**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

**In the Matter of** )

)

**SUNJET CAR SERVICE, INC.** ) File No. EB-00-TS-016

Station WPKU901 )

Brooklyn, New York ) **NAL/Acct. No. 015NY0001**

**FORFEITURE ORDER**

**Adopted:** March 28, 2000 **Released:** March 29, 2000

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

# I. INTRODUCTION

1\. In this Forfeiture Order ("Order"), we issue a monetary forfeiture
in the amount of seven thousand dollars (\$7,000) against Sunjet Car
Service, Inc. ("Sunjet") for willful violation of Sections 1.903,
90.135, and 90.425(a) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules").[^1] The noted
violations involve operation on an unauthorized frequency and failure to
identify.

2.  On October 8, 1999, the Commission's New York, New York, Field
    Office issued the referenced Notice of Apparent Liability ("NAL")
    for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars
    (\$7,000) to Sunjet for the noted violations.[^2] Sunjet filed a
    response to the NAL on November 7, 1999.

    **II. BACKGROUND**

    3\. Sunjet is licensed to operate private land mobile station
    WPKU901 from 4913 Snyder Avenue, Brooklyn, New York ("4913 Snyder
    Avenue") on frequencies 462.1250 and 467.1250 MHz. Sunjet uses
    Station WPKU901 to dispatch cars.

4\. On March 11, 1999, an FCC agent from the FCC\'s New York Field
Office ("agent") investigated a complaint of interference to a private
land mobile station operating on frequency 472.7625 MHz in New York, New
York. Through electronic direction finding, the agent determined that
the source of the interfering signal was a transmitter operated by
Sunjet and located at 4913 Snyder Avenue on frequency 472.7625 MHz.
During the monitoring period, which was longer than 15 minutes, no
identification was transmitted.

5\. On March 22, 1999, the New York Field Office issued Sunjet a Notice
of Non‑compliance which alleged violations of Sections 90.113,[^3]
90.135, and 90.425(a) of the Rules and requested a response. Having
received a certified mail return receipt card signed by Sunjet but no
response to the notice, the New York Field Office issued a second letter
to Sunjet on April 28, 1999, requesting that Sunjet provide a response
to the Notice of Non-compliance. The New York Field Office received a
signed return receipt card for the April 28, 1999, letter but did not
receive a written response.

6\. On May 11, 1999, Mr. Felix Leonardo of Aries Communications, Inc.,
Sunjet's service contractor, telephoned the New York Field Office on
behalf of Sunjet. Mr. Leonardo admitted that Sunjet had received the
April 28, 1999, letter and that Sunjet was operating on the frequency
472.7625 MHz, which was not authorized by its license. Mr. Leonardo
stated that Sunjet would file an application with the Commission for
authorization to operate on that frequency.

7\. On July 1, 1999, the New York Field Office received information
indicating that Sunjet was still transmitting on 472.7625 MHz. The agent
telephoned Mr. Leonardo and asked that Sunjet cease all transmissions on
the frequency 472.7625 MHz. Mr. Leonardo assured the agent that Sunjet
was operating in accordance with its license. The agent then monitored
frequency 472.7625 MHz and electronically traced a signal to 4913 Snyder
Avenue, Sunjet's place of business. During the monitoring, the FCC agent
noted that the station did not transmit its identification. When the
agent returned to the New York Field Office, he telephoned Mr. Leonardo
and warned him that Sunjet had to cease all transmissions on the
unauthorized frequency 472.7625 MHz or it would face enforcement action.

8\. On August 4 and 20 and October 6, 1999, the agent again monitored
frequency 472.7625 MHz and electronically traced a signal to 4913 Snyder
Avenue. During the monitoring, the FCC agent noted that the station did
not transmit its identification. During the monitoring period, which was
longer than 15 minutes on each of those days, Station WPKU901 did not
transmit its identification.

9\. On October 8, 1999, the District Director, New York Field Office,
issued the subject NAL to Sunjet for operating on a frequency not
authorized by its license, in repeated and willful violation of Sections
1.903 and 90.135 of the Rules and for failure to identify, in repeated
and willful violation of Section 90.425(a) of the Rules.

10\. On November 7, 1999, the Commission received Sunjet's response to
the NAL, in which Sunjet requested cancellation or reduction of the
proposed forfeiture. Sunjet asserted that it had relied solely upon its
service contractor, which provided Sunjet with "faulty" equipment and
assured Sunjet that the notices received from the Commission had been or
would be "taken care of." Sunjet also asserted: (1) its failures to
identify "may have occurred at a time of heavy radio traffic" when the
identification requirements were simply overlooked; (2) the failures to
identify "may reflect an overly casual broadcasting procedure," which is
"probably common to many stations like Sunjet's"; and (3) any damage
resulting from its failures to identify was "minimal" because of the
nature of its transmissions, the low power of its transmitter and the
fact that most listeners would know who was transmitting without hearing
the identification. In addition, Sunjet asserted that the proposed
\$7,000 forfeiture is excessive in comparison with its gross revenues of
less than \$80,000. However, Sunjet did not provide any tax returns or
financial statements to support this claim.

**III. DISCUSSION**

11\. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case
was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act[^4], Section 1.80
of the Rules[^5], 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*, FCC 99-407, (rel.
Dec. 28, 1999) ("*Policy Statement*"). In examining Sunjet'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 other such matters as justice may require.
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

12\. Section 1.903 of the Rules provides that stations in the Wireless
Radio Services must be used and operated in accordance with a valid
authorization granted by the Commission. Section 90.135 of the Rules
provides that a change in the frequency of an authorized station
requires an application for modification of the station's license. We
find that Sunjet's operation on the frequency 472.7625 MHz on March 11,
July 1, August 4, August 20, and October 6, 1999, was in repeated and
willful violation of Sections 1.903 and 90.135 of the Rules. In
addition, Section 90.425(a) of the Rules requires that stations be
identified by the transmission of the assigned call sign during each
transmission or once every 15 minutes during periods of continuous
operation. We find that Sunjet's failures to identify its transmissions
on March 11, July 1, August 4, August 20, and October 6, 1999, were in
repeated and willful violation of Section 90.425(a) of the Rules.

13\. Sunjet cannot escape responsibility for its operation on an
unauthorized frequency by blaming its service contractor. Sunjet
continued to operate on the frequency 472.7625 MHz without authorization
even after receiving many notifications of non-compliance. Therefore,
there can be no doubt that Sunjet's unauthorized operation on the
unauthorized frequency 472.7625 was willful and repeated.[^6] Sunjet
tries to minimize the significance of its failures to identify. However,
the identification requirement is important because, if identification
is given, FCC agents can determine the source of a signal without
time-consuming electronic direction finding. In the Sunjet's case, FCC
agents were forced electronically to locate the source of unauthorized
transmissions on seven occasions. Finally, Sunjet has provided no
convincing evidence that reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture
based on its inability to pay claim is warranted.

14\. We have examined Sunjet's response to the NAL pursuant to the
statutory factors above, and in conjunction with the *Policy Statement*
as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that Sunjet has failed
to justify cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture amount.
Therefore, we affirm the forfeiture of seven thousand dollars (\$7,000).
We note that subsequent to the issuance of the NAL, on November 9, 1999,
and February 14, 2000, FCC agents again detected apparent operation by
Sunjet on an unauthorized frequency, without station identification.
Those apparent violations are not addressed here. Further violations may
lead to revocation of Sunjet's license.

# IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

15\. **ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED** that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of
the Act, Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,[^7] Sunjet
Car Service, Inc., **IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE** in the amount
of seven thousand (\$7,000) for the repeated and willful violation of
Sections 1.903 and 90.135 of the Rules concerning unauthorized operation
and Section 90.425(a) of the Rules which sets forth the identification
requirements.

16\. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for
in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of
this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the specified period,
the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection
pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.[^8] Payment may be made by credit
card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202)
418-1995 or by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the
order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Federal
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.
The payment should note the NAL/Acct. No. 015NY0001. Requests for full
payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Credit and
Debt Management Center, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

17\. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that a copy of this Order shall be sent
by certified mail, return receipt requested, to counsel for Sunjet Car
Service, Inc., Robert S. Hammer, Esq., 1164 East 21^st^ Street,
Brooklyn, New York 11210-3618.

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

David H. Solomon

Chief, Enforcement Bureau

[^1]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.903, 90.135, and 90.425(a).

[^2]: *Notice of Apparent Liability*, NAL Acct. No. 015NY0001 (Released
    October 8, 1999).

[^3]: Effective on February 12, 1999, the station authorization
    requirement formerly contained in Section 90.113 of the Rules, 47
    C.F.R. § 90.113, was moved to Section 1.903 of the Rules. *See
    Biennial Regulatory Review -- Amendments of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24 ,
    26, 27, 80, 87 , 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
    (1998).

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.

[^6]: ^1^ The word "willfully" as employed in Section 503 of the Act
    does not require that the violation in question be

    intentional. It is necessary only that a licensee knew it was doing
    the act in question. *See Southern California Broadcasting Co.*, 6
    FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4).

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).