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-11-SE-109       
                                                                            
     Union Oil Company of California,      )   NAL/Acct. No.: 201332100002  
                                                                            
     a subsidiary of Chevron Corporation   )   FRN: 0001535541              
                                                                            
                                           )                                


                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted: November 2, 2012 Released: November 2, 2012

   By the Commission: Commissioner Pai approving in part and concurring in
   part.

   I. introduction

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we find Union Oil
       Company of California (UOCC), former licensee of Private Land Mobile
       Radio Service (PLMRS) station WPHA630, Nikiski, Alaska, and
       Aeronautical and Fixed Advisory (UNICOM) station WAL7, Cook Inlet,
       Alaska, apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of ninety-six
       thousand two hundred dollars ($96,200) for its apparent willful and
       repeated violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934,
       as amended (Act), Section 1.903(a) of the Commission's rules (Rules),
       and the associated Commission orders requiring licensees to seek
       authority for any continued operations after license expiration. The
       apparent violations involve UOCC's operation of PLMRS station WPHA630
       and UNICOM station WAL7 without the necessary Commission authority for
       more than six and eight years, respectively, as well as UOCC's
       associated failure to timely file applications for authority to
       continue operation of the stations.

   II. background

    2. UOCC engages in oil and gas exploration and production activities in
       Alaska's Cook Inlet Basin. UOCC is an indirect, wholly-owned
       subsidiary of Chevron Corporation (Chevron), a global energy company
       with substantial business activities in more than 30 countries. On
       August 15, 2000, UOCC was granted a license to operate PLMRS station
       WPHA630 for five years through August 15, 2005. On May 23, 2005, the
       Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Wireless Bureau) sent
       UOCC a courtesy "renewal reminder" notice for station WPHA630,
       alerting UOCC that it was required to file a renewal application for
       the station prior to the expiration of the station's license if it
       planned to continue operation. UOCC failed to file a renewal
       application for station WPHA630 prior to the license expiration date.

    3. On January 21, 1999, UOCC was granted a license to operate UNICOM
       station WAL7 for five years through January 21, 2004. On October 27,
       2003, the Wireless Bureau sent UOCC a courtesy "renewal reminder"
       notice for station WAL7, alerting UOCC that it was required to file a
       renewal application for the station prior to the expiration of the
       station's license if it planned to continue operation. UOCC also
       failed to file a renewal application for station WAL7 prior to the
       license expiration date.

    4. In the absence of timely filed renewal applications, UOCC's licenses
       for stations WPHA630 and WAL7 automatically terminated on their
       respective expiration dates. On November 3, 2011, more than six years
       after the license for WPHA630 expired and nearly eight years after the
       license for WAL7 expired, UOCC filed with the Wireless Bureau requests
       for Special Temporary Authority (STA), stating that the licenses for
       stations WPHA630 and WAL7 "were inadvertently permitted to expire" and
       that the STAs were necessary to "permit the prompt restoration of
       authority to operate these internal communications systems." On
       November 4, 2011, the Wireless Bureau granted the STA for station
       WPHA630 until May 2, 2012 under call sign WQOL356. On November 7,
       2011, the Wireless Bureau granted the STA for station WAL7 until May
       5, 2012 under call sign WQOL455.

    5. Because it appeared that UOCC operated stations WPHA630 and WAL7 after
       the expiration of their station licenses, the Wireless Bureau referred
       this matter to the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) for investigation and
       possible enforcement action. On March 28, 2012, the Bureau's Spectrum
       Enforcement Division issued a letter of inquiry (LOI) to UOCC,
       directing the company to submit a sworn written response to a series
       of questions relating to its failure to file applications for renewal
       of the WPHA630 and WAL7 licenses and its unauthorized operation of the
       stations. UOCC responded to the LOI on June 8, 2012. In its LOI
       Response, UOCC admits that it continued to operate stations WPHA630
       and WAL7 after the expiration date of the station licenses. According
       to UOCC, Chevron personnel discovered the expired licenses on
       September 27, 2011, during the course of due diligence performed in
       connection with the sale of UOCC assets in Alaska. UOCC explains that
       the license for station WPHA630 expired five days after Chevron's
       August 10, 2005 acquisition of UOCC, at a time when UOCC was
       transitioning responsibility for the management of the company's FCC
       licensing to a new individual. UOCC asserts that the license for
       station WAL7 expired 18 months prior to Chevron's acquisition of UOCC
       and consequently was not added to Chevron's internal FCC license
       tracking database.

   III. discussion

    6. Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules prohibit the
       use or operation of any apparatus for the transmission of energy or
       communications or signals by radio except under, and in accordance
       with, a Commission-granted authorization. Licensees who want to
       operate after the expiration of their licenses must affirmatively
       request continued operating authority from the Commission. The
       Universal Licensing System Orders mandate the filing of certain
       applications to obtain such authority. 

    7. As a Commission licensee, UOCC was required to maintain its
       authorizations in order to continue to operate stations WPHA630 and
       WAL7. UOCC admitted that it failed to renew its license for station
       WPHA630, and that it continued to operate the station without
       Commission authority for more than six years, from August 15, 2005,
       when the license expired, until November 4, 2011, when its request for
       STA was granted. UOCC also admitted that it failed to renew its
       license for station WAL7, and that it continued to operate the station
       for nearly eight years, from January 21, 2004, when the license
       expired, until November 7, 2011, when its request for STA was granted.
       In addition, prior to seeking its STAs, UOCC failed to file any other
       application for authority to continue operations. By operating
       stations WPHA630 and WAL7 after the licenses had expired, UOCC
       apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the
       Rules, and by failing to seek Commission authority for its continued
       operation of stations WPHA630 and WAL7, UOCC apparently violated the
       Universal Licensing System Orders and associated rules.

    8. Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules
       provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply
       with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a
       forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the
       term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the
       action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the Rules,
       and "repeated" means more than once or for more than one day. Based on
       the record before us, UOCC's apparent violations of Section 301 of the
       Act, Section 1.903(a) of the Rules, and the Universal Licensing System
       Orders and associated rules are both willful and repeated.

    9. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E)
       of the Act directs us to consider factors such as "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." Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount
       of $10,000 for operation of a station without Commission authority and
       a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms
       or information. The Commission has held that a licensee's continued
       operation without authorization and its failure to timely seek
       Commission authority for such operations constitute separate
       violations and warrant the assessment of separate forfeitures. We note
       that UOCC failed to file either a timely renewal or any other
       application seeking operating authority. Accordingly, we herein
       propose separate base forfeiture amounts for UOCC's violations-$10,000
       each for UOCC's continued operation of stations WPHA630 and WAL7
       without Commission authority, and $3,000 each for UOCC's failure to
       seek Commission authority for stations WPHA630 and WAL7, for a total
       base forfeiture of $26,000.

   10. Given the totality of the circumstances, and consistent with the
       Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a significant upward
       adjustment of the base forfeiture is warranted.  In this regard, we
       recognize that Chevron-UOCC's parent company-is a multi-billion
       dollar, global enterprise, and to ensure that forfeiture liability is
       a deterrent and not simply a cost of doing business, the Commission
       has determined that large or highly-profitable companies such as
       Chevron should expect the assessment of higher forfeitures for
       violations. We are also particularly mindful that UOCC's apparent
       unlawful operation continued for an extended period of time-six years
       in one case and nearly eight years in the other. In fact, for each
       station, the period of unauthorized operation exceeded the length of
       the station's initial license term.  Consistent with Section 301 of
       the Act, licensees who find themselves out of compliance with the
       licensing requirements should immediately cease unauthorized operation
       or seek temporary operating authority.

   11. We also decline to downward adjust the forfeiture on the grounds that
       the violations resulted from a lack of knowledge of the expired
       licenses or a change in personnel.  As the Commission has emphasized,
       "[a]ll licensees are responsible for knowing the terms of their
       licenses and for filing a timely renewal application if they seek to
       operate beyond that term." In the absence of a timely renewal
       application, the Commission has clarified that some request for
       operating authority must be filed, noting that its "treatment of
       late-filed renewal applications should take into consideration the
       complete facts and circumstances involved." It is also well
       established that administrative oversight or inadvertence is not a
       mitigating factor. UOCC and Chevron are sophisticated licensees who,
       by their own admission, were well aware of the fundamental licensing
       requirements imposed by Section 301 of the Act. Any initial transition
       issues related to Chevron's 2005 acquisition of UOCC do not explain
       the subsequent six- and eight-year periods of unauthorized operation.
       In addition, notwithstanding the significant resources at its
       disposal, UOCC took more than five weeks (after discovery of the
       expired licenses) to seek temporary authority to operate the stations,
       during which time the apparent unlawful operation continued. This
       additional period of noncompliance followed two license renewal
       reminders several years earlier and a specific inquiry from UOCC's
       parent company about the expired licenses, all of which should have
       highlighted the need for immediate action. Based on all the factors
       and evidence, including the extended duration of the violations and
       UUOC's ability to pay, we propose an aggregate forfeiture of $96,200. 

   IV. ordering clauses

   12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act
       and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Union Oil Company of
       California IS hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A
       FORFEITURE in the amount of ninety-six thousand two dollars ($96,200)
       for willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act, Section
       1.903(a) of the Rules, and the Universal Licensing System Orders and
       associated rules.

   13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, 
       within thirty (30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of
       Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Union Oil Company of California
       SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a
       written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
       forfeiture consistent with paragraph 14 below.

   14. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
       wire transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number
       and FRN referenced above. Union Oil Company of California shall send
       electronic notification of payment to Josh Zeldis and Ricardo Durham
       at Josh.Zeldis@fcc.gov and Ricardo.Durham@fcc.gov on the date said
       payment is made. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed FCC
       Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the
       FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call
       sign/other ID) and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A
       (payment type code).   Below are additional instructions you should
       follow based on the form of payment you select:

     * Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of
       the Federal Communications Commission.  Such payments (along with the
       completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications
       Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent
       via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088,
       SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. 

     * Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004,
       receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001.  To complete
       the wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds,
       a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on
       the same business day the wire transfer is initiated. 

     * Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit
       card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159
       to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then
       be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
       Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank -
       Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
       Louis, MO 63101. 

   15. Any request for full payment under an installment plan should be sent
       to: Chief Financial Officer-Financial Operations, Federal
       Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 1-A625,
       Washington, DC 20554. If you have questions regarding payment
       procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by
       phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.

   16. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the
       proposed forfeiture, if any, must include a detailed factual statement
       supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant to
       Sections 1.80(f)(3) and 1.16 of the Rules. The written statement must
       be mailed to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
       Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, ATTN:
       Enforcement Bureau - Spectrum Enforcement Division, and must include
       the NAL/Account Number referenced in the caption. The statement must
       also be emailed to Josh Zeldis at Josh.Zeldis@fcc.gov and to Ricardo
       Durham at Ricardo.Durham@fcc.gov. The Commission will not consider
       reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability
       to pay unless the petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for the
       most recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared
       according to generally accepted accounting practices; or (3) some
       other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects
       the petitioner's current financial status. Any claim of inability to
       pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to
       the financial documentation.

   17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
       for Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail,
       return receipt requested to Jack Richards, Esq., Counsel for Union Oil
       Company of California, Keller and Heckman LLP, 1001 G Street, NW,
       Suite 500 West, Washington, DC 20001.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

   Secretary

   47 U.S.C. S: 301.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.903(a).

   See 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, 21071, para. 96 (1998)
   (Universal Licensing System Report and Order) (adopting inter alia Section
   1.949 of the Rules); Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 14
   FCC Rcd 11476, 11485-86, para. 22 (1999) (Universal Licensing System MO&O)
   (collectively, Universal Licensing System Orders).

   See Chevron Corporation (2012), Quarterly Report (Form 10-Q), at 23 (Aug.
   2, 2012).

   See Industrial/Business Pool, Conventional License - WPHA630 - Union Oil
   Company of California, 
   http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=1784028.

   See Automated Renewal Reminder Letter from the FCC Wireless
   Telecommunications Bureau, to Union Oil Company of California, Reference
   No. 3516315 (May 23, 2005).

   See http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=1973906.

   See Automated Renewal Reminder Letter from the FCC Wireless
   Telecommunications Bureau, to Union Oil Company of California, Reference
   No. 2366620 (Oct. 27, 2003).

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.955(a)(1) (stating that "[a]uthorizations automatically
   terminate, without specific Commission action, on the expiration date
   specified therein, unless a timely application for renewal is filed.").

   See File Nos. 0004938962 (WPHA630), 0004938974 (WAL7).

   See File No. 0004938962. The Wireless Bureau granted the STA without
   prejudice to any enforcement action related to the unauthorized operation
   of station WPHA630. See id. On November 7, 2011, UOCC filed an application
   for a new PLMRS station license, which was granted on January 27, 2012,
   under call sign WQOT721. See File No. 0004940929.

   See File No. 0004938974. The Wireless Bureau granted the STA without
   prejudice to any enforcement action related to the unauthorized operation
   of station WAL7. See id. On November 17, 2011, UOCC filed an application
   for a new UNICOM station license, which was granted on January 10, 2012,
   under call sign WQOR719. See File No. 0004958393.

   See Letter from John D. Poutasse, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   FCC Enforcement Bureau, to Jack Richards, Esq., Counsel for Union Oil
   Company of California (Mar. 28, 2012) (on file in EB-11-SE-109).

   See Letter from Jack Richards, Esq., Counsel for Union Oil Company of
   California, to Susan German, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC
   Enforcement Bureau (June 8, 2012) (on file in EB-11-SE-109) (LOI
   Response). UOCC was granted extensions of time to respond to the LOI. See
   e-mail from John D. Poutasse, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC
   Enforcement Bureau, to Jack B. Richards, Counsel for Union Oil Company of
   California (Apr. 27, 2012, 4:49 EDT) (on file in EB-11-SE-109); e-mail
   from John D. Poutasse, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC
   Enforcement Bureau, to Jack B. Richards, Counsel for Union Oil Company of
   California (May 11, 2012, 4:42 EDT) (on file in EB-11-SE-109).

   See LOI Response at 2, 4, 5.

   Id. at 2, 4. UOCC states that Chevron screens for potentially affected FCC
   licenses as part of its due diligence procedures for mergers,
   acquisitions, and divestments. Id. at 5-6. According to UOCC, after
   Chevron's discovery of the expired licenses, Chevron alerted UOCC
   operational staff in Alaska, who confirmed the unauthorized operation to
   Chevron on or about October 10, 2011. Id. at 2-4.

   Id. at 3.

   Id. at 5. According to UOCC, following Chevron's acquisition of UOCC,
   Chevron engineered and developed an internal FCC license database that
   integrates data from the Wireless Bureau's ULS database with Chevron's
   internal license information. Id. (also claiming that some of the
   company's FCC license files may have been erroneously purged or lost in
   connection with an office relocation in 2002). Id. at 3, 4.

   47 U.S.C. S: 301; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.903(a).

   Specifically, Section 1.949(a) of the Rules requires that licensees
   wishing to continue operations file renewal applications for wireless
   radio stations "no later than the expiration date of the authorization for
   which renewal is sought, and no sooner than 90 days prior to expiration."
   47 C.F.R. S: 1.949(a). If a licensee intending continued operations fails
   to file a timely renewal application, the Commission nevertheless requires
   such licensee to seek operating authority. See Universal Licensing System
   Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 21071, para. 98 (directing licensees that
   fail to file timely renewal applications to submit a new application or,
   if necessary, a request for special temporary operating authority);
   Universal Licensing System MO&O, 14 FCC Rcd at 11485-86, para. 22
   (permitting, in the alternative, the acceptance and processing of late
   filed renewal applications under certain circumstances). In the Universal
   Licensing System MO&O, the Commission expressly held that it could
   "initiate enforcement action against the licensee both for untimely filing
   and unauthorized operation between the expiration of the license and the
   late renewal filing, including, if appropriate, the imposition of fines or
   forfeitures for these rule violations." Id.

   As noted above, the Universal Licensing System Orders and Commission
   precedent make clear that if a licensee continues to operate, it has an
   ongoing duty to seek Commission authority for such operations. See supra
   note 20;  see also Discussion Radio, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order
   and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 7433 (2004). 
   See also Telrite, 23 FCC Rcd 7231, 7244, para. 30 (2008); Compass Global,
   Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 6125, 6138,
   para. 29 (2008); VCI Company, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
   and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15933, 15940, para. 20 (2007). We note that a
   failure to seek timely operating authority inhibits the Commission's
   ability to fulfill its statutory obligations under Sections 301
   (maintaining control of radio transmission and use of such channels for
   limited periods of time), 303 (assigning frequencies), and 307 of the Act
   (ensuring the fair, efficient and equitable distribution of radio
   service).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(a).

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1), (2). See also Southern California Broad. Co.,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387-88, para. 5 (1991), recon.
   denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (Southern California) (the definitions of
   willful and repeated contained in the Act apply to violations for which
   forfeitures are assessed under Section 503(b) of the Act).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E). See also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(6), Note to
   paragraph (b)(6): Guidelines for Assessing Forfeitures; Forfeiture Policy
   Statement, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100, para. 27 (1997),
   recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Forfeiture Policy Statement).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b). See also Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at
   17098-99, para. 22 (noting that "[a]lthough we have adopted the base
   forfeiture amounts as guidelines to provide a measure of predictability to
   the forfeiture process, we retain our discretion to depart from the
   guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under our
   general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act").

   See Discussion Radio, 19 FCC Rcd at 7438, para. 15.

   Chevron-one of the world's six major oil companies-is a U.S. multinational
   energy corporation and does business worldwide. Chevron's 2011 annual
   report filed with the Security and Exchange Commission reported gross
   revenues of $244.4 billion. See Chevron Corporation (2012), Annual Report,
   at 2 (Feb. 23, 2012).

   It is well-established Commission policy to consider the revenues of a
   violator's parent company. See, e.g. SM Radio, Inc., Order on Review, 23
   FCC Rcd 2429, 2433, para. 12 (2008) (citations omitted); Tesla
   Exploration, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd
   9808, 9811, para. 10 & n.20 (2012). See also Forfeiture Policy Statement,
   12 FCC Rcd at 17099-100, paras. 23-24 (cautioning all entities and
   individuals that, independent from the uniform base forfeiture amounts,
   the Commission will take into account the subject violator's ability to
   pay in determining the amount of a forfeiture to guarantee that
   forfeitures issued against large or highly profitable entities are not
   considered merely an affordable cost of doing business, and noting that
   such large or highly profitable entities should expect that the forfeiture
   amount set out in a Notice of Apparent Liability against them may in many
   cases be above, or even well above, the relevant base amount). See also
   America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V., Parent of Puerto Rico Telephone Company,
   Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 8672 (Enf.
   Bur. 2011) (doubling the base forfeiture due to the company's size and
   gross revenues); Fox Television Stations Inc., Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 7074 (Enf. Bur. 2010) (upwardly
   adjusting the base forfeiture based on the egregiousness of the violation
   and the company's substantial revenues); Google Inc., Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 4012 (Enf. Bur. 2012) (upwardly
   adjusting the base forfeiture due to the deliberate nature of the
   violation and the company's gross revenues).

   Specifically, UOCC operated station WPHA630 without authority for more
   than six years-from August 15, 2005, the date that the license expired,
   until November 4, 2011, the date that UOCC's STA for station WPHA630 was
   granted. The apparent unauthorized operation of station WAL7 continued for
   nearly eight years, from January 21, 2004, the date that the license
   expired, until November 7, 2011, the date that UOCC's STA for station WAL7
   was granted.

   In the past, the Bureau on delegated authority has upwardly adjusted the
   base forfeiture in cases where the unauthorized operation continued for an
   extended period of time, in order to avoid creating perverse incentives
   and to encourage PLMRS and other licensees to monitor their license
   expiration dates and to timely seek renewal or otherwise take appropriate
   steps to quickly come into compliance with FCC rules.  See Emigrant
   Storage, 27 FCC Rcd 8917, 8920-21, para. 9 (more than nine years of
   unauthorized operation);  BASF Corporation at 17303-04, para. 11 (five
   years of unauthorized operation); Shubat Transportation at 3786, para. 13
   (six years of unauthorized operation); Call Mobile, Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 74, 77, para. 12 (Enf. Bur. 2011)
   (response pending) (Call Mobile) (two and one-half years of unauthorized
   operation). 

   While Section 503(b)(6) of the Act generally bars the Commission from
   proposing a forfeiture for violations that occurred more than a year prior
   to the issuance of an NAL, we may consider the fact that UOCC's misconduct
   occurred over an extended period (during the more than six year period
   between 2004 and 2011) to place "the violations in context, thus
   establishing the licensee's degree of culpability and the continuing
   nature of the violations." Roadrunner Transportation Inc., Forfeiture
   Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9669, 9671-72, para. 8 (2000); see also BASF
   Corporation, 25 FCC Rcd at 17302, para 9; Call Mobile, 26 FCC Rcd at 76,
   para 10. The apparent unlawful operation in this case continued from April
   15, 2005 (the WPHA630 license expiration date) through November 7, 2011
   (the date of the STA grant) and from January 21, 2004 (the WAL7 license
   expiration date) through November 17, 2011 (the date of the STA grant).
   Therefore, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates to UOCC's
   apparent continuing violations that ceased during the past year.

   See LOI Response at 2-3, 4 (stating that Chevron was not aware that UOCC
   had continued operating stations WPHA630 and WAL7 until such operations
   were confirmed by UOCC on or about October 10, 2011).

   Universal Licensing Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 21071, para 96; see 47
   C.F.R. S: 1.949(a). See also Emigrant Storage, 27 FCC Rcd at 8920-21,
   para. 9 (claiming that it failed to renew the license for PLMRS station
   WPKM212 and stating that the violation resulted from oversight and a
   change in personnel); Profit Enterprises, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 8 FCC
   Rcd 2846, 2846, para. 5 (1993) (denying the mitigation claim of a
   manufacturer/distributor who thought that the equipment certification and
   marketing requirements were inapplicable, stating that its "prior
   knowledge or understanding of the law is unnecessary to a determination of
   whether a violation existed ... ignorance of the law [is not] a mitigating
   factor"); Lakewood Broad. Serv., Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order,  37
   FCC 2d 437, 438, para. 6 (1972) (denying a mitigation claim of a broadcast
   licensee who asserted an unfamiliarity with the station identification
   requirements, stating that licensees are expected "to know and conform
   their conduct to the requirements of our Rules"); Kenneth Paul Harris,
   Sr., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,  15 FCC Rcd 12933,
   12935-36, para. 7 (Enf. Bur. 2000) (denying a mitigation claim of a
   broadcast licensee, stating that its ignorance of the law did not excuse
   the unauthorized transfer of the station); Maxwell Broad. Group, Inc.,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 784, 784, para. 2 (Mass Med. Bur.
   1993) (denying a mitigation claim of a noncommercial broadcast licensee,
   stating that the excuse of "inadverten[ce], due to inexperience and
   ignorance of the rules ... are not reasons to mitigate a forfeiture" for
   violation of the advertisement restrictions).

   See Universal Licensing System MO&O, 14 FCC Rcd at 11485, para 22.

   See Southern California,  6 FCC Rcd at 4387, para. 3 (stating that
   "`inadvertence' ... is at best, ignorance of the law, which the Commission
   does not consider a mitigating circumstance").

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 301.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b).

   47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80.

   47 U.S.C. S: 301.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.903(a).

   See supra note 3.

   Id. S: 1.80.

   An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be
   obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.

   47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.80(f)(3), 1.16.

   (...continued from previous page)

                                                              (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-136

                                       8

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-136