Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2030
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Vicot Chery
Spring Valley, New York
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File Number: EB-09-NY-0318
NAL/Acct. No: 201132380002
FRN: 0019471259
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  October 21, 2010 Released: October 22, 2010
By the District Director, New York Office, Northeast Region, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”), we find that Vicot Chery
(“Chery”) apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended (“Act”),1 by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter on the frequency 90.5 MHz in Spring 
Valley, New York.  We conclude, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act,2 that Chery is apparently liable for 
a forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
II. BACKGROUND
2. On October 26, 28, and 29, 2009, in response to a complaint, agents from the 
Enforcement Bureau’s New York Office (“New York Office”) monitored the frequency 90.5 MHz in 
Spring Valley, New York.3  On each of those days, the agents observed a radio signal on 90.5 MHz and 
used direction-finding techniques to locate the source of the transmissions to 301 Roosevelt Avenue in 
Spring Valley, New York.  The agents also took field strength measurements on each of the three days and 
determined that the signal being broadcast exceeded the limits for operation under Part 15 of the 
Commission’s rules (“Rules”)4 and therefore required a license.  A review of the Commission’s records 
revealed that there was no FCC authorization to operate a radio station on 90.5 MHz at this location in 
Spring Valley, New York. 
3. After completing the field strength measurements on October 29, 2009, the agents
entered 301 Roosevelt Avenue where two businesses were located – P.C. Taxi Services, LLC (“P.C.
Taxi”) and P.C. Auto Repair, Inc. (“P.C. Auto”). The agents proceeded to the offices of P.C. Taxi and 
spoke to the dispatcher regarding the unauthorized transmissions.  The dispatcher said she would contact 
  
1 47 U.S.C. § 301.
2 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).  
3 A listener of non-commercial educational FM station WFUV, located at Fordham University in Bronx, New York, 
filed a complaint alleging interference from an illegal broadcast station operating on 90.5 MHz in Spring Valley, 
New York.
4 Section 15.239 of the Rules provides that non-licensed broadcasting in the 88-108 MHz band is permitted only if 
the field strength of the transmission does not exceed 250 micro volts per meter (“?V/m”) at three meters. 47 C.F.R.
§ 15.239.  Measurements showed that the field strength of the station’s signal exceeded the permissible level for a 
non-licensed Part 15 transmitter.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2030
2
Chery, who she identified as the owner of P.C. Taxi.5 Subsequently, Chery arrived at 301 Roosevelt 
Avenue and the agents asked him about the unauthorized transmissions and asked to inspect the station.
In response, Chery led the agents to an adjacent room at the P.C. Taxi location where the agents observed 
a radio station in operation. Next, Chery led the agents to the roof where the FM broadcast antenna for 
the station was located. Finally, Chery led the agents to the upstairs attic where the station’s transmitter 
was located behind a stack of car tires and hidden from plain view. Chery told the agents that he was 
allowing a friend to use the space to operate the station. At the agents’ request, Chery turned off the 
transmitter and the operation ceased.  He also agreed to remove the antenna.6
4. On November 4, 2009, the New York Office issued a Notice of Unlicensed Operation
(“NOUO”), to Chery for unlicensed operation on 90.5 MHz in Spring Valley, New York. The New York 
Office received a reply to the NOUO on behalf of Chery.7  Notwithstanding Chery’s actions during the 
inspection, in the NOUO Response, Chery’s attorney asserts that Chery “had no knowledge of the events 
which you have charged him with.”  The attorney goes on to state that during the two months prior to the 
agents’ inspection, Chery had allowed an unspecified person to use the space in his businesses where the 
radio station was located. To date, Chery has not provided the agents his friend’s name.
III. DISCUSSION
5. Section 503(b) of the Act provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to 
comply substantially with the terms and conditions of any license, or willfully or repeatedly fails to comply 
with any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission 
thereunder, shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.  The term “willful” as used in section 503(b) of the Act has 
been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or omissions are committed knowingly.8 The term “repeated” 
means the commission or omission of such act more than once or for more than one day.9
6. Section 301 of the Act states that no person shall use or operate any apparatus for the 
transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio within the United States except under and in 
accordance with the Act and with a license granted under the provisions of the Act.10  For the purposes of 
section 301, the word “operate” has been interpreted to mean “the general conduct or management of a 
station as a whole, as distinct from the specific technical work involved in the actual transmission of 
  
5 Agents determined that Vicot Chery is the owner and operator of P.C. Taxi and P.C. Auto Repair.
6 During the inspection at the P.C. Taxi location on October 29, 2009, agents also determined that P.C. Taxi was 
operating the base station for its private land mobile station (call sign WPSY573) from an unauthorized location.
The New York Office issued a Notice of Violation to P.C. Taxi. See P.C. Taxi Services, LLC, Notice of Violation, 
V201032380001, released November 5, 2009.
7 See Letter from Mitchell P. Schecter, Counsel for Vicot Chery, to Gary Barker, New York Office, Northeast 
Region, Enforcement Bureau, dated November 12, 2009 (“NOUO Response”).
8 Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1), which applies to violations for which forfeitures are assessed 
under section 503(b) of the Act, provides that “[t]he term ‘willful’, when used with reference to the commission or 
omission of any act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any 
intent to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this Act….”  
See e.g., Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991), recon. 
denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992).
9Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(2), which also applies to violations for which forfeitures are 
assessed under section 503(b) of the Act, provides that “[t]he term ‘repeated’, when used with reference to the 
commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such 
commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.” 
10 47 U.S.C. § 301.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2030
3
signals.”11  In other words, the use of the word “operate” in section 301 of the Act captures not just the 
“actual, mechanical manipulation of radio apparatus”12 but also operation of a radio station generally.13  
To determine whether an individual is involved in the general conduct or management of the station, we 
can consider whether such individual exercises control over the station, which the Commission has 
defined to include “. . . any means of actual working control over the operation of the [station] in 
whatever manner exercised.”14  The agents determined that, on October 26, 28, and 29, 2009, an unlicensed 
radio station was operating on 90.5 MHz from 301 Roosevelt Avenue in Spring Valley, New York within a 
building leased by Chery for the operation of his businesses.  As discussed more fully below, we find that 
Chery is apparently liable for operating the unlicensed radio station on 90.5 MHz because he 
demonstrated control over the management of the station as a whole.
7. Together, the facts show that Chery had control of the station and was involved in the 
general conduct or management of the station. When asked about the unauthorized transmissions during 
the inspection on October 29, 2009, Chery immediately led the agents to a locked room at the P.C. Taxi
location, which Chery owns and operates. Chery unlocked the room and the agents observed the radio 
station in operation.  Chery also showed the agents the station’s transmitter and was able to turn it off 
when asked to do so by the agents. Further, Chery took the agents to the roof of the building where the 
station’s antenna was located and agreed to remove the antenna from the roof top.  The fact that someone 
else also may have been involved in the station’s operation does not make Chery any less of a participant 
in the station’s operation. We have previously held that, because section 301 of the Act provides that “no 
person shall use or operate”15 radio transmission equipment, liability for unlicensed operation may be 
assigned to any individual taking part in the operation of the unlicensed station, regardless of who else 
may be responsible for the operation.16  Based on the evidence before us, we find that Chery apparently 
willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating a radio station on 90.5 MHz in Spring 
Valley, New York without the requisite Commission authorization.
8. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base 
forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000.17 In assessing the 
monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 
503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, 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.18 Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement, section 1.80, and the 
statutory factors to the instant case, we conclude that Vicot Chery is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the 
amount of $10,000.
  
11 See Campbell v. United States, 167 F.2d 451, 453 (5th Cir. 1948) (Comparing the use of the words “operate” and 
“operation” in sections 301, 307, and 318 of the Act and concluding that the word “operate” as used in section 301 
of the Act means both the technical operation of the station as well as the general conduct or management of the 
station).
12 Id. 
13 Id.  See also 47 U.S.C § 307(c)(1).
14 See Revision of Rules and Policies for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, 11 FCC Rcd 9712, 9747 (1995), 
recon. denied, DIRECTV, Inc. v. FCC, 110 F.3d 816 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
15 47 U.S.C. § 301.
16 Jean L. Senatus, Forfeiture Order, 20 FCC Rcd 14418 at para. 11 (Enf. Bur. 2005).
17 The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the 
Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997) (“Forfeiture Policy Statement”), recon. denied, 
15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
18 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2030
4
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
9. 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 of the Rules, Vicot Chery is hereby 
NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand 
dollars ($10,000) for violations of section 301 of the Act.19
10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty 
(30) days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Vicot Chery SHALL PAY
the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or 
cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
11. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by credit card, check, or similar instrument, 
payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission.  The payment must include the 
NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced above.  Payment by check or money order may be 
mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.  Payment 
by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 
Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.  Payment[s] by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 
021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001.  For payment by credit card, 
an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form 159, enter 
the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters “FORF” in 
block number 24A (payment type code).  Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be 
sent to: Chief Financial Officer -- Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, 
Washington, D.C. 20554.  Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 
or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures.  Vicot Chery shall 
also send electronic notification to NER-Response@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made.
12. 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.  The written statement must be mailed to Federal 
Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Northeast Region, New York Office, 201 Varick 
Street, Suite 1151, New York, NY 10014, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.  
The statement shall also be emailed to NER-Response@fcc.gov.  
13. 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 (“GAAP”); 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.
  
19 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 503(b); 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 0.314, 1.80.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2030
5
14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular mail, to Vicot Chery at his 
address of record and to counsel for Vicot Chery at his address of record.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Daniel W. Noel
District Director
New York Office
Northeast Region
Enforcement Bureau