For those that don’t think the FCC will enforce anything.

[warthog74]

Sure it’s for 11 meter band (CB), but….

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-456A1.pdf

Now you know.

[OffRoaderX]

This enforcement has been going on for years - and my prediction is that he never pays a dime..  Just look up this guy's PREVIOUS fine of $14,000 issued by the FCC in 1999.. Which he has still not paid...

BUT - you ARE correct.. that is ONE fine.. out of millions of violations every year... You literally have a greater chance of being hit by lighting .. but, it COULD happen... So.. act accordingly...

[WRYZ926]

You really have to be causing a lot of problems like jamming and/or interfering with others before the FCC will even think about doing anything about it. 

The flip side of that is the FCC will be more likely to do something if one interferes with or uses public safety bands without authorization. And this is only if the agencies receiving the interference actually push the issue.

I can easily tell when someone is using an illegal amp on CB/11m whenever I get close to them while in my car. I start getting interference on my dual band radio when on 2m. And nothing ever gets done about that.

[TrikeRadio]

2 hours ago, OffRoaderX said:

...my prediction is that he never pays a dime..  Just look up this guy's PREVIOUS fine of $14,000 issued by the FCC in 1999.. Which he has still not paid...

$14,000 and even $25,000 is probably peanuts to the FCC, but you wonder why they don't turn these over to collections or something. Why do they just let them be numbers on a no-no letter and apparently the violator never has any action taken against them to actually enforce and collect the fine. I know the FCC is not an enforcement agency themselves... they have to turn the case over to the legals system or the enforcement agencies... but what? Do the other agencies just ignore the FCC?

[OffRoaderX]

18 minutes ago, TrikeRadio said:

you wonder why they don't turn these over to collections or something

Because all they have to do is one enforcement/fine like this once every few years and all the sad-hams will go all over the internet posting things like "For those that don’t think the FCC will enforce anything"  ... Often followed up by things like "you're next!!" or.. "its not worth the risk!!!1" ...

When in reality, statistically speaking, there is no risk.

[Socalgmrs]

Aaaand.,……..soooo……

[BoxCar]

The FCC may levy the fine, but the money goes to the Treasury department as part of the General Fund. The only parties that quickly pay are those with licenses the FCC grants as they can cancel or deny further application or renewal.

[TrikeRadio]

On 5/30/2025 at 5:51 PM, OffRoaderX said:

Because all they have to do is one enforcement/fine like this once every few years and all the sad-hams will go all over the internet posting things like "For those that don’t think the FCC will enforce anything"  ... Often followed up by things like "you're next!!" or.. "its not worth the risk!!!1" ...

When in reality, statistically speaking, there is no risk.

Hmm.. I was thinking maybe my question would open up a discussion beyond the "it makes the sad hams feel justified" automatic response.

Why is it that when the FCC actually BOTHERS to send a letter and a fine, it seems the FINE is never actually collected or enforced in any way. If it is NOT in the hands of the FCC to process and enforce that fine, but some other enforcement or Legal department of the government...

Does it just never get turned over to collections by the FCC...
      or
Does it get turned over to collections and then collections never pursues it?

[TrikeRadio]

11 hours ago, BoxCar said:

The FCC may levy the fine, but the money goes to the Treasury department as part of the General Fund. The only parties that quickly pay are those with licenses the FCC grants as they can cancel or deny further application or renewal.

I suppose that is so that the FCC does not have the idea that they are adding to their own budget if they hand out fines... kinda of a conflict of interest?

But still, if the FCC is sending the letter and announcing the fine, either they are turning that over to some other department to enforce/collect it - and THAT department is failing to follow through, or the FCC is just sending the nasty-gram letter and never actually turning it over to whomever is supposed to enfoice/collect it.

[Socalgmrs]

To have an fcc fine force collected it would have to go before a judge and possibly a jury for trial.  It would have to be proven beyond doubt that the fine was owned.  Try convincing 12 jurors that you are the person that violated the fcc rule. See this is all civil not criminal.  One could even argue that the rule is not constitutional.  It’s cb not ham or gmrs so no rules have to be read before you buy a licence.  IF they found with the fcc that you owned the money Then another judge would have to issue a judgement and issue a lien.  Then the collecting party could ask for funds to be taken from pay checks or bank accounts.  It’s a huge drawn out process that could take years.  It’s not like the irs or credit card company collections that you already agreed to pay, that takes long enough.  

[WRUE951]

i wonder if this guy is the onion caper  ???    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jayme-john-leon-mcfury-onion_n_1914789

[WRTC928]

I've never believed the FCC never takes action, but I think it's pretty clear you have to pretty much be "asking for it" to catch a significant enforcement action. When I see someone fined or jailed for nothing except using an unapproved radio on GMRS, then I'll start worrying. I'm pretty much a stickler for the rules regarding power and bandwidth, because ignoring them can create problems for other users, and I try to be a decent human, but I'm not going to get my undies in a wad over someone using a ham radio on GMRS frequencies. I'm 99.999% certain nobody will know what radio I'm using unless I tell them, and I'm 99.99999% certain the FCC has better things to do than try to figure it out. Don't interfere with other users, especially business and government agencies, and you'll be fine.

[SteveShannon]

10 hours ago, WRTC928 said:

I've never believed the FCC never takes action, but I think it's pretty clear you have to pretty much be "asking for it" to catch a significant enforcement action. When I see someone fined or jailed for nothing except using an unapproved radio on GMRS, then I'll start worrying. I'm pretty much a stickler for the rules regarding power and bandwidth, because ignoring them can create problems for other users, and I try to be a decent human, but I'm not going to get my undies in a wad over someone using a ham radio on GMRS frequencies. I'm 99.999% certain nobody will know what radio I'm using unless I tell them, and I'm 99.99999% certain the FCC has better things to do than try to figure it out. Don't interfere with other users, especially business and government agencies, and you'll be fine.

That’s exactly how I feel also.  A fine for using a radio that hasn’t been certified for a particular service will be a secondary charge and will only accompany much more severe primary charges, such as intentionally interfering with government agency’s communications.  

[WRUE951]

37 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

That’s exactly how I feel also.  A fine for using a radio that hasn’t been certified for a particular service will be a secondary charge and will only accompany much more severe primary charges, such as intentionally interfering with government agency’s communications.  

the odds the FCC will go after people specifically for using non-certified radios is very very slim.  One would have a better chance of winning 10 Lotteries.  For those that program their non-compliant radios to the exact specs for a given frequency per fcc rules, it would be impossible for the FCC to even enforce it. Now to the idiots that prgram their radios to 40 watts in the FRS band.  Go get em'   

[73blazer]

The current FCC enforcement process is they issue a initial notice called an NAL (notice of apparent liability) which lists what you've done wrong and usually includes a proposed, proposed, penalty (called a proposed forfeiture) which is usually a fine but could be take your crap down, stop doing something or hand over your equipment, but all proposed. The target can contest the issue or do nothing, if the target does nothing, the FCC can issue a Forfeiture notice which is in the form of 'you need to pay the fine listed' or hand over your stuff or stop doing whatever your doing or whatever they had decreed . The target can continue to do nothing, and all the FCC can do at that point is turn it over to the DOJ for "collection" which must happen thru a US district court. This usually takes the form of the DOJ issues a pay up notice you appear before a judge and come to an agreement. In rare cases, usually involving big companies, like AT&T, Comcast...etc...you can opt for a jury trial.  In the majority of the notices turned over to the DOJ from the FCC, the DOJ does nothing due to lack of resources.  They usually only go after the big boy companies or big dollar fines so they can make an example/get news coverage and hopefully detour others.

 

In the case of the original posters PDF, that is a forfeiture order, so after Leon got his NAL, which it says was May30th, 2023, so 2 years ago, and did nothing. And will probably continue to do nothing. The FCC's order says Leon needs to pay up within 30 days, the reality is, they will probably wait 2 years, turn it over to the DOJ, and nothing will happen.

[OffRoaderX]

33 minutes ago, 73blazer said:

The current FCC enforcement process is they issue a initial notice called an NAL (notice of apparent liability) which lists what you've done wrong and usually includes a proposed, proposed, penalty

You forgot that BEFORE that, in almost all (99%?) cases they first send a nasty letter asking you to stop.

You also left out that his current NAL details his previous 1999 NAL ("fine") and states that he has still never paid that one. 

[73blazer]

7 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said:

You forgot that BEFORE that, in almost all (99%?) cases they first send a nasty letter asking you to stop.

You also left out that his current NAL details his previous 1999 NAL ("fine") and states that he has still never paid that one. 

I can ask my wife to stop hitting cars in parking lots, but she doesn't need to respond or stop doing it. So, I guess I don't consider asking you to stop an "enforcement action" . But yes, your right, he was issued an NOUO (notice of unlicensed operation) asking him to stop. Before that he was left a notice of interference on his car windshield by the agent. And has a history of this type of action, which he did nothing about and never paid the fine in that case either.

[WRTC928]

14 hours ago, SteveShannon said:

That’s exactly how I feel also.  A fine for using a radio that hasn’t been certified for a particular service will be a secondary charge and will only accompany much more severe primary charges, such as intentionally interfering with government agency’s communications.  

It wouldn't surprise me at all if they threw that charge into the pot when taking action against someone for being an ass and/or interfering with government communications, but as a stand-alone charge? I'll believe it when I see it.