Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                 )    File No. EB-02-NY-191
                                )
Servisair                        )    NAL/Acct. No. 200332380005
Newark International Airport     )
Newark, New Jersey               )    FRN No.: 0007693153





                        FORFEITURE ORDER


   Adopted:  July 27, 2004              Released:  July 29, 2004

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.        In this Forfeiture Order  (``Order''), we issue  a 
monetary  forfeiture in  the  amount of  eight  thousand  dollars 
($8000)  to  Servisair  for willful  and  repeated  violation  of 
Section 301 of  the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act'').1    The 
noted    violation   involves    Servisair's   operating    radio 
transmitting equipment  without a license  on the frequency  pair 
461.050/466.050 MHz. 

     2.        On November 13,  2002, the  Commission's New  York 
District  Office  (``New  York  Office'')  issued  a  Notice   of 
Apparent Liability  for Forfeiture (``NAL'')  to Servisair for  a 
forfeiture  in the  amount of  ten thousand  dollars  ($10,000).2  
Servisair filed a response to the NAL on December 11, 2002.

II.  BACKGROUND

     3.        On August 12, 2002, the New York Office received a 
complaint   of   interference  affecting   the   frequency   pair 
461.050/466.050 MHz.  On August 23 and 26, 2002, agents from  the 
New  York  Office,  using a  mobile  direction  finding  vehicle, 
monitored the frequency pair in question.  The agents  determined 
that Servisair was operating on the frequency pair at the  Newark 
International   Airport,  Newark,   N.J.   The   agents   further 
determined  that Servisair  was not  licensed for  operations  on 
461.050/466.050  MHz at  that  location.  On  August 26  and  27, 
2002,  a  New  York Office  agent  spoke  to  representatives  of 
Servisair,  including  a  vice  president  of  the  company,  and 
informed  them  of the  violation.   In addition,  the  New  York 
Office  sent Servisair a  Warning Letter on  August 27, 2002,  by 
First Class  Mail and Certified  Mail, Return Receipt  Requested, 
informing  Servisair that  it was  operating without  a  license, 
outlining the penalties  for such operations (including a  fine), 
and  directing Servisair  to terminate  the unlicensed  operation 
immediately.   On  August 28,  2002,  agents from  the  New  York 
Office  again  monitored  the  frequency  pair  using  a   mobile 
direction   finding  vehicle,  and   determined  that   Servisair 
continued its unlicensed operation.

     4.        Servisair  responded  to  the  Warning  Letter  on 
September 19,  2002, explaining that the  company had just  taken 
over  the cleaning  contract with  Continental Airlines  and  had 
purchased  its repeater station  and portable radio  transmitting 
equipment from the previous contractor.  Servisair contends  that 
it was  informed that the license transfer  would be made on  its 
behalf  by  a third  party.   Servisair  stated that  it  has  no 
explanation for operating the purchased equipment on  frequencies 
461.050/466.050 MHz.  Servisair further stated that on  September 
18,  2002,  it  reprogrammed its  equipment  to  operate  on  the 
frequencies that were originally licensed to its predecessor.3 

     5.        On November 13, 2002, the District Director of the 
New  York Office  issued  a NAL  in the  amount of  ten  thousand 
dollars ($10,000)  for operation of radio transmission  equipment 
without an instrument  of authorization in apparent violation  of 
Section 301  of the Act.  In its  response of December 11,  2002, 
Servisair  repeated the  statements it  made in  response to  the 
Warning  Letter.  In addition,  Servisair requested  cancellation 
of  the  forfeiture  for  reasons  of  financial  hardship.    In 
support  of  its  financial  hardship  claim,  Servisair  submits 
financial  documentation for  2000  and 2001.4    Servisair  also 
noted  that neither  itself, its  parent company  nor its  sister 
companies have previously  been found in violation of  Commission 
rules or regulations.

III.      DISCUSSION

     6.        The proposed forfeiture  amount in  this case  was 
assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the  Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the  Rules,6 
and  The Commission's Forfeiture  Policy Statement and  Amendment 
of  Section  1.80 of  the  Rules to  Incorporate  the  Forfeiture 
Guidelines, 12  FCC Rcd 17087 (1997),  recon. denied, 15 FCC  Rcd 
303  (1999)  (``Policy Statement'').   In  examining  Servisair's 
response, 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 such other matters as justice may require.7

     7.        Section 301 of the Act mandates that ``[n]o person 
shall  use  or operate  any  apparatus for  the  transmission  of 
energy or communications or signals by radio'' within the  United 
States ``except under and in accordance with this Act and with  a 
license  in that  behalf  granted under  the provisions  of  this 
Act.''8    An examination of  the Commission's records  indicates 
no  license was  issued  to Servisair  for operations  at  Newark 
International  Airport, nor  has  Servisair filed  an  assignment 
application to  obtain such a license.9  Nevertheless,  Servisair 
conducted operations at  least on August 23, 26, and 28, 2002  on 
the subject frequency pair.  Servisair states that its  equipment 
was  not  reprogrammed to  its  predecessor's  frequencies  until 
September  18, 2002, but  in any event,  Commission records  show 
that  Servisair has  never had  a license  to operate  at  Newark 
International Airport.   Accordingly, we conclude that  Servisair 
willfully10 and repeatedly11 violated Section 301of the Act. 

     8.        Servisair seeks  cancellation  of  the  forfeiture 
because  of  losses  the  parent  corporation  and   subsidiaries 
sustained  in two years  of operations.12     The Commission  has 
determined that, in general, a licensee's gross revenues are  the 
best  indicator of  its  ability to  pay a  forfeiture.13   After 
reviewing  the  financial  data  submitted,  we  find  that   the 
proposed forfeiture amount should not be reduced or cancelled  on 
the  basis of  financial hardship.  14   We  find, however,  that 
Servisair, its parent  and sister corporations have a history  of 
overall compliance.    Accordingly, we find  that a reduction  in 
the forfeiture amount from the ten thousand ($10,000) imposed  by 
the  NAL  to   eight  thousand  ($8000)  is  warranted  for   its 
compliance history.

     9.        Commission  and   Newark   International   Airport 
records  indicate that Servisair  is not licensed  to operate  at 
Newark  International Airport  and is  not now  operating  there.   
In addition  to the forfeiture assessed  here, we warn  Servisair 
that any  future operation without a  license could lead to  more 
severe enforcement action.

IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     10.       Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to 
Section  503(b)  of  the  Act,  and  Sections  0.111,  0.311  and 
1.80(f)(4)  of the Rules,15  Servisair IS LIABLE  FOR A  MONETARY 
FORFEITURE in the  amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000)  for 
its willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act.  

     11.       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.16  Payment may be made by mailing a check or  similar 
instrument, payable  to the order  of the Federal  Communications 
Commission,  to the Federal  Communications Commission, P.O.  Box 
73482,   Chicago,  Illinois  60673-7482.    The  payment   should 
reference   NAL/Acct.  No.  200332380005   and  FRN   0007693153.   
Requests  for full payment  under an installment  plan should  be 
sent to: Chief,  Revenue and Receivables Group, 445 12th  Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.17   

     12.       IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED that a  copy of this  Order 
shall be  sent by First Class  and Certified Mail Return  Receipt 
Requested to Servisair, 18430 Air Mail Road, Houston, TX 77032.


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                    



                              David H. Solomon
                              Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

1  47 U.S.C.  301.  
2  Notice  of Apparent  Liability for  Forfeiture, NAL/Acct.  No. 
200332380005 (Enf. Bur., New  York Office, released November  13, 
2002).    
3 Servisair did not provide information regarding the frequencies 
onto which it reprogrammed its equipment.   Commission records do 
not reflect  any license  to  Servisair at  Newark  International 
Airport.
4   Servisair's   parent   corporation,  Servisair   USA,   Inc., 
incorporated in 1999; no documents are included for that year.  
5  47 U.S.C.  503(b).
6  47 C.F.R.  1.80.
7  47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).
8  47 U.S.C.  301.
9  As of  the release date  of this item,  records of the  Newark 
International  Airport  indicate  that  Servisair  is  no  longer 
operating at the Airport.   
10  Section 312(f)(1) of  the Act, 47  U.S.C.  312(f)(1),  which 
applies to violations  for which forfeitures  are assessed  under 
Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that ``[t]he term  `willful,' 
... means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission  of 
such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision  of 
this Act or any rule  or regulation of the Commission  authorized 
by this Act ....''  Southern  California Broadcasting Co., 6  FCC 
Rcd 4387 (1991).
11   As  provided  by  47   U.S.C.    312(f)(2),  ``[t]he   term 
`repeated',  when  used  with  reference  to  the  commission  or 
omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act 
more than once or, if such commission or omission is  continuous, 
for more  than  one  day.'' The  Conference  Report  for  Section 
312(f)(2)  indicates  that  Congress   intended  to  apply   this 
definition to Section 503 of the Act as well as Section 312.  See 
H.R. Rep. 97th  Cong. 2d  Sess. 51  (1982).  Southern  California 
Broadcasting Co., supra.  
12  When assessing  the solvency  of a licensee  for purposes  of 
reducing a forfeiture,  the Commission examines  the finances  of 
the parent corporation, as well  as its subsidiary, to  determine 
how the forfeiture will  financially affect the entire  corporate 
position, Alpha Broadcasting Corporation, 102 FCC 2d 18 (1984),  
6.
13   PJB Communications of Virginia,  Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 2088,  2089 
(1992).
14  Id.  at  2089  (forfeiture  not  deemed  excessive  where  it 
represented approximately 2.02  percent of  the violator's  gross 
revenues); Hoosier  Broadcasting Corporation,  15 FCC  Rcd  8640, 
8641 (Enf. Bur. 2002) (forfeiture  not deemed excessive where  it 
represented approximately  7.6 percent  of the  violator's  gross 
revenues); Afton Communications Corp., 7 FCC Rcd 6741 (Com.  Car. 
Bur. 1992) (forfeiture not deemed excessive where it  represented 
approximately 3.9 percent of the violator's gross revenues).  
15  47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).
16  47 U.S.C.  504(a).
17  See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.