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-06-SE-370       
                                                                
     Yellow Cab Leasing, Inc.   )   NAL/Acct. No. 200732100039  
                                                                
     Canton, Ohio               )   FRN # 0002937126            


                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted:  July 5, 2007    Released:  July 10, 2007

   By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we find Yellow
       Cab Leasing, Inc. ("Yellow Cab"), former licensee of Private Land
       Mobile Radio Service ("PLMRS") station KNHW827, in Canton, Ohio,
       apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand, five
       hundred dollars ($10,500) for operating a PLMRS station without
       Commission authority, failing to file a timely renewal application for
       the station and failing to respond to directives of the Enforcement
       Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information. Yellow Cab acted in
       apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 1.903 and
       1.949(a) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules").

   II. background

    2. Yellow Cab was granted a PLMRS station license under call sign KNHW827
       on August 27, 1998, with an expiration date of November 16, 2003.
       Yellow Cab did not file a renewal application and thus its license to
       operate station KNHW827 expired on November 16, 2003.

    3. In October 2006, the Enforcement Bureau received a complaint from the
       City of Canton, Ohio alleging that Yellow Cab was continuing to
       operate Station KNHW827 without authorization. The City of Canton
       indicated that it requires cab companies to be equipped with two-way
       radios and that it had confirmed the operation of Station KNHW827
       through conversations with at least 16 cab drivers the previous week.
       On November 9, 2006, the Bureau's Spectrum Enforcement Division
       ("Division") issued a letter of inquiry to Yellow Cab. The letter of
       inquiry directed Yellow Cab to submit a response within 30 business
       days and explained that failure to appropriately respond may
       constitute a violation of the Communications Act and Rules. Yellow Cab
       did not respond to the Division's inquiry. On January 17, 2007, the
       Division issued a second letter of inquiry to Yellow Cab, but received
       neither a return receipt nor a response. Subsequently, on March 27,
       2007, the Division issued another letter of inquiry to Yellow Cab.
       Again, Yellow Cab failed to respond to the Division's inquiry. On
       April 12, 2007, Yellow Cab filed an application for a new PLMRS
       station which the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau granted under
       call sign WQGX626 on May 16, 2007.

   III. discussion 

    4. Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903 of the Rules prohibit the use
       or operation of any apparatus for the transmission of energy,
       communications or signals by a wireless radio station except under,
       and in accordance with, a Commission granted authorization.
       Additionally, Section 1.949(a) of the Rules requires licensees to 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." Absent a timely filed
       renewal application, a wireless radio station license automatically
       terminates on the date of expiration.

    5. As a Commission licensee, Yellow Cab is required to maintain a current
       authorization to operate its station. Yellow Cab apparently operated
       its PLMRS station without authorization for over three years, from
       November 16, 2003 to April 12, 2007 (the date that the Wireless
       Telecommunications Bureau received the subject license application).
       By operating its station without authorization, Yellow Cab apparently
       willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section
       1.903 of the Rules. Yellow Cab also acted in apparent violation of
       Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal
       application for the station.

    6. Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the Act afford the Commission broad
       authority to investigate the entities it regulates. Section 4(i)
       authorizes the Commission to "issue such orders, not inconsistent with
       this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions," and
       Section 4(j) states that "the Commission may conduct its proceedings
       in such manner as will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business
       and to the ends of justice." Section 403 likewise grants the
       Commission "full authority and power ... to institute an inquiry, on
       its own motion ... relating to the enforcement of any of the
       provisions of this Act." Pursuant to that authority, the Bureau three
       times ordered Yellow Cab to submit a timely written response to its
       letters of inquiry and to provide the information requested. Three
       times Yellow Cab failed to respond as directed. It is well settled
       that a party cannot ignore the directives in a Bureau letter of
       inquiry.

    7. Section 503(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 Commission's
       rules, and "repeatedly" means more than once. Based upon the record
       before us, it appears that Yellow Cab's violations of Section 301 of
       the Act and Sections 1.903 and 1.949(a) were willful and repeated. It
       also appears that Yellow Cab willfully and repeatedly failed to
       respond to Bureau inquiries concerning its PLMRS license.

    8. 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." Having considered the statutory factors, as explained below,
       we propose an aggregate forfeiture in the amount of $10,500.

    9. Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of three
       thousand dollars ($3,000) for failure to file required forms or
       information, and ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for operation of a
       station without Commission authority. As the Commission recently held,
       a licensee's failure to timely file a renewal application and its
       continued operation without authorization constitute separate
       violations of the Act and the rules and warrant the assessment of
       separate forfeitures. Accordingly, we propose separate forfeiture
       amounts for Yellow Cab's separate violations.

   10. Consistent with precedent, we propose a $1,500 forfeiture for Yellow
       Cab's failure to file the renewal application for its PLMRS station
       within the time period specified in Section 1.949(a) of the Rules.
       Additionally, we propose a five thousand dollar ($5,000) forfeiture
       for Yellow Cab's continued operation of its PLMRS station after the
       expiration of its license on November 16, 2003. In proposing a $5,000
       forfeiture for Yellow Cab's unauthorized operations, we recognize that
       the Commission considers a licensee who operates a station with an
       expired license in better stead than a pirate broadcaster who lacks
       prior authority, and thus downwardly adjust the $10,000 base
       forfeiture amount accordingly. Thus, we propose an aggregate
       forfeiture of six thousand five hundred dollars ($6,500) ($1,500 for
       failure to timely file a renewal application and $5,000 for
       unauthorized operations).

   11. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the
       Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to a
       Commission communication is four thousand dollars ($4,000). We find
       that Yellow Cab's willful and repeated failure to respond to the
       Bureau's inquiries warrants a proposed forfeiture. Misconduct of this
       type exhibits a disregard for the Commission's authority that cannot
       be tolerated, and, more importantly, threatens to compromise the
       Commission's ability to adequately investigate violations of its
       rules. Accordingly, applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement and
       statutory factors to the instant case, we conclude that Yellow Cab is
       apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 for failing
       to respond to the Bureau's letters of inquiry. Thus, we propose an
       aggregate forfeiture of $10,500 for Yellow Cab's apparent willful and
       repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act and Sections 1.903 and
       1.949(a) of the Rules and Yellow Cab's apparent willful and repeated
       failure to respond to Bureau inquiries concerning its PLMRS license.

   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, Yellow Cab Leasing,
       Inc. IS hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in
       the amount of $10,500 for willful and repeated violation of Section
       301 of the Act and Sections 1.903 and 1.949(a) of the Rules and for
       willful and repeated failure to respond to a Bureau order.

   13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, 
       within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent
       Liability for Forfeiture, Yellow Cab Leasing, Inc.  SHALL PAY the full
       amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement
       seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

    1. 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. A request for full payment under an
       installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing
       Director-Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
       Washington, D.C. 20554.

    2. The response, if any, must be mailed to the Office of the Secretary,
       Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington,
       D.C. 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - Spectrum Enforcement Division,
       and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.

   14. 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 submitted.

   15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
       for Forfeiture  shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
       Requested to Mr. Fred C. Nero, Yellow Cab Leasing, Inc., 4137
       Martindale Road, N.E., Canton, Ohio 44705.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Kathryn S. Berthot

   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   47 U.S.C. S: 301.

   47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.903 and 1.949(a).

   Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Yellow Cab
   Leasing, Inc. (November 9, 2006). The Division received a certified mail
   return receipt showing that Yellow Cab had received the letter on November
   21, 2006.

   Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Yellow Cab
   Leasing, Inc. (January 17, 2007).

   Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Yellow Cab
   Leasing, Inc. (March 27, 2007). The Division received a certified mail
   return receipt showing that Yellow Cab had received the letter on March
   31, 2007.

   File No. 0002991326. The grant is "without prejudice to possible
   enforcement action for any prior unauthorized operation."

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.955(a)(1).

   See, e.g., Eure Family Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
   17 FCC Rcd 21861, 21863-64 (2002) (licensee is responsible for compliance
   with all Commission rules).

   Section 90.159(b) of the Rules,  47 C.F.R. S: 90.159(b), states that under
   certain circumstances (as here):

   [a]n applicant proposing to operate a new land mobile radio station . . .
   below 470 MHz . . . that is required to submit a frequency recommendation
   . . . may operate the proposed station during the pendency of its
   application for a period of up to . . . 180 days upon the filing of a
   properly completed formal Form 601 application that complies with [the
   rules] if the application is accompanied by evidence of frequency
   coordination.

   47 U.S.C. S:S: 4(i), 4(j) and 403.

   See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589,
   7591 (2002) (Commission assessed a $100,000 forfeiture against a carrier
   for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to a
   Bureau letter of inquiry, stating: "[T]he order at issue here was squarely
   within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required
   to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside
   the Commission's authority."); see General Growth Properties, Notice of
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 6562 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum
   Enf. Div. 2007) ("General Growth Properties") (proposing a $4,000
   forfeiture for repeated failure to respond to written Bureau inquiries
   concerning its PLMRS station); Shenzhen Ruidian Communication Co. Ltd.,
   Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd 2177 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2006)
   ("Shenzhen Ruidian") (assessing a $4,000 forfeiture for willfully and
   repeatedly failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide
   certain information and documents).

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

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

   See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6
   FCC Rcd 4387, 4387-88 (1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454  (1992).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E); see also The Commission's Forfeiture Policy
   Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the
   Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), Report and Order,
   12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17110 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

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

   See Discussion Radio, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of
   Apparent Liability,  19 FCC Rcd 7433, 7438 (2004) ("Discussion Radio")
   (proposing forfeitures of $5,000 and $1,500, respectively, against a
   broadcaster who both operated its station for 14 months without Commission
   authority and failed to timely file its renewal application).

   See Discussion Radio, 19 FCC Rcd at 7438 (proposing a $1,500 forfeiture
   for failure to file a timely renewal application for a broadcast station);
   Hare Planting Co., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,  21 FCC
   Rcd 13517 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2006), forfeiture ordered,
   Forfeiture Order,  21 FCC Rcd 7530 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007)
   ("Hare Planting") (assessing a forfeiture in the amount of $1,500 for
   failure to file a timely renewal application for a PLMRS station);
   Imperial Sugar Company, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22
   FCC Rcd 4987 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007) ("Imperial Sugar")
   (proposing a $1,500 forfeiture for failure to file a timely renewal
   application for a PLMRS station).

   Under Section 503(b)(6) of the Act,  47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6), we are
   prohibited from assessing a forfeiture for a violation that occurred more
   than a year before the issuance of a NAL. Section 503(b)(6), however, does
   not bar us from considering Yellow Cab's prior conduct in determining the
   appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the
   one-year statutory period. See Globcom, Inc. d/b/a Globcom Global
   Communications, Notice of Liability for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 19893,
   19903 (2003), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order,  21 FCC Rcd 4710
   (2006); Roadrunner Transportation, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd
   9669, 9671 (2000) (although the Commission may not find an entity liable
   for violations committed more than one year before the issuance of an NAL,
   "it may lawfully look at facts arising before that date in determining an
   appropriate forfeiture amount"). Accordingly, while we take into account
   the continuous nature of the violations in determining the appropriate
   forfeiture amount, our proposed forfeiture relates only to Yellow Cab's
   apparent violations that have occurred within the past year.

   See Discussion Radio, 19 FCC Rcd at 7438 (proposing a $5,000 forfeiture
   for operating a station for 14 months beyond the expiration of its
   license); Hare Planting, 21 FCC Rcd 7530 (assessing a forfeiture in the
   amount of $5,000 for continued operation of its PLMRS station for
   approximately 15 months after the expiration of its license); Imperial
   Sugar, 22 FCC Rcd 4987 (proposing a $5,000 forfeiture for continued
   operation of its PLMRS station for approximately 20 months after the
   expiration of its license).

   Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd 17087.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   See, e.g., General Growth Properties, 22 FCC Rcd at 6565, Shenzhen
   Ruidian, 21 FCC Rcd. at 2177.

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

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

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3011

   4

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-  3011