward
adjustment of an assessed forfeiture is not justified where violators claim their actions or omissions were
due to inadvertent errors.25 Moreover, the Commission has long held that "licensees are responsible for
the acts and omission of their employees and independent contractors,"26 and has consistently "refused to
excuse licensees from forfeiture penalties where the actions of employees or independent contractors
have resulted in violations."27 Accordingly, we find that no reduction of the proposed forfeiture is
warranted on this basis.
12.
Finally, we note that Visiplex apparently continues to operate its wireless synchronized
clock radio systems under call signs Stations WPJU326 and WQBF524 at variance from the terms of its
licenses. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Act,28 we direct Visiplex to submit a report
within 30 days of the date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order verifying that it
is no longer operating at variance from the terms of these licenses.

IV.

ORDERING CLAUSES

13.
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED

that, pursuant to pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act29
and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules,30 Visiplex, Inc.

IS

hereby

NOTIFIED

of its


23 See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17113.
24 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b), Note to Paragraph (b)(4): Section I. Base Amounts for Section 503 Forfeitures.
25 PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 2088 (1992); Southern
California,
6 FCC Rcd at 4387 (stating that "inadvertence ... is at best, ignorance of the law, which the
Commission does not consider a mitigating circumstance").
26 Eure Family Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21861, 21863-64 (2002)
("Eure"); MTD, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 34, 35 (1991); Wagenvoord Broadcasting Co.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 35 FCC 2d 361 (1972).
27 See Eure, 17 FCC Rcd at 21863-64; Triad Broadcasting Company, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 96
FCC 2d 1235, 1244 (1984).
28 47 U.S.C. 308(b).
29 47 U.S.C. 503(b).
30 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80.
4

Federal Communications Commission

DA 08-2794

APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE

in the amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000)
for the willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules.
14.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,31 within thirty
days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, Visiplex

SHALL
PAY

the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or

SHALL FILE

a written statement seeking reduction or
cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
15.
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/Account
Number and FRN Number referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to
Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by
overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005
Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number
021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For payment by credit card,
an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form 159, enter
the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in
block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be
sent to: Chief Financial Officer -- Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
Washington, D.C. 20554. Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201
or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures. Visiplex will also
send an electronic notification on the date said payment is made to Neal.McNeil@fcc.gov and
Ricardo.Durham@fcc.gov.
16.
The response, if any, must be mailed to the Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN: Enforcement
Bureau Spectrum Enforcement Division, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.
17.
The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a
claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-
year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices; or (3)
some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current financial
status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the
financial documentation submitted.
18.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that, pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Act, Visiplex shall
submit the report required in paragraph 12 within 30 days of the date of this Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture and Order.

19.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture and Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to Sam
Agam, President, Visiplex, Inc. 100 N. Fairway Drive, Vernon Hills, IL 60061.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Kathryn S. Berthot
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau


31 47 C.F.R. 1.80.
5

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.