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-PA-275
                                )
Horizon Communications           )    NAL/Acct. No. 200332400002
WPMM811 and WPMT622              )
Cliffside Park, New Jersey       )    FRN: 0003-4622-31

                        FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted:  November 9, 2004              Released:  November 15, 
2004

By the Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.        In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars 
($10,000) to Horizon Communications (``Horizon'') for willful and 
repeated violation of Sections 1.903(a) and 90.425(a) of the 
Commission's Rules (``Rules'').1   The noted violations involve 
Horizon's operations at an unauthorized location and failure to 
transmit the call sign identification on its stations WPMM811 and 
WPMT622.   

     2.        On December 5, 2002, the Commission's 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania District Office (``Philadelphia 
Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 
(``NAL'') to Horizon for a forfeiture in the amount of ten 
thousand dollars ($10,000).2  Horizon filed a response to the NAL 
on January 6, 2003.3   

II.  BACKGROUND

     3.        On July 17, 2002, the Philadelphia Office received 
a complaint of interference on 452.725 MHz from Westchester 
County (``Westchester''), licensee of station WQR630.4  On July 
29, agents from the Philadelphia Office and the Commission's New 
York, New York District Office (``New York Office'') determined 
that Horizon was operating on co-channel frequency 452.725 MHz by 
providing radio communication services to Eastland Car Service, a 
taxi company, on a transmitter located at the Cadman Towers, 101 
Clark Street, Manhattan, New York.   In connection with this 
investigation, the agents further discovered that Horizon was 
providing service to Lower Eastside Car Service on 462.200 MHz at 
the same location.  At the time of the investigation, Horizon was 
authorized to operate station WPMM811 on the frequency 452.725 
MHz at 195 First Street, Newark, New Jersey and station WPMT622 
on the frequency 462.200 MHz at 1500 Palisade Avenue, Fort Lee, 
New Jersey.  Horizon is licensed under Part 90 of the Rules and 
has a location-specific license, rather than a license for a 
service area.

     4.        Also on July 29, 2002, the Philadelphia Office and 
New York Office agents monitored Horizon's radio transmissions on 
452.725 MHz and 462.200 MHz.  During that period, the agents 
observed that no call signs were transmitted on the stations.  
Employees of both of the taxi companies using Horizon's 
frequencies, Eastland Car Service operating on 452.725 MHz 
(WPMM811), and Lower Eastside Car Service operating on 462.200 
MHz (WPMT622), confirmed to the agents that neither station 
transmitted call sign identification. 

     5.        On August 5, 2002, the Philadelphia Office issued 
a Notice of Violation (``NOV'') to Horizon for operating stations 
WPMM811 and WPMT622 at an unauthorized location, in violation of 
Section 1.903(a) of the Rules, and for failure to transmit call 
sign identification for stations WPMM811 and WPMT622, in 
violation of Section 90.425(a) of the Rules.  Horizon responded 
to the NOV on August 14, 2002, stating that it had contacted 
Westchester County to discuss reducing their co-channel 
interference and that Horizon would shift its antenna and lower 
output power.  In its response, Horizon effectively conceded that 
it was not transmitting its call sign for either station, stating 
that it would program Lower Eastside's station once it received a 
temporary authorization, and that an external identifier would 
have to be put onto the Eastland Car Service transmitter.5  
Horizon further stated that it had submitted an application for 
Eastland Car Service to operate on 452.725 MHz, and another 
application for Lower Eastside Car Service to operate on 462.200 
MHz.  

     6.        On December 5, 2002, the District Director of the 
Philadelphia Office issued the subject NAL to Horizon for its 
operations at an unauthorized location and its failure to 
transmit the call sign identification on its stations in willful 
and repeated violation of Sections 1.903(a) and 90.425(a) of the 
Rules.  In its response, Horizon admits that it relocated the 
stations but avers that Westchester was not receiving ``harmful'' 
interference, and that the move was intended to test a new 
coverage area that was intended to reduce the possibility of co-
channel interference.  Therefore, Horizon argues, the move was 
not a ``conscious and deliberate'' attempt to violate the 
Communications Act.

III.      DISCUSSION

     7.        The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was 
assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 
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 Horizon'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.8

     8.        Section 1.903(a) of the Rules states that a 
station in the Wireless Radio Services may only be used and 
operated in accordance with the rules applicable to its 
particular service, and only with a valid authorization. Horizon 
admits that it moved its stations from its licensed locations in 
June 2002 without authorization.9  Its stated reasons for moving 
the stations, that it wanted to test an alternate location to 
minimize interference to co-channel and adjacent channel 
licensees,10 is not an exception permitted in our rules.   
Moreover, Horizon does not provide proof of any efforts it made 
to coordinate with co-channel or adjacent channel licensees, or 
that it followed the Commission's frequency coordination 
requirements.  Indeed it would have been impossible for any other 
licensee to contact Horizon to coordinate regarding increased 
interference, since Horizon was not broadcasting its call sign or 
any other contact information.11  

     9.        Horizon also argues that even if it was 
interfering with Westchester's operations, Westchester was not 
entitled to protection from interference because the frequencies 
are shared.12  The question presented here, however, is not 
whether Westchester has grounds to complain of interference, but 
whether Horizon had authority to operate Stations WPMM811 and 
WPMT622 at Camden Towers rather than at their respective 
authorized locations.  The complaint was simply the impetus for 
an investigation by the Philadelphia Office and New York Office 
agents. 

     10.       Horizon argues that the new location was within 
the contours of the authorized locations for each station.  We 
conclude that this argument is without merit.   Horizon's 
relocation of its transmitters constitutes a major modification 
of its station license under the applicable rules.13  A major 
modification of a station license requires prior Commission 
authorization.14  Accordingly, Horizon had no color of authority 
to relocate Stations WPMM811 and WPMT622.  Moreover, Horizon's 
license did not include a service area bound by contours 
delineated by a specific signal strength.   Horizon is licensed 
for a specific transmitter location only, with no accompanying 
``service area.''

     11.       Section 90.425(a) of the Rules requires stations 
licensed under Part 90 of the Rules to transmit the station's 
call sign during each transmission or once each 15 minutes during 
periods of continuous operation.  Horizon acknowledges that it 
had not programmed Stations WPMM811 and WPMT622 to transmit their 
call signs.15  It states that it was planning to program the new 
call signs for the taxi companies when its tests were completed.  
Complete station relocation lasting more than a month and 
comprising full operational use by taxi companies is in our 
judgment not merely a ``test'' and in any event is not exempt 
from Section 90.425(a) of the Rules.

     12.       Horizon argues that its actions do not rise to the 
level of culpability of certain other forfeiture cases.  Horizon 
states that ``[i]n other forfeiture cases where the station was 
relocated, the licensee was fined an equal amount to Horizon.  
However, in each of those cases, the stations were relocated 
outside of the licensed interference contour, and the stations 
were not relocated with the intention of resolving an 
interference concern.'' 16  We are not persuaded by this 
argument.17  We find that the cases Horizon cites do not provide 
support for a reduction in the forfeiture amount.  We believe 
from a comparison standpoint the fact that Horizon is licensed 
for a specific transmitter location with no accompanying service 
area, its unauthorized relocation, at a minimum, is no less 
significant of a violation than that of a licensee who has 
relocated outside of its licensed interference contour.  We 
therefore find the forfeiture amount proposed in the NAL to be 
appropriate.

     13.       In Graytop Cab, Inc.,18 which Horizon claims was a 
more serious violation than here, the former Field Operations 
Bureau assessed a forfeiture of $4000 upon a finding that the 
licensee was operating a transmitter at an unauthorized location 
for the purpose of testing.  Horizon also is claiming to have 
moved its transmitter for the purpose of testing, as in Graytop 
Cab, Inc.   We find Horizon's violation to be as serious as that 
in Graytop Cab, Inc., however, because of the nature of Horizon's 
license, coupled with the fact that it was not merely testing but 
had transferred all equipment and all full-time operations of two 
stations to the unauthorized location, and was not transmitting 
its call signs.  Accordingly, Graytop Cab, Inc. is not analogous 
to the instant case.  

     14.       In Arvada Excavating Company,19 which Horizon also 
claims was a more serious violation than here, the licensee had a 
geographic license rather than a site-based license, as does 
Horizon.  Thus, the two situations are inapposite.  Arvada, as a 
geographic licensee in the Trunked Business Service, has 
authority to place control transmitters at will within its 
geographic area, so long as it notifies the Commission.20  Thus, 
Arvada was entitled to move a transmitter location within its 
service area but had failed to notify the Commission of the new 
location.  In the instant case, as discussed above, Horizon 
requires prior Commission approval and prior coordination to 
relocate its transmitter.  Moreover, as discussed above, 
Horizon's license did not include a service area bound by 
contours delineated by a specific signal strength.   Accordingly, 
we find that Horizon's violation is worse than that in Arvada.  

     15.       In Colorado Small Business Development 
Association, Inc., the licensees to whom a forfeiture was issued 
were also geographic licensees.  The licensees were assessed a 
forfeiture of $10,000 and $12,000 respectively, and did not 
contest the violation or the forfeiture amount.21   Once again, 
we find that this decision does not support Horizon's arguments.

     16.       Finally, Horizon contends that it has acted in 
good faith because it was attempting to more effectively utilize 
crowded spectrum and because it has at all times cooperated with 
Commission employees in resolving problems.  No reduction of the 
forfeiture for good faith is appropriate for these actions under 
Section 1.80 of the Rules.  Horizon intentionally relocated two 
stations without authorization and without broadcasting the call 
signs so that affected parties could contact it.  As noted 
above,22 Horizon has provided no persuasive evidence that its 
actions were taken in good faith to reduce spectrum congestion.  
Moreover, Horizon is obligated to respond to Commission 
communications regarding rule violations.23  The Commission does 
not award a downward reduction under these circumstances.24  
Horizon does not offer any support for its contention to the 
contrary.  

     17.       We agree with Horizon that the Commission has 
recognized it should not merely multiply the number of repeaters 
for each violation in assessing a forfeiture amount.25   We 
disagree, however, with Horizon's characterization of the 
transmitters for Stations WPMM811 and WPMT622 as ``repeaters.''26   
The Commission takes into account numerous factors in determining 
the appropriate forfeiture in any given situation.  As we have 
discussed herein, we find no mitigating circumstances in 
determining the forfeiture amount we assess Horizon.  Horizon 
relocated two licensed stations without Commission authority and 
without broadcasting their call sign so that other parties could 
identify the signal.  Thus, the forfeiture amount reflects the 
amount for each of the two violations and not simply a multiple.  
Moreover, Horizon, unlike the licensee in CIPS, did not bring the 
violation to the Commission's attention.  

     18.       We have examined Horizon's response pursuant to 
the statutory factors above, and in conjunction with the Policy 
Statement as well.  As a result of our review, we conclude that 
Horizon's violation of Sections 1.903(a) and 90.425(a) of the 
Rules is willful27 and repeated28 and find that no reduction of 
the monetary forfeiture assessed in the Forfeiture Order is 
warranted.  

IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     19.       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,29 Horizon Communications IS LIABLE FOR A 
MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars 
($10,000) for its willful and repeated violation of Sections 
1.903(a) and 90.425(a) of the Commission's Rules.  

     20.       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.30 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/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above.  Payment by check or 
money order may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, 
Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 
73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.  Payment by overnight mail 
may be sent to Bank One/LB 73482, 525 West Monroe, 8th Floor 
Mailroom, Chicago, IL 60661.   Payment by wire transfer may be 
made to ABA Number 071000013, receiving bank Bank One, and 
account number 1165259.   Requests for full payment under an 
installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and 
Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20554.31    

     21.       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order 
shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt 
Requested to Horizon Communications, P.O. Box 387, Cliffside 
Park, New Jersey 07010, and to its counsel Alan S. Tilles, Esq., 
Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, P.A., 11921 Rockville 
Pike, Third Floor, Rockville, Maryland 20852.  



                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                    



                              George R. Dillon
                              Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau






_________________________

1 47 C.F.R.  1.903(a) and 90.425(a).  
2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, File No. EB-02-PA-
275, NAL/Acct. No. 200332400002 (released December 5, 2002).     
3 Horizon's response was styled ``Petition for Reconsideration.''  
We will consider Horizon's petition as a response to the NAL 
pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  1.80(f)(3) (hereinafter ``Response''). An 
opportunity to file a petition for reconsideration after issuance 
of this Order is provided pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.80(i). 
4  The NAL contained a typographical error, identifying 
Westchester's station as ``WQR620.''  Commission records indicate 
that WQR630 is the correct call sign.
5  In its reply to the Notice of Violation, Horizon stated that 
Eastland Car Service would have an external transmitter put on 
frequency ``452.275 MHz.''  We conclude that this was a 
typographical error, and Horizon meant to state 452.725 MHz.
6 47 U.S.C.  503(b).
7 47 C.F.R.  1.80.
8 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).
9  Response at 1.
10  Response at 3.
11  The Commission has put in place a coordination procedure for 
stations in the Private Radio Services and requires applicants 
and licensees to make use of it.  See 47 C.F.R.  90.35(b)(2).
12  Response at 3.   
13  See 47 C.F.R.  1.929(c)(4)(v).  Horizon references 47 C.F.R. 
 90.693(b), which states that for licensees in the 800 MHz band, 
moving a transmitter within the station's service area contours 
is a minor modification that does not require an application or 
Commission authorization in advance.  Horizon is licensed in the 
450 and 460 MHz bands.
14  Biennial Regulatory Review - Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 
24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of the Commission's rules 
to Facilitate the Development and Use of the Universal Licensing 
System in the Wireless Telecommunications Services, 13 FCC Rcd. 
21027, 21059 (1998) (``There are numerous instances in which an 
application could significantly affect other licensees on a 
shared frequency, and should therefore be considered major.  We 
will therefore apply our major change rule to both exclusive and 
shared frequencies as proposed.'')
15  Response at 6.
16  Horizon's Response at 5.
17 As noted above, we are not persuaded that Horizon's 
unauthorized relocation was in fact within its contour area.  See 
 10, supra.  Additionally, Horizon has provided no persuasive 
evidence that it was acting in good faith to reduce interference 
concerns.  See  8, supra.
18  1999 WL 528263; DA 99-1456, released July 26, 1999 (Dir., 
Legal Svcs Group CIB) (``Graytop Cab.'')
19  15 FCC Rcd 13590 (Enf. Bureau 2000) (``Arvada.'')
20  47 C.F.R.  90.135
21  15 FCC Rcd. 5811 (Enf. Bureau 2000), recon denied 15 FCC Rcd. 
24314 (2000) (``Colorado Small Business Development.'')  
22  See  8, supra.
23  See 47 C.F.R.  1.951.
24  Policy Statement; 47 C.F.R.  1.80.
25  See Central Illinois Public Service Company, 15 FCC Rcd 1750 
(1999) (``CIPS'').
26  Horizon's Response at 5.
27 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). 
28 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. 
29 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).
30  47 U.S.C.  504(a).
31 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.