Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

$96,200 Unauthorized Operation NAL Against Union Oil Company of Cal.

Download Options

Released: November 2, 2012

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-136

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),1 Section 1.903(a) of the Commission’s rules (Rules),2 and the associated Commission
orders requiring licensees to seek authority for any continued operations after license expiration.3 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.4 On August 15, 2000,
UOCC was granted a license to operate PLMRS station WPHA630 for five years through August 15,
2005.5 On May 23, 2005, the Commission’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Wireless Bureau)


1 47 U.S.C. § 301.
2 47 C.F.R. § 1.903(a).
3 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
).
4 See Chevron Corporation (2012), Quarterly Report (Form 10-Q), at 23 (Aug. 2, 2012).
5 See Industrial/Business Pool, Conventional License – WPHA630 – Union Oil Company of California,
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=1784028.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-136

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.6 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, 2004.7 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.8 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.9 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.”10 On November 4, 2011, the Wireless Bureau granted the STA for
station WPHA630 until May 2, 2012 under call sign WQOL356.11 On November 7, 2011, the Wireless
Bureau granted the STA for station WAL7 until May 5, 2012 under call sign WQOL455.12
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.13 UOCC responded to the
LOI on June 8, 2012.14 In its LOI Response, UOCC admits that it continued to operate stations


6 See Automated Renewal Reminder Letter from the FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to Union Oil
Company of California, Reference No. 3516315 (May 23, 2005).
7 See http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=1973906.
8 See Automated Renewal Reminder Letter from the FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to Union Oil
Company of California, Reference No. 2366620 (Oct. 27, 2003).
9 See 47 C.F.R. § 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.”).
10 See File Nos. 0004938962 (WPHA630), 0004938974 (WAL7).
11 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.
12 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.
13 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).
14 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
(continued....)
2

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-136

WPHA630 and WAL7 after the expiration date of the station licenses.15 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.16 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.17 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.18

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.19 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. 20


(...continued from previous page)
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).
15 See LOI Response at 2, 4, 5.
16 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.
17 Id. at 3.
18 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.
19 47 U.S.C. § 301; 47 C.F.R. § 1.903(a).
20 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. § 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.
3

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-136

7.
As a Commission licensee, UOCC was required to maintain its authorizations in order to
continue to operate stations WPHA630 and WAL7.21 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 Act22 and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules23 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.24 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.”25 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.26 The Commission has held that a licensee’s continued
operation without authorization and its failure to timely seek Commission authority for such operations


21 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).
22 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B).
23 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a).
24 See 47 U.S.C. § 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).
25 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E). See also 47 C.F.R. § 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).
26 47 C.F.R. § 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”).
4

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-136

constitute separate violations and warrant the assessment of separate forfeitures.27 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,28 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.29 We are also particularly mindful that UOCC’s
apparent unlawful operation continued for an extended period of time30—six years in one case and nearly
eight years in the other.31 In fact, for each station, the period of unauthorized operation exceeded the
length of the station’s initial license term.32 Consistent with Section 301 of the Act, licensees who find


27 See Discussion Radio, 19 FCC Rcd at 7438, para. 15.
28 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).
29 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).
30 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.
31 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).
32 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
(continued....)
5

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-136

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.33 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.”34 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.”35 It is also well established that administrative oversight or inadvertence is not
a mitigating factor.36 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.37 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.


(...continued from previous page)
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.
33 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).
34 Universal Licensing Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 21071, para 96; see 47 C.F.R. § 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).
35 See Universal Licensing System MO&O, 14 FCC Rcd at 11485, para 22.
36 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”).
37 See 47 U.S.C. § 301.
6

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-136

IV.

ORDERING CLAUSES

12.
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED

that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act38 and
Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules,39 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,40 Section 1.903(a) of the
Rules,41 and the Universal Licensing System Orders and associated rules.42
13.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,43 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.44 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:
Ÿ
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.
Ÿ
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.
Ÿ
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.


38 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
39 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80.
40 47 U.S.C. § 301.
41 47 C.F.R. § 1.903(a).
42 See supra note 3.
43 Id. § 1.80.
44 An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
7

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-136

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.45 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


45 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.80(f)(3), 1.16.
8

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.