Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1548
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
General Growth Properties
Waterbury, Connecticut
)
)
)
)
File No. EB-06-SE-330
NAL/Acct. No. 200732100021
FRN # 0005261128
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  March 29, 2007 Released:  April 2, 2007
By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:
I.  INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we find General Growth Properties 
(“GGP”), former licensee of Private Land Mobile Radio Service (“PLMRS”) station WPPT427, in
Waterbury, Connecticut, apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of nine thousand, two hundred 
dollars ($9,200) 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 and documents. GGP acted in apparent willful and repeated 
violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”),1 and Sections 1.903
and 1.949(a) of the Commission’s Rules (“Rules”).2
II.  BACKGROUND
2. GGP was granted a PLMRS station license under call sign WPPT427 on April 3, 2000, 
with an expiration date of April 3, 2005.  GGP’s license to operate station WPPT427 expired on April 3, 
2005, because it failed to file a renewal application.  On April 17, 2006 – over a year after its 
authorization expired – GGP filed a request for Special Temporary Authorization (“STA”) to operate the 
station until action was taken on its application for a new license. On April 18, 2006, the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau granted GGP STA to continue operating the station under call sign 
WQEU522 without prejudice to any enforcement action for unauthorized operations.3  On May 9, 2006, 
GGP filed an application for a new PLMRS station license, which the Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau granted on May 11, 2006 (call sign WQEX620).4  
3. Because it appeared that GGP may have operated the PLMRS station after the expiration 
of its license under call sign WPPT427, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau referred this case to the 
Enforcement Bureau for investigation and possible enforcement action.  On September 27, 2006, the
  
1 47 U.S.C. § 301.
2 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.903 and 1.949(a).
3 File No. 0002571373.
4 File No. 0002604311.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1548
2
Bureau’s Spectrum Enforcement Division (“Division”) issued a letter of inquiry (“LOI”) to GGP.5  The 
LOI directed GGP to submit a response within 30 business days.  The LOI also explained that failure to 
appropriately respond may constitute a violation of the Communications Act and Rules.  GGP did not 
respond within the applicable time period.  On December 14, 2006, the Division issued a second LOI to 
GGP.6  On December 18, 2006, Mr. James P. Grace, III (“Mr. Grace”) contacted Division staff by 
telephone to discuss the second LOI. He stated that although he renewed the license, he did not think that 
he was the one that should answer the inquiry. Division staff explained that Mr. Grace could respond, or,
alternatively, send the letter to someone in his organization who could answer the letter.7  GGP did not 
respond to the second LOI.  
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.8
5. As a Commission licensee, GGP is required to maintain a current authorization to operate 
its station.9 GGP apparently operated the station without authorization for over a year — from April 3, 
2005 to April 17, 2006.  By operating its station without authorization, GGP apparently willfully and 
repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903 of the Rules.  GGP 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.10 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 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 twice ordered GGP to submit a timely 
written response to its LOIs and to provide the information and documents requested.  Twice GGP failed 
to respond as directed.  It is well settled that a party cannot ignore the directives in a Bureau letter of 
inquiry.11  
  
5 Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, to James P. Grace III, General Growth Properties (September 27, 2006).
6 Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, to James P. Grace III, General Growth Properties (December 14, 2006).
7 In accordance with 47 C.F.R. § 1.5, the first and second LOIs were directed to Mr. Grace because he was listed 
as the contact on GGP’s most recent application.  
8 47 C.F.R. § 1.955(a)(1).
9 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). 
10 47 U.S.C. § 4(i), 4(j) and 403.
11 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
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1548
3
7. Section 503(b) of the Act,12 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,13 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.14 Based upon the record before us, it appears that GGP’s 
violations of Section 301 of the Act and Sections 1.903 and 1.949(a) were willful and repeated. It also 
appears that GGP willfully and repeatedly failed to respond to a Bureau order.
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.”15  Having considered the statutory factors, as explained below, we 
propose an aggregate forfeiture in the amount of $9,200.
9. Section 1.80(b) of the Rules16 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.17 Accordingly, we 
propose separate forfeiture amounts for GGP’s separate violations.
10. Consistent with precedent,18 we propose a $1,500 forfeiture for GGP’s failure to file the
     
letter of inquiry, stating:  “[T]he order 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 also World Communications Satellite Systems, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 2718 (Enf. 
Bur. 2004) ($10,000 forfeiture assessed for submitting a jurisdictional objection in lieu of a response to a Bureau 
inquiry letter); In re Richard E. LaPierre, Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 23525 (Enf. Bur. 2000) ($4,000 forfeiture 
assessed for repeated failure to respond to written Commission inquiries).
12 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
13 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a).
14 See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991), recon. 
denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992); see also WCS Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 
13 FCC Rcd 6691 (WTB, Enf. and Consumer Info. Div., 1998) (finding that a licensee’s inadvertent failure to file 
timely renewal applications constitutes a repeated violation that continues until the date the license is renewed).  
15 47 U.S.C. § 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).
16 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b).
17 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 against a broadcaster who 
both operated its station for 14 months without Commission authority and failed to timely file its renewal 
application).
18 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); see also Lazer Broadcasting Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 8710, 8712 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., 2006); Criswell College, Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 5106, 5109 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., 2006); National Weather 
Networks, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 3922, 3925 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. 
Div., 2006) (“NWN”); Journal Broadcast Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 
18211, 18213 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., 2005) (“Journal Broadcast”); Shared Data Networks, LLC, Notice 
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1548
4
renewal application for its PLMRS station within the time period specified in Section 1.949(a) of the 
Rules.  Additionally, we propose a $5,000 forfeiture for GGP’s continued operation of its PLMRS station 
after the expiration of its license on April 3, 2005.19 In proposing a $5,000 forfeiture for GGP’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.20  Thus, we propose an aggregate 
forfeiture of $6,500 ($1,500 for failure to timely file a renewal application and $5,000 for unauthorized 
operations).  
11. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement21 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,22 the base 
forfeiture amount for failure to respond to a Commission communication is $4,000.  We find that GGP’s 
willful and repeated failure to respond to a Bureau order 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 GGP is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 for failing to respond to 
the Bureau’s letters of inquiry.23 Thus, we propose an aggregate forfeiture of $10,500 for GGP’s apparent 
willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act and Sections 1.903 and 1.949(a) of the Rules and 
GGP’s apparent willful and repeated failure to respond to a Bureau order.  
12. As a Commission licensee, GGP is charged with the responsibility of knowing and 
complying with the terms of its authorization, the Act and the Rules, including the requirement to timely 
renew the authorization for its PLMRS station.24  We do find, however, that a downward adjustment of 
the proposed aggregate forfeiture from $10,500 to $9,200 is warranted because GGP made voluntary 
disclosures to Commission staff concerning its late-filed license renewal and unauthorized operation and 
     
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 18184, 18187 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., 2005) (“Shared 
Data”).
19 Under Section 503(b)(6) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 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 GGP’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); Cate 
Communications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 RR 2d 1386, 1388 (1986); Eastern Broadcasting 
Corp., 10 FCC 2d 37, 37-38 (1967), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC 2d 193 (1967).  
Accordingly, while we take into account the continuous nature of the violations in determining the appropriate 
forfeiture amount, our proposed forfeiture relates only to GGP’s apparent violations that have occurred within the 
past year.
20 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); see also Criswell College, 21 FCC Rcd at 5109; NWN, 21 FCC Rcd at 3925; 
Journal Broadcast, 20 FCC Rcd at 18213; Shared Data, 20 FCC Rcd at 18187.
21 Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd 17087.
22 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
23 See Shenzhen Ruidian Communication Co. Ltd., Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd 2177 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. 
Div., 2006) (assessing a $4,000 forfeiture for willfully and repeatedly failing to respond to a directive of the 
Bureau to provide certain information and documents).
24 See Discussion Radio, 19 FCC Rcd at 7437 (licensee duty to timely seek renewal of its license to maintain 
operating authority); see also Criswell College, 21 FCC Rcd at 5109; NWN, 21 FCC Rcd at 3926; Journal 
Broadcast, 20 FCC Rcd at 18214; Shared Data, 20 FCC Rcd at 18187.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1548
5
undertook corrective actions prior to any Commission inquiry or initiation of enforcement action.25  
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act26 and 
Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules,27 General Growth Properties IS hereby NOTIFIED of its 
APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,200 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.
14. 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, General Growth Properties
SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking 
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
15. 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. 20554.28
16. 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.
17. 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.
  
25 See Petracom of Texarkana, LLC, Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 8096, 8097-8098 (Enf. Bur. 2004) (forfeiture 
reduced for voluntarily disclosure and initiating corrective action prior to Commission inspection); see also 
Criswell College, 21 FCC Rcd at 5109; NWN, 21 FCC Rcd at 3926; Journal Broadcast, 20 FCC Rcd at 18214; 
Shared Data, 20 FCC Rcd at 18187.
26 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
27 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80.
28 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1548
6
18. 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. James P. Grace, III, General 
Growth Properties, Brass Mill Center, 495 Union Street, Suite 139, Waterbury, CT 06706 and Bernard 
John Bucksbaum, CEO and Director, General Growth Properties, 110 N. Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 
60606.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kathryn S. Berthot
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau