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


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-05-NY-353       
     Family Car Service, Inc.   )   NAL/Acct. No. 200732380003  
     Brooklyn, NY               )   FRN. 0014 5183 69           


   Adopted: January 22, 2008 Released: January 24, 2008

   By the Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region, Enforcement Bureau:


    1. In this Order ("Order"), we cancel a proposed forfeiture  in the
       amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) issued to Family Car Service,
       Inc. ("Family Car Service") for apparent willful and repeated
       violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
       ("Act"), by operating radio transmission equipment on the frequencies
       30.94 MHz and 30.98 MHz without a license in Brooklyn, NY.

    2. On December 21, 2006, the Commission's New York Field Office issued a
       Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of
       $10,000 to Family Car Service for unauthorized radio transmissions
       from a taxicab service operated at 262 4th Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11215.
       A response to the NAL was submitted by Lillian Rodriguez on January
       22, 2007.


    3. We agree with Ms. Rodriguez that the NAL should be cancelled because
       the NAL was issued to a non-existent entity. Although Ms. Rodriguez
       admits that she owns the taxicab service at issue in the NAL, she
       explains that she operates the business as a sole proprietor under the
       name "Family Car Service." Ms. Rodriguez states that Family Car
       Service is not an incorporated entity and provides supporting
       documentation. Accordingly, we conclude that the NAL was not issued to
       the proper subject and must be cancelled.

    4. We note, however, that in her response to the NAL, Ms. Rodriguez
       admits that her taxicab service operated without authorization on the
       frequencies and dates identified in the NAL. Ms. Rodriguez claims that
       she was not aware that she needed an FCC license to operate the radio
       equipment. While Ms. Rodriguez subsequently was granted a license on
       January 19, 2006, to operate on the subject frequencies at her taxicab
       service in Brooklyn, New York, we remind Ms. Rodriguez that prior
       knowledge of the law is not necessary in determining whether a
       violation existed. As a licensee, Ms. Rodriguez will be held
       responsible for any future violations of the Commission's rules.


    5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and
       1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for
       Forfeiture issued to Family Car Service, Inc. is HEREBY CANCELLED.

    6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by
       Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular mail, to Lillian
       Rodriguez at her address of record and to counsel for Lillian
       Rodriguez at his address of record.


   G. Michael Moffitt

   Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region

   Enforcement Bureau

   47 U.S.C. S: 301.

   See, e.g. Profit Enterprises, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2846, 2846
   (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.").

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

   47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

   (...continued from previous page)


   Federal Communications Commission DA 08-143


   Federal Communications Commission DA 08-143