Federal Communications Commission DA 12-590
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Princess K Fishing Corporation
Licensee of Ship Radio Station WDB8248
Fishing Vessel PRINCESS K 
Honolulu, Hawaii
Documentation # 511130
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No.: EB-08-HL-0044
NAL/Acct. No.: 200832860001
FRN: 0011032422
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  May 2, 2012 Released:  May 2, 2012
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O), issued pursuant to Section 405 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),1 we dismiss as untimely the petition for reconsideration2
filed by Princess K Fishing Corporation, licensee of ship radio station WDB8248, in Honolulu, Hawaii 
(Princess K), of the Forfeiture Order issued on February 27, 2009. 3 The Forfeiture Order imposed a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of $5,500 for willful and repeated violation of Section 80.89(a) of the 
Commission’s rules (Rules),4 for falsely activating an Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon 
(EPIRB), thereby engaging in superfluous communications resulting in the transmission of false distress 
alerts.5
II. BACKGROUND
2. On February 25, 2008, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) launched a search and 
rescue mission in response to a Search and Rescue Satellite (SARSAT) system notification of an active 
406.025 MHz EPIRB registered to the fishing vessel PRINCESS K.  Princess K is the owner of the 
  
1 See 47 U.S.C. § 405.
2 See Princess K Fishing Corporation, Petition for Reconsideration (filed June 4, 2009) (Petition).
3 Princess K Fishing Corporation, Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 2606 (Enf. Bur. Western Region 2009) (Forfeiture 
Order), aff’g Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200832860001 (Enf. Bur. Western Region, 
Honolulu Resident Agent Office, rel. May 29, 2008) (NAL).
4 47 C.F.R. § 80.89(a).
5 Section 80.89(a) of the Rules states that “[s]tations must not: . . . [e]ngage in superfluous radiocommunications.” 
47 C.F.R. § 80.89(a).  An EPIRB station is “a station in the maritime mobile service the emissions of which are 
intended to facilitate search and rescue operations.” 47 C.F.R. § 80.5.  A distress alert, such as one from an EPIRB, 
is considered false “if it was transmitted without any indication that a mobile unit or person was in distress and 
required immediate assistance.” 47 C.F.R. § 80.334.  The Rules require that “[i]f for any reason an EPIRB is 
activated inadvertently [the licensee shall] immediately contact the nearest U.S. Coast Guard unit or appropriate 
rescue coordination center by telephone, radio or ship earth station and cancel the distress alert.”  47 C.F.R. § 
80.335(e).
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-590
2
fishing vessel PRINCESS K, which was located in open seas approximately 150 nautical miles north by 
northeast of Oahu, Hawaii at the time.6 The USCG unsuccessfully sought to contact the vessel through 
urgent broadcasts on several HF frequencies.  Ultimately, a USCG HC-130 aircraft contacted a Princess 
K executive aboard the vessel after locating the PRINCESS K approximately 18 nautical miles from the 
EPIRB’s location.  
3. The USCG reported the false activation to the Enforcement Bureau’s Honolulu Office 
(Honolulu Office),7 advising that when the USCG contacted the fishing vessel on the VHF marine 
channel 16, the master of fishing vessel PRINCESS K stated that there was no actual distress or 
emergency.  Instead, the crew had thrown the old EPIRB (the one detected by the SARSAT system) 
overboard because they had purchased and installed a new one.  The USCG also reported to the Honolulu 
Office that the old EPIRB was not retrieved and continued transmitting until March 1, 2008, potentially 
masking an actual search and rescue alert.
4. On March 26, 2008, when the PRINCESS K returned to port in Honolulu, agents from 
the Honolulu Office, along with USCG personnel, interviewed the Princess K Fishing Corporation 
executive who was onboard the fishing vessel during the February 25, 2008 incident.  The Princess K 
executive stated that a new EPIRB had been purchased on Oahu and installed while they were docked in 
Hilo, Hawaii.  The executive stated that he did not have time to return the old EPIRB, so he stored it in a 
plastic bag on the vessel.  While at sea, he advised a crew member to take care of the bag and the crew 
member threw it overboard, thereby activating the unit.  The executive stated that he did not realize this 
incident occurred until the Coast Guard aircraft, while hovering over his vessel, contacted him during 
their search.  He explained to the Honolulu agents and the USCG personnel that he was not able to 
retrieve the old EPIRB even though the USCG advised him that the EPIRB was still continuing to 
transmit.
5. In the Forfeiture Order, the Enforcement Bureau’s Western Region (Region) considered 
Princess K’s arguments that it did not willfully or repeatedly violate Section 80.89(a) of the Rules, that it 
was not responsible for the acts of its employee, and that it lacked the ability to pay the forfeiture.8 The 
Region found merit only in Princess K’s argument concerning its ability to pay the $8,000 forfeiture 
proposed by the Honolulu Office, and consequently, assessed a reduced forfeiture of $5,500.9  In its 
Petition, Princess K reiterates its arguments that it did not willfully and repeatedly violate Section 
80.89(a) of the Rules and that there was no conscious and deliberate commission of an act.  Consequently, 
Princess K argues, the assessed forfeiture should be reduced or cancelled.
III. DISCUSSION
6. Section 405(a) of the Act10 and Section 1.106(f) of the Rules11 provide that a petition for 
reconsideration be filed with the Commission’s Secretary in Washington, D.C. within thirty days from the 
  
6 The Princess K is home ported in Honolulu, Hawaii, and is the licensee of ship radio station WDB8248.
7 According to their report, the USCG expended 3.5 fixed wing aircraft hours and 6 Command Center hours at a cost 
of over $35,000 to determine that this was a false alert.  
8 See Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 2608–10.
9 See id. at 2610.
10 47 U.S.C. § 405(a).
11 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(f).
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-590
3
date of public notice of the final action.12 In this case, public notice of the Forfeiture Order occurred 
upon release on February 27, 2009.13  The thirtieth day after February 27, 2009 was March 29, 2009.  
Thus, Princess K should have filed its timely request for reconsideration with the Commission no later 
than March 29, 2009.14 Princess K’s submission, however, was not received by the Secretary of the 
Commission until June 4, 2009. 15 Accordingly, because Princess K failed to timely file its Petition, we 
dismiss the Petition on procedural grounds.16
7. We further find that even if Princess K’s Petition was not procedurally defective, the 
Petition would fail on the merits.  Reconsideration is appropriate only where the petitioner either 
demonstrates a material error or omission in the underlying order or raises additional facts not known or not 
existing until after the petitioner’s last opportunity to present such matters.17 A petition for reconsideration 
that reiterates arguments that were previously considered and rejected will be denied.18
8. As explained in the Forfeiture Order,19 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.20 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,21 and the Commission has so interpreted the term in 
the Section 503(b) context.22 Section 312(f)(2) 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.”23 The Commission has determined that the definition of “repeated” in Section 
312(f) also applies to forfeitures assessed pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act.24 Princess K’s reiterated 
arguments and efforts to distinguish the federal legal precedent relied upon by the Region to interpret the 
  
12 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(i).    
13 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.4(b).
14 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106(f), 1.4(j).
15 In the cover letter with the Petition, Princess K states that the Petition was originally filed on March 5, 2009; 
however, it produces no evidence to support this statement.  
16 See Washington Broadcast Management Co., Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 6607 (2000); 
Bay Broadcasting Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 23449 (Enf. Bur. 2000).  
17 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(c); EZ Sacramento, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18257 (Enf. Bur. 
2000), citing WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), aff’d sub. nom. Lorain 
Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 967 (1966).   
18 EZ Sacramento, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd at 18257.
19 Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 2608–10.
20 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).  
21 H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982).
22 See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991), 
recons. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (Southern California).  See also Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 2608. 
23 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(2).
24 See Callais Cablevision, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 (2001); 
Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388.  See also Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 2608.
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-590
4
Act, by referencing Hawaii state law and common law dictionary definitions,25 are unavailing and provide 
no basis for reconsideration of the Region’s decision.     
9. Princess K also argues again that its employees did not deliberately engage in the act that 
generated the false alarm.  As explained in the Forfeiture Order, the conscious and deliberate act in this 
case, irrespective of any intent to violate the law, was the disposal of the EPIRB into the ocean that 
resulted in continual false distress alerts from February 25, 2008 until March 1, 2008.  This violation of 
Section 80.89(a) of the Rules also was repeated because the discarded EPIRB’s false distress alerts 
occurred over several days.26
10. Therefore, we find that the Petition provides no basis for further reduction or 
cancellation of the monetary forfeiture assessed against Princess K, even if its Petition had been timely 
filed, and affirm the Forfeiture Order.27  
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended,28 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,29 that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by 
Princess K Fishing Corporation IS DISMISSED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED.
12. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 
0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Princess K Fishing Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY 
FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand, five hundred dollars ($5,500) for violations of section 
80.89(a) of the Rules.30
13. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the 
Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.  If the forfeiture is 
not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for 
enforcement pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.31 Payment of the forfeiture must be made by credit 
card, check, or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission.  The 
payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN 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 
  
25 Petition at 1–4.
26 Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 2609 n.22.
27 As mentioned above, the Forfeiture Order reduced the $8,000 forfeiture amount proposed in the NAL to $5,500 
based on Princess K’s financial submissions.  Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 2610.
2847 U.S.C. § 405.
2947 C.F.R. § 1.106.
3047 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4), 80.89(a).
3147 U.S.C. § 504(a). 
Federal Communications Commission DA 12-590
5
or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures.  Princess K shall
also send electronic notification to WR-Response@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made.
14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent 
by both regular mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Princess K Fishing Corporation, 
1617 Keeaumoku Street, Apt. 602, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96822, and its counsel of record Charles S. Lotsof, 
Esquire, 1188 Bishop Street, Suite 2711, Honolulu, HI 96813.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
P. Michele Ellison
Chief, Enforcement Bureau