Federal Communications Commission DA 11-8
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.  20554
In the matter of
Call Mobile, Inc.
Former Licensee of Station WPKM300
)
)
)
)
File No.:  EB-09-SE-130
NAL/Acct. No.: 201132100021
FRN:  0003780590
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  January 4, 2011 Released:  January 4, 2011  
By the Acting Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”), we find Call Mobile, Inc. 
(“Call Mobile”), former licensee of Industrial/Business Pool Radio station1 WPKM300, in Lexington, 
Kentucky, apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for 
apparent willful and repeated violation of section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(“Act”)2 and section 1.903(a) of the Commission’s rules (“Rules”),3 and for apparent willful violation of 
section 1.949(a) of the Rules.4 The noted apparent violations involve Call Mobile’s operation of station 
WPKM300 without Commission authority and its failure to timely file a renewal application for the 
station for more than two and a half years.  
II. BACKGROUND
2. On April 16, 1997, Call Mobile was granted a license to operate station WPKM300 until 
the license expiration date of April 16, 2007.  On January 22, 2007, the Commission sent Call Mobile a 
renewal reminder notice, indicating that a failure to file a timely renewal application would lead to 
automatic expiration of the license.5 Call Mobile did not submit a renewal application for station 
WPKM300 prior to the license expiration date.  In the absence of such filing, Call Mobile’s license for 
station WPKM300 automatically terminated on the expiration date.6
3. On January 5, 2010, following receipt of a complaint alleging that Call Mobile may have 
operated station WPKM300 after the expiration of its license, the Spectrum Enforcement Division 
  
1 Industrial/Business Pool Radio stations are part of the Private Land Mobile Radio Service (“PLMRS”).
2 47 U.S.C. § 301.
3 47 C.F.R. § 1.903(a).
4 47 C.F.R. § 1.949(a).
5 See Automated Renewal Reminder Letter from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, to Call Mobile Inc., Reference No. 4390744 (January 22, 2007).
6 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”). Commission 
records were updated to reflect the cancellation of the terminated license on June 3, 2007.  See 
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=1785311.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-8
2
(“Division”) of the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission issued a letter of 
inquiry (“LOI”) to Call Mobile.7
4. In its response to the LOI dated January 27, 2010 and received by the Commission on 
January 29, 2010,8 Call Mobile stated that it first became aware of the expiration of its license to operate 
station WPKM300 on January 5, 2010, when it received the LOI by facsimile.9 Call Mobile admitted that 
prior to the receipt of the LOI, it continued to operate station WPKM300 after its April 16, 2007 license 
expiration date, with the belief that the license was current.10 Call Mobile explained that because its other 
stations have licenses that expire in 2013, and because it had consolidated several underlying licenses 
under the WPKM300 call sign, it mistakenly disregarded the renewal notification received for station 
WPKM300 as being for an inactive call sign.11 Call Mobile states that at first it believed the LOI was sent 
as a result of a mistake.  However, upon discovering that the LOI correctly noted the expiration of its 
license, Call Mobile stated that “the very next day” after receiving the LOI, it “took action and had the 
coordination and FCC application [to reauthorize the station license] expedited.”12  
III. DISCUSSION
5. 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.13 Additionally, section 1.949(a) of the Rules 
requires that licensees 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.”14  
Absent a timely filed renewal application, a wireless radio station license automatically terminates.15
6. As a Commission licensee, Call Mobile was required to maintain its authorization in 
order to operate station WPKM300.  Call Mobile admitted that it continued to operate its radio station 
without Commission authority for more than two and a half years after the expiration of its license,16 a 
situation that Call Mobile did not seek to remedy until January 6, 2010, the day after it learned of its 
alleged violation from the Division LOI.  By operating station WPKM300 after the station’s license 
expiration date of April 16, 2007, Call Mobile apparently violated section 301 of the Act and section 
1.903(a) of the Rules.  Call Mobile also acted in apparent violation of section 1.949(a) of the Rules by 
failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPKM300.
  
7 See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, to Christopher Dunbar, President, Call Mobile (January 5, 2010).  
8 See Declaration from Christopher Dunbar, President, Call Mobile, to Katherine Power, Esq., Spectrum 
Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (January 29, 2010) (“LOI 
Response”).
9 LOI Response at 1.
10 LOI Response at 2.
11 LOI Response at 3.
12 Id.  See E-Mail correspondence from Becky Ott, FCC Licensing, Enterprise Wireless Alliance, Gettysburg, 
Pennsylvania, to Christopher Dunbar, President, Call Mobile (Jan. 6, 2010).  Call Mobile filed for license 
reinstatement on January 15, 2010, and its application was granted on January 27, 2010, under call sign WQLI256.  
See File No. 0004093644. 
13 47 U.S.C. § 301; 47 C.F.R. § 1.903(a).
14 47 C.F.R. § 1.949(a).
15 47 C.F.R. § 1.955(a)(1).
16 LOI Response at 2.
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-8
3
7. Section 503(b) of the Act17 and section 1.80(a) of the Rules18 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.19 Based on the record before us, it appears that Call Mobile’s violation 
of section 301 of the Act and section 1.903(a) of the Rules is willful and repeated, and its violation of 
section 1.949(a) of the Rules is willful.
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.”20  
9. 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.21 The Commission has held that a licensee’s continued operation without 
authorization and its failure to timely file a renewal application constitute separate violations of the Act 
and the Rules and warrant the assessment of separate forfeitures.22 Accordingly, we herein propose 
separate forfeiture amounts for Call Mobile’s separate violations.  
10. We propose a base forfeiture in the amount of $10,000 for Call Mobile’s continued 
operation of station WPKM300 after the expiration of its license on April 16, 2007, and in addition, we 
propose the base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for Call Mobile’s failure to file the renewal application for 
its radio station within the time period specified in section 1.949(a) of the Rules, for a total base forfeiture 
of $13,000.23
11. This base forfeiture amount, however, is subject to adjustment, either upward or downward.  
Here, we find no basis for a downward adjustment.  Once Call Mobile’s license expired, it lacked the 
  
17 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
18 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a).
19 See 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1), (2).  See also Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 
6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (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) (“Southern 
California”).
20 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).  See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), Note to paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment 
Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures; Forfeiture Policy Statement, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17110 
(1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (“Forfeiture Policy Statement”).
21 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b).  See also Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099 (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”).
22 See Discussion Radio, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 
FCC Rcd 7433, 7438 (2004) (“Discussion Radio”).  
23 While section 503(b)(6) of the Act 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 Call Mobile’s misconduct occurred 
over an extended period (between 2007 and 2010) to place “the 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, 9671-71 (2000); see also BASF Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 
DA 10-2347 ¶ 9 (Enf. Bur., Rel. Dec. 17, 2010) (“BASF Corporation”).  The forfeiture amount we propose herein 
relates only to Call Mobile’s apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-8
4
required authority to operate station WPKM300 but continued to do so.  The Commission has emphasized 
that “[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.”24 It is well established that administrative oversight 
or inadvertence is not a mitigating factor warranting a downward adjustment of a forfeiture.25 Likewise, a 
violator’s lack of knowledge or erroneous beliefs is not a mitigating factor warranting reduction of a 
forfeiture.26 Call Mobile’s actions to remedy its situation when it learned of its error from the 
Commission,27 while laudable, do not negate its liability for the instant violations, nor do these post-
investigation remedial efforts warrant reduction of the forfeiture.28 Indeed, we are mindful of the fact that 
the reduced forfeiture amounts applied in past cases do not appear to be creating sufficient incentives for 
all PLMRS licensees to monitor their license expiration dates and timely seek renewal.29
12. Given the totality of the circumstances and consistent with the Forfeiture Policy 
Statement, we conclude that an upward adjustment of the $13,000 base forfeiture is warranted.30 In this 
  
24 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 ¶ 96 (1998) (noting that the renewal reminder letter is a 
“convenience to licensees [and] does not in any way absolve licensees from timely filing their renewal 
applications”). 
25 See Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4387 (stating that “inadvertence … is at best, ignorance of the law, which 
the Commission does not consider a mitigating circumstance”).
26 See, e.g., Profit Enterprises, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 2846, 2846 ¶ 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 Broadcasting Service, 
Inc., 37 FCC 2d 437, 438 ¶ 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., 15 FCC Rcd 12933, 12935 ¶ 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 Broadcasting Group, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 784, 784 ¶ 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). 
27 See supra note 8 and accompanying text. 
28 See Seawest Yacht Brokers, Forfeiture Order, 9 FCC Rcd 6099, 6099 ¶ 7 (1994) (corrective action taken to 
comply with the Rules is expected, and does not mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations); see also, United States 
Cellular Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 16424, 16429 ¶ 14 (2007) (remedial efforts 
taken after the deadline did not mitigate violation of the Commission’s E911 rules and relevant orders); AT&T 
Wireless Services, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21866, 21875-6 ¶¶ 26-28 (2002) (remedial action to correct 
tower painting violation was not a mitigating factor warranting reduction of forfeiture).
29 See e.g., Mathews Readymix LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 12828, 12831 (Enf. 
Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007) (proposing a $6,200 forfeiture for unauthorized operation of a PLMRS station and 
for failure to file a timely license renewal application).  We also note that the instant case is distinguishable from 
Discussion Radio which turned on its particular facts.  See supra note 22.  In Discussion Radio, the Commission 
imposed a forfeiture against a broadcast licensee for 14 months of unauthorized operation, observing that the 
licensee’s conduct in that case was not comparable to “pirate” radio operations.  See id at 7438.  In reducing the 
forfeiture amount in Discussion Radio from $10,000 to $5,000, the Commission particularly noted that the broadcast 
license renewal packet that would have facilitated timely renewal filing was misdirected to an incorrect address.  Id.  
The Commission further limited its decision, stating that it would be “disinclined to propose reductions in future 
cases based on alleged errors in mailing license renewal materials.”  Id. at n.20.  
30 See BASF Corporation, ¶ 11.
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-8
5
regard, we take into account the fact that Call Mobile’s unlawful operation continued for more that two 
and a half years.31 Thus, based on all the factors and evidence, including the extended period of 
unauthorized operation, we conclude that a proposed aggregate forfeiture of $15,000 is appropriate.  
IV.    ORDERING CLAUSES
13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act32 and sections 
0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Rules,33 Call Mobile IS hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT 
LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for the willful 
and repeated violation of section 301 of the Act and section 1.903(a) of the Rules and the willful violation 
of section 1.949(a) of the Rules.
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, Call Mobile 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/Account 
Number and FRN 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 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.  Call Mobile must also send 
electronic notification to Katherine.Power@fcc.gov and Ricardo.Durham@fcc.gov on the date said 
payment is made. 
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.34 The written statement 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.  The statement must also be emailed to Katherine Power at 
Katherine.Power@fcc.gov and Ricardo Durham at Ricardo.Durham@fcc.gov.
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.
  
31 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), Note to Paragraph (b)(4):  Section II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures 
(establishing “repeated or continuous violation” as an upward adjustment factor).
32 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
33 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80.
34 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.80(f)(3), 1.16.
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-8
6
18. 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 Christopher C. 
Dunbar, President, Call Mobile, Inc., 3010 Duncan Machinery Drive, Suite 100, Lexington, Kentucky 
40504.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Ricardo M. Durham
Acting Chief
Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau