******************************************************** 
                      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 )

   )

   Portland Taxicab Company, ) File No. EB-03-PO-070

   Licensee of Station WPRJ576 )

   Portland, Oregon ) NAL/Acct. No. 200432920001

   )

   ) FRN-000-865-1051

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted: January 25, 2007 Released: January 29, 2007

   By the Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. INTRODUCTION

   1. By this Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order"), we deny the Petition
   for Reconsideration filed by Portland Taxicab Company ("Portland Taxicab")
   licensee of radio station WPRJ576, Portland, Oregon. Portland Taxicab
   seeks reconsideration of an Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") Forfeiture Order
   which found Portland Taxicab liable for a monetary forfeiture in the
   amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) for willful and repeated
   violation of Sections 1.903(a), 90.210, 90.403(e) and 90.425(a) of the
   Commission's Rules ("Rules"). The noted violations involve Portland
   Taxicab's operation on frequencies without a valid FCC authorization,
   transmission of spurious emissions resulting in harmful interference to an
   amateur radio station, and failure to transmit proper station
   identification. For the reasons discussed below, the forfeiture amount of
   $12,000 will not be reduced.

   II. BACKGROUND

   2. On March 13, 2003, the Commission's Portland, Oregon Resident Agent
   Office ("Portland Office") received a complaint from an amateur radio
   operator regarding interference to the frequency band of 440.700 MHz -
   440.780 MHz. An agent monitored the frequency band and observed the
   interference. The agent located the interfering signal  to a repeater
   station operating on the frequencies 452.250 MHz and 457.250 MHz on top of
   Mt. Scott in Clackamas County, Oregon. Upon review of Commission records,
   the agent did not find a license authorizing operation on the frequencies
   452.250 MHz or 457.250 MHz at this location. The agent also observed and
   measured spurious emissions in the frequency band from 440.700 MHz to
   440.780 MHz at approximately 55 dB below the fundamental frequency 452.250
   MHz transmitted from this repeater. The agent located the repeater's
   control point station to Portland Taxicab's business at 12624 NE Halsey
   Street, Portland, Oregon.

   3. The agent inspected the control point station at this address which had
   Portland Taxicab's FCC call sign license for WPRJ576 displayed. The
   license authorized repeater and mobile station operation on frequencies
   452.125 MHz and 457.125 MHz in Clackamas County, Oregon. The agent issued
   oral warnings to Portland Taxicab's office manager regarding its
   unauthorized operation on frequencies 452.250 MHz and 457.250 MHz and the
   station's spurious emissions transmitted by the repeater station causing
   interference to amateur station AB7F. The agent also issued a warning
   regarding the station's failure to transmit the station identification.
   Portland Taxicab's station manager informed the agent that the station
   would change the frequencies and fix the transmitter.

   4. On March 17, 2003, the Portland Office agent again monitored the
   frequencies 452.250 MHz and 457.250 MHz and found the system still to be
   in violation of each of the above cited rules, at the same location
   notwithstanding the March 13, 2003, warning.

   5. On January 30, 2004, the Portland Office issued a Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of twelve thousand dollars
   ($12,000) for apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections
   1.903(a), 90.210, 90.403(e) and 90.425(a) of the Rules. Portland Taxicab,
   in its February 27, 2004, response did not dispute the violations, rather,
   it sought reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture due to an
   inability to pay. On November 18, 2004, the Bureau, finding insufficient
   documentation to consider the inability to pay claim, issued a Forfeiture
   Order which imposed a forfeiture in the amount of $12,000 against Portland
   Taxicab for the noted violations. In its Petition for Reconsideration of
   the Forfeiture Order, Portland Taxicab does not dispute the violations but
   again seeks a reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based on its
   inability to pay the $12,000 forfeiture.

   III DISCUSSION

   6. In assessing forfeiture amounts, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
   Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Section 1.80(b)(4) of
   the Rules require that the Commission take into account, among other
   things, the party's ability to pay a forfeiture. A successful claim to
   reduce a forfeiture for inability to pay requires specific supporting
   financial documentation. In analyzing economic-hardship claims, the
   Commission generally looks to a company's gross revenues from the three
   most recent tax years as a reasonable and appropriate yardstick to
   determine its ability to pay an assessed forfeiture. Indeed, the
   Commission has stated that if a company's gross revenues are sufficiently
   large, the fact that net losses are reported, alone, does not necessarily
   signify an inability to pay. Thus, 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 ("GAAP"); or (3) some other
   reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the
   petitioner's current financial status.

   7. In its Petition for Reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order, Portland
   Taxicab supplies tax returns for a two year period, several financial
   documents regarding its financial condition for the third year, and an
   affidavit of its owner general manager attesting to the accuracy of the
   financial documentation.

   8. We have reviewed the documentation presented and find that Portland
   Taxicab's gross revenues for the relevant years are sufficient to pay the
   forfeiture as the percentage of gross revenues/income represented by the
   forfeiture amount is within the range generally considered payable.

   9. We have examined Portland Taxicab's Petition for Reconsideration
   pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b) of the Act,
   and in conjunction with the Policy Statement. As a result of our review,
   we conclude that no reduction is warranted and affirm $12,000 as the
   appropriate amount for the forfeiture.

   IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

   10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to pursuant to Section 405
   of the Act, and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Portland Taxicab Company's
   Petition for Reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and the
   Forfeiture Order finding Portland Taxicab Company liable for a $12,000
   forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of Sections 1.903(a),
   90.210, 90.403(e) and 90.425(a) of the Rules  IS AFFIRMED.

   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. 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
   Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA
   15251-8340.  Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Mellon
   Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA 15251.
   Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 043000261, receiving
   bank Mellon Bank, and account number 911-6106. Requests for full payment
   under an installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director -
   Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1A625, Washington, D.C.
   20554.

   12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First
   Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Portland Taxicab
   Company, 12624 NE Halsey Street, Portland, Oregon 97230 and to its
   counsel, Charles R. Williamson, Esq., Kell, Alterman & Runstein, LLP, 520
   SW Yamhill St., Suite 600, Portland, Oregon 97204.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   George R. Dillon

   Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau

   Portland Taxicab Company, 19 FCC Rcd 22511 (Enf. Bur. 2004).

   47 C.F.R. SS 1.903(a), 90.210, 90.403(e) and 90.425(a).

   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200432920001
   (Enf. Bur., Portland Office, released January 30, 2004).

   47 C.F.R. S 1.80 (b)(4).

   See PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 2088, 2089 (1992); see
   also The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
   1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd
   17087, 17106-07 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture
   Policy Statement").

   See PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd at 2089; see also
   Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17106-07, P 43.

   See, e.g., Local Long Distance, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 24385 (2000), recon.
   denied, 16 FCC Rcd 10023, 10025 (2001); Independent Communications, Inc.,
   14 FCC Rcd 9605 (1999), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 16060, 16060 (2000);
   Hoosier Broadcasting Corp.. 14 FCC Rcd 3356 (CIB 1999), recon. denied, 15
   FCC Rcd 8640, 8641 (Enf. Bur. 2000).

   See PJB, 7 FCC Rcd at 2089 (forfeiture not deemed excessive where it
   represented approximately 2.02 percent of the violator's gross revenues);
   Hoosier Broadcasting, 15 FCC Rcd at 8641; (forfeiture not deemed excessive
   where it represented approximately 7.6 percent of the violator's gross
   revenues); Afton Communications Corp., 7 FCC Rcd 6741 (forfeiture not
   deemed excessive where it represented approximately 3.9 percent of the
   violator's gross revenues).

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

   47 U.S.C. S 405.

   47 C.F.R. S 1.106.

   47 U.S.C. S 504(a).

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-210

   4

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-210