Fletcher Heald Lawyer Questions Logic Behind FCC Fine
Fletcher Heald lawyer Mitchell Lazarus questioned the FCC Enforcement Bureau’s logic in its recent fine against Mobile Relay Associates, not for causing harmful interference but for failing “to take reasonable precautions to avoid causing harmful interference.” Lazarus summed up the…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
bureau’s arguments in a blog post Tuesday: “The rule says to take precautions, but not what precautions to take. The licensee says it took precautions, but they didn’t work. The Enforcement Bureau says, ‘$25,000, please.’” The bureau could have cited MRA “for unnecessarily long transmissions or for not trunking, charges to which MRA would have had no real defense,” Lazarus said. “The Bureau should not have followed the course it did without first issuing a clear public statement -- or, perhaps better yet, revising its rules -- to make very clear what is and is not permitted.” The bureau released its forfeiture order last week against the Malibu, California-based provider of private land mobile radio services. “MRA argues that its actions did not violate any of the Commission’s rules (Rules) and that imposition of a penalty would be unduly discriminatory,” the bureau said. “We find that MRA’s actions did result in Rule violations and that it is not the subject of disparate treatment.” The firm doesn't represent MRA, Lazarus said. MRA didn't comment.